American University Library

BARN RAZING: CHANGE AND CONTINUITY IN IDENTITY

DURING CONFLICT

Reina C. Neufeldt

submitted to the

Faculty of the School of International Service

of The American University

in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

International Relations

Chair: 7 Mitchell R. Hammer, Ph.D.

Mohammed Abq-Nimer, Ph.D.

C'iroyln Gallaher, Ph.D.

Dean of the College or School

/ 6 > 0 C ' h s Date

2005

The American University

Washington, DC 20016 AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3194814

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

® UMI

UMI Microform 3194814 Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. © COPYRIGHT

REIN A C. N EU FEL D T

2005

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BARN RAZING: CHANGE AND CONTINUITY IN IDENTITY

DURING CONFLICT

Reina C. Neufeldt

ABSTRACT

This dissertation seeks to understand how the identity of a particular people,

Mennonites, changes and remains constant during periods of conflict, over time. Identity is

approached from a symbolic interactionist and sociological (social) constructivist stance.

Using an adapted historical, grounded theory methodology, it explores how a group defines

itself during three, decade-long periods of conflict in the twentieth century. The three

temporally and geographically bounded periods of conflict in focus are: 1914-1924

Russia/Ukraine, 1934-1944 western Canada, 1977-1987 western Canada (Saskatchewan).

The sites of conflict raise competing affiliation demands around identification with the state,

religious beliefs, land and belonging. The grounded theory constant comparative method is

used to uncover the structure of the concepts and categories comprising Mennonite identity

that are utilized by Mennonite leaders during the three periods of conflict. Each conflict site

is described in detail followed by an analysis of the categories of identification; the categories

and properties that emerge provide a substantive theory of Mennonite identity over time.

The dissertation also investigates the dynamics of continuity and change in the content of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the categories. Three levels of change are evident: 1) subtle shifts and minor adaptations to

context; 2) major fluctuations and temporary suspensions in the use of properties or

categories; 3) properties and categories that are discontinued from use. The first two levels

of change promote and enable continuity in Mennonite identification. The third level,

discontinuity, is then explored in greater depth focusing on detachment from place (the

Russian Steppe) and language (German). Taken together these examples highlight the

interplay between external factors that promote change and the internal factors that are

necessary for change but which also contribute to continuity over time. The dissertation

utilizes and contributes to Rogers Smith’s notion of “political peoplehood,” demonstrating

that an entire political people may seek to inspire a sense of “worth” and “trust,” and may

further integrate these concepts into their group identification. Finally, the research

contributes a methodology that identifies a relatively stable core set of categories of

identification, as well as probing the dynamics of change over time.

iii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

“Barn Razing” represents the first fruits of many years of labor and I am grateful for

the tremendous support I received from family, friends and colleagues — of whom only a few

can be thanked here. First, thank you to my Chair, Mitch, for steady guidance, excellent

advice and encouragement. Thank you to my committee members, Mohammed and Carole,

for probing questions, insights and engagement with my project. I am also grateful to the

School of International Service for a Dissertation Research Fellowship, which made research

travel possible. The archivists and staff at the archives in Goshen, Winnipeg, Waterloo and

Zaporozhye were all wonderfully helpful, but I would particularly like to recognize Conrad

Stoesz for his assistance in locating documents. Paul Toews and Harvey Dyck both aided

my early exploration of Mennonites in Ukraine. Leonard Doell graciously opened his files

and part of his life’s work in studying the land claim in Laird. I would like to recognize

Walter Regehr, along with his wife Peggy, for their meticulous work on translating the

“Selected Documents” and making them available to me; Jake Balzer, Karl Geoppert and

Rebecca DeWinter also kindly assisted translation work. My SIS-PhD writing-group

members provided very helpful comments on early versions of two chapters. Moving closer

to home, I would like to thank Herta and Vic for hosting me in Saskatoon, Tobi for her

careful editing eye, as well as my parents for helping in a plethora of ways. Finally, thank you

to Naren for unfailing belief and walking with me on this journey.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... iv

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS...... viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...... ix

Chapter

I. DANGERS IN TRANSITION ZONES: SURVIVING AS A MINORITY POLITICAL PEOPLE IN THE MURKY WATERS OF CONFLICT ...... 1

Group Identity and Political People

Research Questions and Approach

A Brief Introduction to Mennonites

Dissertation Overview

II. THE RESEARCH FRAME: METHODOLOGY ...... 20

Research Methodology: A Historical Grounded Theory

Data Collection Procedures

Grounded Theory: Analysis and Substantive Theory Development

III. CONFLICT SITE I, 1914-1924: MENNONITE COLONIES IN WANING IMPERIAL SOUTH RUSSIA ...... 44

Background: A New Russian Homeland

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A Decade of Conflict: 1914-1924

“We do not Recognize Ourselves:” Mennonite Identity in a Time of Upheaval

Summary

IV. CONFLICT SITE II, 1934-1944: CONFRONTING WAR IN THE NEW CANADIAN HOMELAND ...... 115

Background: Mennonites in Western Canada (1873-1934)

A Decade of Conflict in Western Canada: 1934-1944

“We Will be Judged:” Mennonite Identity Themes in Western Canada

Summary

V. CONFLICT SITE III, 1977-1987: DISPUTED LAND CLAIMS AND COMMUNITY IN SASKATCHEWAN ...... 173

Background: Locating Laird Geographically and Historically

A Decade of Low-Intensity Conflict in Laird: 1977-1987

Shifts, Contestation and Community: Mennonite Identity in Western Canada

Summary

VI. MENNONITES: A SUBSTANTIVE THEORY OF IDENTITY, CHANGE AND CONTINUITY ...... 224

Developing a Substantive, Grounded Theory

A Theory of Mennonite Identity: Central Categories and Properties

Mennonite Identity Change Over Time

Summary

VII. PATTERNS IN THE MARGINS: CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNDERSTANDING IDENTITY CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN CONFLICT ...... 267 vi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Identity

Categories and Content

Continuity and Change, Stasis and Rupture, Maintenance and Transformation

Limiting Change and Advancing Continuity

A Word About Identity and Conflict Transformation

Summary

REFERENCES ...... 313

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

3.1 Mennonite Colonies in Imperial South Russia ...... 48

3.2 The Chortitza Colony, 1865 ...... 49

3.3 Molotschna Colony, 1865 ...... 50

4.1 Canadian Provinces with Large Mennonite Populations ...... 118

5.1 The Province of Saskatchewan ...... 175

5.2 Rural Municipality of Laird, No. 404 ...... 176

viii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIM American Indian Movement

AMR American Mennonite Relief

BNA British North America Act

CMC Conference of Mennonites in Canada

CoMoS Conference of Mennonites of Saskatchewan

LMC Laird Mennonite Church

MB M anitoba

MCC Mennonite Central Committee

MCC-C Mennonite Central Committee Canada

MCC-S Mennonite Central Committee Saskatchewan

NEP New Economic Policy

NIC National Indian Council

RM Rural Municipality

SK Saskatchewan

TRMC Tiefengrund Rosenort Mennonite Church

WWI World War One

WWII World War Two

ZMIK Zentrales Mennonitische Immigrantenkomitee

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER I

DANGERS IN TRANSITION ZONES: SURVIVING AS A

MINORITY POLITICAL PEOPLE IN THE MURKY WATERS OF CONFLICT

A lm o st thirty months now, this war has raged in Europe, and especially in our Russian fatherland, a war the likes o f which the world and m ankind has not experienced. Its destruction is so fierce, its armies so massive, its weapons so murderous, which incessantly and without ceasing carry on their destruction on land, a t sea and from the air. Thousands o f men are butchered daily, and greater numbers are crippledfor life. ... Some o f these dangers are threatening us as well, because o f our strategic position to the Black Sea. ...

According to a law, which had its origin during the war, more than one million Russian citizens of German ancestry shall be disposed of their properties. The Mennonites o f southern Russia are included in this number, because we are situated too closely to R ussia’s outer borders. ...

A cruel law! How was it possible to initiate such a law? Were there spies, or land speculators among us? ...In this giant war of nations, Germany has, up to now, shown itself as the superior nation, but stands as Russia’s enemy. A n d we, who live in Russia, are o f German extraction. A n d although we have had no political contact with Germany in our 100-year-stay in Russia, nevertheless our contact with Germany’s culture was maintained through its wide book market. In addition, we have maintained and even favored our German language instruction over the Russian language instruction ...In short, we have maintained our identity, and not become russified by our surroundings. A n d therein lies the crime. ...

Even before the war began a new word has found its way into our vocabulary — “njemetfizoje sasilje ” (German oppression, Deutsche vergewaltigung) [sic]. ...In inner- political circles however, the remark casts suspicion upon all German-speaking citizens as being a threat against the state.

Heinrich Unruh, Muntau, South Russia, 1916/1917

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2

Heinrich Unruh, who is quoted above, was a German-speaking Mennonite who lived

in Imperial South Russia during World War I (WWI).1 Inter-group conflicts raise particular

issues to the fore and apply pressures to peoples within those groups in ways that affect who

they think they are and how they fit within the state. WWI crystallized a number of aspects

of Unruh’s group identity: Russia was his home and fatherland, and as a subject of the Tsar

he was faithful to the fatherland; Germany was the enemy, and yet Unruh was notably proud

of Germany’s behavior during the war, proud of German culture and the German language.

This dual affinity placed him in an uncomfortable mixing zone of German and Russian

identification within the context of polarized national identities, in a time of war. In Russia,

the use of German in public meetings was banned during the war, and there were laws in

place to confiscate lands owned by “Germans” in border areas. Importantly, Unruh also

identified himself as Mennonite, a distinct religious group committed to pacifism and

therefore further outside the Russian nationalist ideal.2

The leaders of groups embroiled in conflict tend to draw on rhetoric that makes

stark distinctions between groups, proffering either-or choices, either German or Russian,

but not both. This was the case in the WWI Russian context and characterizes more recent

situations as well. For example, in 2001, the President of the United States (U.S.) stated:

“And we’re just going to have to enforce the doctrine, either you’re with us or against us.

You join the coalition of freedom, or you’re on the other side of the fence” (Bush 2002).

People were classified as either for America and its foreign policy or against it, with no

possibility of middle ground. The rhetorical efforts to demarcate boundaries for supporters

1 The above excerpt comes from the auto-biography of Heinrich Unruh, which was dictated by Unruh to his daughter in 1916, although dated 1917. 2 Unruh stated the Mennonite position on war as: “Regardless of the number who have died, or will die, we may not kill a fellow human being” (Unruh, 1917).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3

of American foreign policy even extended to food labels, with the March 2003 effort to re

name “French fries” as “Freedom fries” in U.S. House Office Building cafeterias.3 These

phrases implied that people fell very simply inside or outside the political demarcations, and

anyone not fully supportive of all American foreign policy was a potential enemy of the state

and anti-freedom. The same type of polarization has occurred at other times and places

around religious or ethnic identity groupings. There are often multiple and debated reasons

for such rhetoric and polarization, such as rallying a population around a particular response,

increasing in-group cohesion, identifying a target upon which to blame a problematic

situation, pursuing a strategy people believe will enhance their physical security, or perhaps

simply unthinking reiterations of negative group stereotypes (Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim 1994;

Kriesberg 2003; Jervis 1976). No matter what the reasons for using this type of rhetoric, it

shrouds and obscures deviations within a group, and suggests that identities are fixed over

time (Brubaker and Cooper 2000).

Social Identity Theory has highlighted that positive in-group identification does not

necessarily produce negative images of the out-group (Tajfel 1978; Tajfel and Turner 1986).

However, negative perceptions, de-individuation and enemy images are part of the dynamics

of conflict escalation and violence (Pruitt 1998; White 1984; Pruitt and Kim 2004).

Individuals are pushed most strongly to fit into particular identity categories during times of

conflict (Worchel and Austin 1986). Individuals and collectives excluded from the main

identity category are at risk of a variety of social sanctions and civil rights limitations, abuses

or suspensions during times of conflict. Social sanctions might include informal methods of

alienation that can be as mild as verbal insults or the refusal of a vendor to sell goods to

3 The move was intended as a protest against French foreign policy towards Iraq and sanctions. For further details see Laughlin ( 2003).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4

individual, or as harsh as tar-and-feathering, lynching or pogroms. Formal limitations on

civil rights might require the need to get permission from authorities to travel more than 150

miles beyond your home, requiring a group to speak a specific language like Russian at all

public meetings or suspending access to legal representation and courts.4 States have also

been known to employ harsher physical punishments such as labor or internment camps, or

the more heinous death camps of WWII Nazi Germany. These examples illustrate that

there are often very serious consequences for not fitting into key identity categories during

wars and other periods of intense inter-group conflict. Yet variations exist in national

identity categories and do not disappear even under wartime pressures.

Unruh was a man who was part of a minority people, Mennonites, swimming within

the tumultuous waters of political conflict. He was located in that uneasy mixing zone of

people and politics akin to the estuaries where fresh- and salt-water meet. There in the

confluence of very different living environments there were pressures and opportunities for

existence unlike those in either environment alone. The marshlands between fresh and

saltwater have proven to support a dizzying array of species, richer than fresh or salt water

alone. The same might be said of people living in the mixing zone of cultures and national

identities. Yet while these marshlands and mixing zones are teeming with life, they are often

not appreciated and in danger of being destroyed by development and the desire to use the

land for other human purposes. Again, there are similarities for peoples with identity

affiliations that do not line up clearly with political ideologies and identities when the state is

in conflict. Pushing the metaphor further, when a delicate coastal environment is stressed by

new conditions — when coastal areas are drained for hotel construction or there is a

4 The 150 mile limitation refers to a WWII restriction on “Enemy Aliens” in the United States (Saenger 1943; Eagleton 1942).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5

hurricane — survival in the estuary becomes significantly more difficult. Wartime contexts, as

noted above, tend to shrink the social and political space available for groups. The

Mennonite group Unruh was a part of was neither a salt nor fresh water creature; they were

neither entirely Russian nor German, a topic that is explored further in chapter three.

Survival within a shrinking space for transitional identities is a challenge. It requires

adaptation and response to changing external circumstances, without abandoning the unique

group identity.

Group Identity and Political People

Identity is a frequently used term that is diffuse in meaning (Brubaker and Cooper

2000). There are many types of groups that people identify with (ethnic, national, regional,

local, religious, political, economic, etc.), and which have produced extensive research in the

Social Sciences and Humanities. Choosing terms to describe a group is often more difficult

than it appears upon the surface. This dissertation focuses on one group, Mennonites, who

exist in the estuaries of states, and so tend not to fit neatly into categories of national or

ethnic group classification.

Mennonites are typically considered a religious group or sect. While Mennonites can

be classified as a religious group, the group of Mennonites this dissertation focuses on has

also developed characteristics that are more commonly referred to as an ethnic group — the

reasons for which are explored in the section on Mennonite history, below. There are many

definitions for ethnicity. Anthony Smith’s (1986) definition of ethnicity is a good reference

point; he refers to an ethnic group as a people with a myth of common ancestry, shared

history, shared culture (including religion, language, or customs), a link with a homeland and

a sense of solidarity. Smith’s definition of the nation includes the above but without the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6

notion of common ancestry and with the added qualifier of “common laws and customs for

all members” (Smith 2003a, 24). The Mennonite group identity that Unruh was a part of in

Russia in WWI had the attendant ethnic qualifiers of a common ancestry, shared memories

of a common past, and a link with a homeland (Smith 1986; Hutchinson and Smith 1996;

Smith 2003b). For a short period of time, Mennonites also aspired to an independent,

political territory and flirted with the idea of a Mennonite national identity.

Yet, while these three identity classifications (religious, ethnic, national) can provide

useful hooks to hang Mennonite identity upon, and are discussed further in chapter seven,

they are limiting in terms of providing an overarching framework to think about the content

of Mennonite identity. Each produces a particular way of thinking about identity groups

and closes off exploration around other categories of identification. Or, as Fredrik Barth

(1998) has more eloquently said, “while purporting to give an ideal type model of recurring

empirical form, it implies a preconceived view of what are the significant factors in the

genesis, structure, and function of such groups” (11). Mennonites, in many ways are on the

margins of more standard categories of identity. The complex interplay of circumstances,

inter-group dynamics, and categories of identification that emerge and are explored in this

dissertation, suggest an open classification is required to probe the complexity and nuances

of the Mennonite experience, and the contributions therein.

Political theorist Rogers Smith provides one such definition and a coherent analytical

framework that can help unfetter the analysis of group identity. Smith (2003c, 12-13)

suggests the term “political people” to deeply probe identity politics and get beyond the

restrictive connotations of nations, ethnicity, and to expand the political unit, or polity,

beyond the state. Smith uses the term political people to refer to a human association that

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. produces obligations that “may legitimately trump many of the demands made on its

members in the name of other associations” (2003, 20). It is a concept of group that is

defined by virtue of contested demands rather than the content of identification.

Smith’s definition captures the dynamics that occur around identity in conflicts.

Inter-group conflicts raise the profile of particular features or issues important to a group,

and place the issues over and against other issues and associational demands. For minority

groups, like Mennonites, the associational demands of their minority identity may supersede

those demands of the majority surrounding them. During times of war, the contested

demands may place the minority group in a particularly vulnerable situation. Heinrich

Unruh expressed discomfort and unease at being affiliated entirely with Germans by the

Russian mainstream, and he lamented the resultant social limitations and state penalties. The

rhetorical polarization in the United States, discussed above, provides another example of

the heightened and adversarial associational demands placed upon political peoples by

leaders during times of conflict. Peoplehood is brought into crisp focus when associational

demands clash.

Research Questions and Approach

This dissertation explores the vital interaction between political peoples’, their sense

of themselves as a group, and the context of conflicts. It seeks to answer the question, how

does a political people’s — Mennonites’ — identity change and remain constant during periods

of conflict over time? In order to do so, it probes a series of sub-questions: What is the

content of Mennonite identity within periods of conflict? How, when and in what ways does

change in identity occur? What contributes to continuity over time when there are external

pressures for change?

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. To respond to these questions this research focuses on a particular political people in

a series of three conflict contexts over time. Each of the conflict periods, referred to as a

Conflict Site, is a decade long, and occurs within the twentieth century. The conflicts raise

to the fore competing affiliation demands that center on concepts of nation, religious beliefs

and land issues. The three Conflict Sites, and reasons for their selection, are detailed further

in chapter two. Examining three Sites over an extended period of time permits a close

exploration of both continuity and change for one group’s identity over time.

This research relies on an assumption that group definitions and boundaries are not

static over time. For example, particular practices that were once thought to define

membership in a group, such as language, foods, or dress, may change subtly over time. Or,

people may come to redefine themselves by more dramatic events, such as becoming

refugees and moving to a new country. Viewing identity as changing fits into what is most

commonly recognized as a constructivist or constructionist understanding of identity. It is

an approach rooted in the symbolic interactionist tradition pioneered in Sociology by George

Herbert Mead (1934), and later followed by Herbert Blumer (1962), Erving Goffman (1963)

and Anselm Strauss (1997). However, the notion that identities are constructed is not

exclusive to “constructivist” or “constructionist” researchers; as Henry Hale succinctly

points out, scholars in the “primordialist” and “constructivist” camps agree that:

.. .identities are constructed (i.e., that beliefs about primordiality are formed) during some identifiable period in history, that their symbolic content can vary to some degree over time, and that there is at least some variation in the intensity or nature of group identification across members. Further, many constructivists concur with primordialists that group identities tend to be quite stable once created. (Hale 2004, 463)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9

The debate of primordialism and constructivism, which Hale is addressing, involved the

putative origins of ethnic and national identities (discussed further in chapter seven).5 This

dissertation does not engage the question of origins, however it does focus on both the

content of identity as well as the process of change over time, which is of interest to both

scholarly positions. In examining the content of identity, the research centers on the

categories that members of the group articulate as elements they identify with, and are

practiced over time.6

Knowledge about how identities change and retain continuity during periods of

intense external pressure and discordant affiliation demands remains relatively thin. Rogers

Smith (2003c) finds it surprising that political scientists have not sought or formed a general

theory about the emergence, maintenance and transformation of political peoplehood

despite the many experiences that suggest senses of political community are critical to

human flourishing. Particularly when, in “locales around the globe, that forging [of senses of

political peoplehood] continues to occur in white-hot fires of political conflict involving

atrocities that ought to be unimaginable” (Smith 2003c, 9-10). Smith’s quote brings to mind

the 1994 genocide of Rwanda, the continuing conflicts in the Great Lakes region of Africa,

the breakdown of the former Yugoslavia, as well as the continuing quests for independent

political identity in Sri Lanka, parts of the Caucuses — and the list goes on. This list of

conflicts points to an initial normative hope underlying this research, which was that a better

understanding of the senses of political peoplehood, and the dynamics involved therein,

would generate new insights into ways of transforming the contestations of identity.

5 Seminal authors in the debate include Shils (1957), Gellner (1983), Anderson (1991), Breuilly (1985), Geertz (1963). 6 This approach builds upon Berger (1974), Goffman (1963), Hall (1998), and Strauss (1997).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Elements of identity change have been pursued by researchers such as David Laitin

(1998), who tested “tipping” and “cascading” as models of identity change processes for

Russian speakers of four states that were formerly members of the Soviet Union. Or, a

group of researchers who explored ways that key economic agents mobilized elements of

national identity (Bond, McCrone, and Brown 2003). These studies provide insights into

segments of the change process but are limited in scope, and each examines a relatively short

time dimension. This dissertation builds on Smith’s work to further fill-out our

understanding of the maintenance and transformation of political peoplehood. It does so by

exploring one group over an extended period of time, focusing-in on ten-year periods of

time when the group identity demands are placed in greater tension with other group identity

demands. This combination permits an in-depth exploration of identity in order to further

enhance our understanding about identity change and continuity in conflict.

Why Study Mennonites?

As noted above, the minority political people brought under the microscope are

Mennonites. Mennonites are a group that emerged from the heartland of Europe, and lived

on the periphery of mainstream Europe for some 500-odd years - sometimes by choice and

sometimes by forced circumstance. Mennonites provide an intriguing group for study

because they live with a set of apparent contradictions within their identity narrative, which

illustrate particular puzzles of group identification and political peoplehood.

Mennonites are a people that strongly identify with an agricultural lifestyle, which

requires land and a very physical grounding, but simultaneously have a history of moving

from one country to another for religious principles. There is a puzzle here in that territory

and territoriality are often seen as key dimensions of ethnic and national identity claims, and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11

territory is often not seen as something a group easily relinquishes from identification

(Agnew 1987, 1989; Newman 1999). Mennonites offer an opportunity to further explore the

relationship between identity and land, and understand how Mennonites have both a

grounded identity and a narrative of movement.

Mennonites have also often found their adherence to pacifism, a central tenet of

faith and element of their identity, in direct conflict with their desire to ‘fit into’ established

national identities. This occurs especially when national identities are threatened by enemies,

within or without of the state. National identification, in times of crises, requires the clear

demarcation of inside/outside as well as subsuming other loyalties. To return to the

definition of political peoples, Mennonites were a people who had strong in-group affinity

demands that tended to trump state demands during times of war. Studying Mennonites

permits a greater exploration of the negotiations between a religious group identity and a

state identity during times of tension and competing identity claims.

The Mennonite experience may also be understood as offering insights into other

group experiences. They might be seen as an example of a broader set of religiously

grounded, minority peoples who live with competing demands of affiliation within the state.

The larger set of minority groups could include Jewish populations in various states, as well

as smaller religious groups such as Jehovah’s Witnesses or Hutterites. Minority groups are

often faced with compelling in-group demands that run counter to particular confluences of

state claims. This dissertation provides a detailed look at the Mennonite experience, it seeks

to understand that experience and develop theoretical insights into the content of Mennonite

identity, and the dynamics of continuity and change in the process of identification. These

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12

insights are generated within a particular context for a particular people, they can however,

suggest ways of understanding political peoples beyond Mennonites (Dey 1999).

A Brief Introduction to Mennonites 7

Mennonites emerged as part of a religious movement in Western Europe during the

sixteenth century Protestant Reformation. They were originally called Anabaptists and

represented the more radical wing of the Reformation, arguing that church reforms needed

to go further than the alterations that were inspired by Martin Luther’s agitation (Dyck 1993;

Smith 1957; Klassen 1973). Anabaptists were labeled heretics by the established Church.8

The Anabaptists’ rejection of child baptism was particularly troubling for religious and civic

authorities. Anabaptists supported adult baptism, or re-baptism, after a public confession of

faith, which also entailed a commitment to join a community of equal believers. The

rejection of child baptism was considered apostasy as the practice was enacted to save

children from original sin; it also simultaneously entered the children into the public registry.

Rejecting infant baptism therefore not only had spiritual implications but also suggested a

rejection of the government-Church power structure. There was widespread persecution of

Anabaptists in Europe through the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Klassen 1971).

Nevertheless, Anabaptism spread and a number of separate movements developed in

areas of Switzerland, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands (Stayer, Packull, and

Deppermann 1975; Williams 1962; Dyck 1993; Schroeder and Huebert 1996; Klassen 1973;

Smith 1957). A set of leaders met together in 1527 and developed a joint confession of

7 This section draws on material first presented as an International Studies Association conference paper (Neufeldt 2003). 8 “Anabaptist” was a derogatory term used to refer to people who were re-baptized.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13

faith, called the Schleitheim confession.9 Menno Simons (ca. 1496-1561) was an Anabaptist

leader, and former Catholic priest, from Friesland, in the Netherlands. Menno’s followers

were nicknamed “Mennonites;” a term that stuck. Central tenets of Mennonite faith

included adult baptism, peaceful nonresistance (“rejection of the sword”), personal

discipleship, living within a community of believers without conforming to or participating

in the “fallen” world (a “dual kingdom theology”), rejecting the swearing of oaths and

participation in government.

As a persecuted movement, Mennonites typically fled from area to area, settling

where sympathetic noblemen would protect or tolerate them. These migrations took some

to England and North America, others to Prussia, along the coast of the Baltic Sea,

particularly Danzig (Gdansk, Poland) and the Vistula delta region, as well as New Russia

(Ukraine), North and South America. The series of migrations built a history of being

uprooted in pursuit of religious freedom, which is explored further in subsequent chapters.

Two primary regional groups of Mennonites migrated to North America, one from

Switzerland and South Germany and the other from the Netherlands and North Germany.

This research focuses on descendants of the branch of Mennonites who haled from the

Netherlands and North Germany, moved to Prussia, then on to Imperial Russia, and

ultimately to Canada and the United States. This dissertation focuses on periods of conflict

in Imperial Russia and Canada.

As noted above, Mennonites can be classified in religious group terminology. Four

dimensions have been identified to define religious groups: creed, practice, code and

9 The Schleitheim Text has been translated into English (The Schleitheim Text 1973).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14

community (Appleby 2000).10 Creed refers to the beliefs and values, which find expression

in official church doctrine. Practice refers to the personal and communal spiritual practices

and forms of worship. Code refers to the code of conduct that guides the moral behavior of

those belonging to the confessional community, or body of believers. Mennonites as a

religious group encompass these four categories, but for those groups that migrated out of

Europe the emphasis largely fell on community and code. Mennonites were to live

according to communally approved codes of conduct as a regenerated, confessional

community (Gemeinde) in a fallen world. Little systematic work was done on developing the

creed or practices until the twentieth century. For example in the eighteenth century

Mennonite sermons were often transferred from generation to generation to preserve the

interpretations of God’s will (Smith 1957; Urry 1989). The emphasis on code contributed to

Mennonites developing strong in-group practices, rituals, and norms living in predominantly

closed communities.11

The three conflicts examined in this dissertation begin after Mennonites have lived

apart from other groups for several centuries. The religious beliefs (creed) infused daily life

(code) and contributed to political and social alienation from the sixteenth to twentieth

centuries (and in some cases into the twenty-first century). Living in relatively secluded

enclaves, the daily practices and rituals led to the development of a unique culture, with a

distinct language and unique history of persecution. The culture, history and language

reinforced a new identification as a religious group with other group attributes. The religious

10 The term ‘cult’ is often used instead of practice. 11 Interestingly, the emphasis on creed and cult has increased in many Mennonite communities, which was perhaps related to the shift from living in enclaves to living as part of a more integrated population.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15

classification melded into an ethnic group classification, using the above-noted definition:12

Mennonites possessed a myth of common ancestry, shared history, a common culture

(language, religious practices, beliefs and customs), a strong sense of solidarity, and had

developed very strong links to putative homelands in Prussia and Imperial South Russia.

Conceptualizing Mennonites as a distinct ethnic group began in the 1940s. For example,

E.K. Francis stated:

In the particular case of the Russian Mennonites a religious group was transformed within a comparatively short time into a distinct ethnic and folk group when the ethnically heterogeneous participants were allowed to segregate themselves by forming isolated territorial communities. While the specific religious system which afforded orientation in the formative stage changed and even lost much of its appeal, the identity and cohesion of the group did not suffer materially. (1948, 101)

Other scholars have made similar analyses, suggesting the ethnic identity was forged in the

delta triangle of Prussia where “Religious beliefs were consolidated, economic communities

developed, even a common tongue, Low German ( Vlautdietsch ) became the everyday working

language” (Schroeder and Huebert 1996, 115). These scholars similarly point to the

territorial, historical, linguistic and cultural daily practices that they consider as integral

ingredients comprising a unique Mennonite ethnicity.13 The concept of ethnicity is useful

here, not for the content of Mennonite identity that it lays out, but because of the

modifications that it suggests occurred within the Mennonite self-view. This dissertation

further explores the content, maintenance and transformation of Mennonite identity beyond

the simple overview provided here as historical background.

12 Amongst Mennonites it is commonly noted that there are two “ethnic” groups in North America: Swiss Mennonites and Russian Mennonites. The Swiss label refers to those Swiss and South German group who arrived in North America in the seventeenth century, while the “Russian” label refers to the Dutch and North group who lived in Prussia and “New Russia” (Ukraine) for about 150 years before immigrating to North or South America. 13 Mennonites were strongly linked through kinship ties, and certain family names were and are still commonly recognized as “Russian Mennonite” and can be found in the Mennonite Encyclopedia (1955).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16

This dissertation focuses on struggles in which Mennonites articulated their

collective identity during three periods of conflict. It explores how the group defined itself,

in terms of the content of their identity, in circumstances where some elements of their

identity were called into question. It also investigates continuity and change in the content

of the categories that Mennonites identify with, as components of their sense of

peoplehood, and the dynamic of transformation and maintenance over time.

In order to develop a multi-dimensional picture of identity, this dissertation

examines a series of three, decade-long conflicts in which Mennonites are involved, during

the twentieth century. A historical, grounded theory approach is used to ensure the

understanding of group identity that develops from the analysis is directly rooted in the

Mennonite experience (building on Glaser and Strauss 1967; Strauss and Corbin 1997;

Glaser 1992). The constant comparative method of grounded theory is used to uncover the

structure of concepts and categories of Mennonite identity utili 2 ed by Mennonite leaders

during the periods of conflict (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Woods 1992). The analysis

produces an understanding of various categories or conceptual building blocks for

Mennonite identity, of change and continuity within the categories of identification, as well

as of the larger dynamic of identity maintenance and transformation within conflict settings.

Dissertation Overview

This dissertation is structured to follow the logic of grounded theory analysis. It

begins by detailing the methodology, then moves to explore the three conflict situations in

detail, as well as the categories and properties of identity that emerge from within each

conflict period. The dissertation then proceeds to the broader analysis of theory and

contributions to the literature on identity, continuity and change.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17

Chapter two provides a detailed outline of the methodology used. It includes a

description of historical research methods used in conjunction with grounded theory

techniques. The chapter also contains a summary of the three conflict sites, and the

reasoning behind their selection. It then details the data collection process as well as the

grounded theory coding and analysis procedures.

The following three chapters - chapters three, four and five - each concentrate upon

one of the Sites of conflict. Chapter three focuses on Conflict Site I, which takes place in

the 1914 to 1924 time period. The conflict is physically situated in what is now modern-day

Ukraine, but was part of Imperial South Russia in 1914 before the revolution. The chapter

begins with a brief overview of the eighteenth century genesis of Mennonites in Imperial

South Russia, followed by a broad outline of socio-cultural, political, economic and religious

institutions and practices leading up to 1914. This background on the Mennonite colonies is

supplied in order to place the first Conflict Site within a broader cultural, historical and

physical context. It is particularly important to provide historical context for this Conflict

Site in order to understand how the colonists viewed themselves and the colonies within

Russia, which is significantly different than today’s more critical read of colonial practices.

During this period the region transitions through WWI, the Russian Revolution and the start

of the Soviet Union. The chapter concludes by summarizing the central categories of

identity, and their constituent properties, that emerged from the grounded analysis of this

first Conflict Site.

Chapter four centers on the time period 1934 to 1944, and is located in western

Canada. During this second Conflict Site, the Mennonites, who are recent emigres in

western Canada, strive to find their identity as their new homeland goes to war against

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18

Germany and its allies. A contextual background on Mennonites in western Canada is

presented, and the conflict context is described. As in the previous chapter, this is followed

by a summary of the categories and properties that emerged from grounded theory analysis

of Mennonite leaders’ presentations of Mennonites as a collectivity.

Chapter five follows the same pattern. It centers on a much smaller conflict in

western Canada between 1977 and 1987. Conflict Site III is linked directly to land

ownership in an area where Mennonites settled, and raises questions of legitimacy, as well as

elements of religious, ethnic and national identity. Background on Mennonites in the region

is provided, followed by a description of the conflict context during the decade of focus, as

well as a brief summary of the current state of the conflict as some of the issues remain

unresolved. The chapter concludes with an analysis of the categories and properties of

Mennonite identity that emerge from the Conflict Site.

Chapter six brings the analysis of the three Conflict Sites together. These

comparisons produce an understanding of constancy and change over time in the categories

of identification. It provides an initial, substantive theory of the categories of Mennonite

identity from across the three Sites. Substantive theory refers to a theory that focuses on the

central meanings or substance of the categories that emerged from the data, and proposes an

initial relationship between the categories (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Strauss and Corbin

1997). The chapter then proceeds to present an initial, mid-range theory of identity change,

and mines the specific examples of detachment from place and language.

The final chapter, chapter seven, places the substantive and mid-range theory into

the larger frame of identity research. It begins with a general overview of identity literature

and returns to Rogers Smith’s concept of political peoples, as well as Smith’s theory of the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19

generation, maintenance and transformation of peoplehood, to structure the analysis of the

substantive theory of Mennonite identity. The chapter then moves to an analysis of the

contributions of the mid-range theory to our understanding of continuity and change

processes. The chapter includes a discussion of the implications of this research for

responding to issues of group identity within the context violent conflicts. The study

concludes with a summary of the contributions to knowledge made by this dissertation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER II

THE RESEARCH FRAME: METHODOLOGY

All research is predicated on particular understandings of how we come to know

things about the world around us. Often these understandings are implicit in the research

questions we ask and methodologies we use. However, explicitly stating the ontological and

epistemological orientation of the researcher enables the reader to better enter into dialogue

with the researcher and the research product. In this dissertation you are asked to enter into

dialogue with a researcher, the research process and the substantive theory I generate with

respect to identity continuity and change in conflict over time for a particular group -

Mennonites.

This research is based on an understanding that we human beings are both

producers and products of the world around us; we are agents of change and changed by

agents, structures and processes that surround us (Mead 1934; Blumer 1962; Berger and

Luckmann 1966). In order to try to capture this movement and shifts over time, three

Conflict Sites are used akin to a trilogy of three short vignettes. Three discrete time periods

in the twentieth century are examined in order to capture the motion and change within each

shorter vignette as well as to gather insights about how they fit together within the much

longer epic of a people.

To capture the richness of the empirical data in and across the three Conflict Sites

within this case, a grounded theory methodology is applied and augmented by historical

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21

(Stake 1998, 86). Grounded theory is a particular methodology used to identify concepts

and develop theory as it emerges from data (Glaser and Strauss 1967). It is an interpretive,

qualitative research methodology that is rooted in the sociological tradition of George

Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer “called symbolic interaction” (Blumer 1969; Mead 1934).

Grounded theory approaches “data” and “facts” from the understanding that they

represent social meanings interpreted by social actors in interaction with each other, which

are modified through an interpretive process over time (Emerson 1981; Blumer 1969;

Schwandt 1998). Symbolic interaction theory is considered an intermediary between

deterministic and non-deterministic theories. Symbolic interactionists argue that individuals

largely act on the basis of interpretation and meanings generated by and within social

interactions (Blase 1986). These interpretations are affected by historical and structural

circumstances (Strauss 1995). Grounded theory is, therefore, well placed to identify the

emergent social constructions of peoplehood, nations and nationalities from personal and

group discourse (Strauss 1995). In this dissertation, Mennonite identity, ownership of land,

“belonging,” and other relevant concepts that emerged from this study, are the products of

Mennonite social construction and general communicative discourse within identified local

settings that are influenced by the structural contexts within which they are situated.

In many ways, grounded theory was developed to straddle “the methodological

divide” between qualitative and quantitative approaches (Dey 1999, 212-214).1 As Ian Dey

points out, grounded theory did this by offering a strategy for applying comparative methods

1 See Dey (1999, 212-230) for a detailed discussion about the creative tension in the relationship between grounded theory and intensive (case-centered, qualitative-historical) and extensive (variable-centered, quantitative-ahistorical) theorizing, as well as nomothetic (pursuing discovery of general laws) and ideographic (pertaining to description of single, or unique facts and processes) theorizing.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22

to an intensive, qualitative inquiry process, and intensive inquiry methods to quantitatively

oriented comparative studies. Qualitative methodologies tend to seek:

... the truth of the best account possible. It is the truth that is disclosed by the better— the more perspicuous, the more coherent, the more insightful— of competing interpretations. If there is a kind of cognitive power to be had by doing qualitative inquiry, then it is the power of refining our ordinary understanding of our practices of teaching, healing, managing, learning, and so forth, rather than any leap out of the lived reality of those practices. (Schwandt 1999, 454)

Grounded theory methodology was designed with the hope of not only developing

perspicuous understanding, as described above, but also to develop more formal theories for

explaining and predicting the relationships between and among concepts (Glaser and Strauss

1967; Strauss and Corbin 1990). There are, however, diverse applications of grounded

theory, with some projects geared more towards the former goal of insight and others geared

towards prediction (Dey 1999). The former can be referred to as substantive theory and the

latter as formal theory.2 Substantive theory focuses on generating an understanding of

substantive concepts and their properties, as well as proposing some relationships amongst

these concepts (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Glaser 1992). Formal theory can be understood to

work at a higher level of abstraction and generality. This dissertation seeks to understand

the various concepts related to Mennonite identity, as well as the question of how these

concepts are interpreted and re-interpreted during various periods of conflict - by looking at

the changes and similarities over time. In this way, it seeks to develop a substantive theory

of Mennonite identity.

As noted above, research reflects the producer. In this case, the researcher can be

identified as a peacebuilding researcher-practitioner, a Mennonite and a Canadian. All three

2 This definition of substantive theory fits Glaser’s definition more closely than Strauss and Corbin’s definition. It also differs from Ian Dey’s (1999) definition of substantive theory, which suggests the difference between the two relies on the level of abstraction.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23

of these identities bring particular sets of lenses to the research process. Each lens brings a

particular element of the case into focus.

Harry Wolcott identifies three “postures” or approaches to qualitative research: 1)

theory-driven, 2) concept-driven, and 3) reform- or problem-driven (Wolcott 1992). The

first consists of research questions that are critically framed by the theoretical orientation; for

example, ethnographic research is framed by culture theory. The second approach centers

research on particular concepts of interest, such as the notion of “care” in nursing research.

The third is oriented to addressing political problems, with predetermined goals. This

research was concept-driven in the sense that the research site selection was focused on a

central concept of identity, and understanding the component parts of Mennonite group

identity during periods of conflict. As noted in chapter one, scholars in political science as

well as scholars in conflict resolution have an under-developed understanding of the

formation, continuation and change dynamics of political peoples. There is also a limited

understanding of the relationship between identity and conflict; identities are suggested to

lead to conflict, but there is little understanding of how conflicts shape and reshape

identities.

Each of the three Conflict Sites explored in this dissertation focus on issues that

place Mennonite identity demands against state identity demands, and are therefore

“information rich” (Patton 1990). The situations contain deviant and high intensity

experiences that yield considerable amounts of data around competing claims that relate to

the state, religious group, and landed-ness. These Conflict Sites involve tensions for

Mennonites’ extant understandings of themselves and Mennonite-ness. They involve

conflicts that invoke debates, thinking and action about what it means to be Mennonite.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24

The Sites also provided frequent and deliberate exchange, and were identified as Sites that

would further develop the substantive understanding of Mennonite identity, and explore the

dynamic of change over time.

Research Methodology: A Historical Grounded Theory

A modified grounded theory methodology is employed to analyze the data from

three Conflict Sites and develop a substantive theory. The modification is that historical

research methods are used in combination with grounded theory methods. Historical

research methods guide archival examination and provide the contextual, descriptive

framework for understanding the concepts as they emerge within the Conflict Sites (Berg

1998; Tuchman 1998; Wilson and Hutchinson 1991). Grounded theory provides the

intensive interpretive procedure for data analysis. This combination allows for a

comprehensive understanding of each Conflict Site, and provides context for the concepts

that emerge from analyzing data more closely using comparative grounded theory methods.

Historical Research and Conflict Site Description

A rudimentary tenet of historical research is that it is important to understand social

phenomena within their historical contexts (Tuchman 1998). For this research, historical

methods are used to generate a general description of the Conflict Sites, to locate primary

materials for the grounded theory analysis, and to identify important contextual information

for understanding concepts and processes that emerged from the data in the grounded

analysis. This is critical in order to adequately interpret the concepts within Sites I and II

within their own framework, and then to relate the concepts and processes to each other

over time and space. It necessitates acquiring background information from primary and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25

secondary sources and mastering the controversies that exist among historians in

interpreting the time period in order to be able to understand the materials more thoroughly

(Tuchman 1998).

A number of methodological issues can arise when doing historical research. These

include determining the authenticity of texts, identifying who wrote the materials and why, as

well as issues of interpretation and translation, understanding which texts are important, who

saved the materials and why, and conventions for writing at the time (Berg 1998; Todorov

1982; Tuchman 1998). To address issues of document reliability, authenticity and

interpretation, I drew upon expert knowledge of archivists and historians at a number of

institutions, including the Zaporozhye Archives (Zaporozhye, Ukraine), the University of

Toronto (Toronto, Ontario), Conrad Grebel University College (Kitchener, Ontario),

Goshen College and the Mennonite Church Archives (Goshen, Indiana), the Mennonite

Historical Library and Center for Mennonite Brethren Studies (Winnipeg, Manitoba) and the

Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Engaging with these experts highlighted

areas of dispute between them in interpreting texts, which sensitized me to relevant issues

for my own understanding and interpretive research. In the few cases where date or

authorship for a primary source was unclear, there is additional information on the source

contained in footnotes. The experts also provided feedback on my historical summaries,

and choice of texts. Finally, I also drew upon numerous informal discussions with Russian

Mennonites in Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Calgary, and on a Mennonite heritage trip to Ukraine;

these discussions provided informational resources for concepts and interpretations based

on people’s lived experiences during the conflicts.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26

Grounded Theory: Analysis Within and Across Conflict Sites

Grounded theory techniques are used for a focused analysis of the materials gathered

from the historical research in order to generate substantive theory. As noted, a subset of

materials collected for the historical analyses are used for the detailed and time-intensive

grounded theory analysis. Strauss and Corbin (Strauss and Corbin 1998b, 158) concisely

articulate that “Grounded theory is a general methodology for developing a theory that is

grounded in data systematically gathered and analyzed. Theory evolves during actual

research, and it does this through continuous interplay between analysis and data collection.”

Central to grounded theory is constant comparative analysis, which gives a framework for

simultaneously doing social research and generating theory (Glaser 1978; Glaser and Strauss

1967). Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss originally put grounded theory forward as a

methodology in 1967 to generate sociological theories from first-hand experiences.

In the early 1990s a dispute emerged between the original co-authors over the degree

to which Strauss and his newer colleague Juliet Corbin were prescriptive in their 1990

rendition of grounded theory in the Basics of Qualitative Kesearch (Strauss and Corbin 1990).

Glaser critiqued a number of substantive issues, particularly with respect to prematurely

labeling categories, imposing categories and codes on the data, and forcing a descriptive

theory rather than allowing one to emerge from the data (Glaser 1992). Despite this critique

and some schism in subsequent research, there remained considerable overlap between the

two methodologies of Glaser, and Strauss and Corbin. For this research I draw on the

original methodological formulations of grounded theory by Glaser and Strauss (1967) as

well as some of the later developments by both authors. I generally follow Glaser’s

methodology of coding and analysis (detailed below), but incorporate elements of Strauss

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27

and Corbin’s methodology and terminology where it was clearer (Glaser 1978; Glaser 1992;

Strauss and Corbin 1998a).3

Data Collection Procedures

Three Conflict Sites from the twentieth century are the focal points for this research.

These Sites are not only information rich but also tap into a range of experiences that help

develop a greater understanding of the concepts, their properties and the relationships

among them in what is considered a “minimal differences” design in grounded theory

research (Glaser and Strauss 1967, 56). Minimal difference here refers to the use of a single

identity group as the focus. In 1967, Glaser and Strauss suggested that a minimal

differences grounded theory approach allows the researcher: to focus on the usefulness of

categories that emerge from the data, to identify basic properties for categories, conditions

for the degree or range of the categories and to identify fundamental differences under

which the categories and processes vary (58). A more contemporary reading of the value of

the more singular focus is that it can provide in-depth understanding of a unique and

complex phenomenon. As Dey suggests, “The ‘encased’ study may go a long way toward

explaining the particular phenomenon and understanding its implications...” (1999, 228).

This type of research does not seek to generalize, however understanding a particular

phenomenon can nevertheless contribute to wider theories of how society works.

Studying three conflict periods over the course of the twentieth century provides a

unique opportunity to delve into the constancies and changes of one identity group. It is

during these periods of tumult and conflict that identity boundaries are stressed and, as

3 For a thorough analysis of the differences in approach see Ian Dey (1999).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28

much of conflict resolution theory suggests, become rigid as in-group and out-group, us-

them binaries form and solidify (Worchel and Austin 1986; Tajfel 1982). These periods of

storm and stress heighten in-group and out-group schism issues and pressure those within

the group to conform and act in unique ways. Yet even within these periods of stress there

are also moments of change and renegotiating identity. Looking at these three Sites allows

various categories important to the Mennonite identity to emerge and be negotiated within

particular contexts.

Conflict Site Selection

The Conflict Sites are bounded geographically and temporally. Each is roughly a

decade long and captures the period of greatest intensity around competing affiliation

demands, centering on issues of state membership, religious convictions and land issues.

Conflict is therefore defined as the perception of mutually incompatible goals between

groups of people (Mitchell 1981, 17). As noted above, the Sites were selected to be

information-rich on the central concept of identity, and elevate competing affiliation

demands. They each occur in the twentieth century, were chosen for continuity of

membership over time (including direct descendents). They were also selected to provide

breadth to the substantive theory of Mennonite identity over time in the “minimal

differences” design, and to achieve theoretical sufficiency.4

Conflict Site I: This Site focuses on Mennonites living within the Chortitza and

Molotschna Colonies in South Russia, which is now contemporary Ukraine, from 1914 to

4 Glaser and Strauss use the term “Theoretical saturation” to refer to the point at which no new categories emerge from the data. I use Dey’s (1999) term “theoretical sufficiency” here to recognize that the process of generating categories was stopped at the point it was “good enough” to cope adequately with new data, rather than being “exhaustive.”

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29

1924. The time period encompasses World War I (WWI), the Russian Revolution, and the

beginning of the New Economic Policy (NEP) period. The period raises issues of national

identity (Russian, German, Dutch, Ukrainian), religious identity and peoplehood for

Mennonites as they react to a changing world around them. When World War I (WWI)

breaks out they confront issues of wartime nationalism and calls to fight for the “homeland.”

The Russian Revolution directly impacts the two oldest Mennonite Colonies, Chortitza and

Molotschna, as the revolutionary frontline passes through the region multiple times and

various other Ukrainian national and anarchist groups join the fighting. The violence and

anarchy that occur during the revolution hit the region hard, and Mennonites struggle to

respond to the violence. Following the revolution and a post-revolution famine, the

Mennonites struggle to recover their livelihoods as well as their sense of self and

peoplehood. The first few years of NEP provide an opportunity for the Mennonites to

identify priorities for themselves and debate their future survival — deciding whether it is

better to stay and recover in Ukraine or move to a new land.

Conflict Site II. The second Conflict Site picks up during the build-up to World War

II (WWII). The focus is on Mennonite communities in Western Canada, and emigres from

Ukraine, during the period 1934 to 1944. At the start of this time period there is a strong

call from Germany for people to join the larger German Volk (people or nation). As a

primarily German-speaking people at the time, numerous Mennonites are attracted to the

vision of the German socialist movement, and the perils of it are not understood at the time.

Mennonites are also struggling as new citizens of Canada and trying to find their place and

identity in this new land. Fighting does not directly impact their farmland and homes in

Canada but Mennonite communities are again affected by wartime nationalism and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30

conscription. They are also affected by stories of relatives in Ukraine and Russia trying to

escape Stalin’s grip and the warfront by fleeing to Germany. Mennonite communities feel

intense pressures of competing demands of group affiliation as they deal with issues of

nationalism (German, Canadian, other), religion and their responsibilities as citizens.

Mennonites are still primarily agrarian during the time period, which plays a continuing role

in shaping Mennonite identity.

Conflict Site III: The third Conflict Site focuses on a particular land-related conflict

in Saskatchewan. It centers on the Rural Municipality of Laird between 1977 and 1987.

During this time period a set of Mennonite farmers are confronted with a First Nations land

claim by the Young Chipeewayan over a 30-mile square area. A group of belligerent young

men visit farms on the land and threaten the owners. Locally, many Mennonite farmers are

hesitant to engage on the issue and are concerned about losing their land. At the start of the

time period the community is passionate and divided over the land claim. The Mennonite

Central Committee Saskatchewan, a larger Mennonite agency, urges the local community to

deal with the issue in various ways over the course of the decade. The conflicting demands

of affiliation occur as Mennonite farmers, as well as other Mennonite community members,

grapple with the veracity of the land claim and questions around ownership of the land. The

internal Mennonite community debate crystallizes competing views of the content of

Mennonite religious identity, and the degree to which particular Mennonite affiliation

demands trump regular Canadian citizenship demands on livelihood and land issues. There

are a series of internal Mennonite community engagements to address the land-claim

concerns, and meetings with representatives of the Young Chipeewayan band. While the

third Site does not involve a large-scale, overt, violent conflict like the contexts of the World

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31

Wars in Sites I and II, the experiences in Saskatchewan are embedded within a larger, low-

grade conflict over aboriginal land rights in Canada. The Site represents a rare contemporary

instance of a Mennonite group, land-centered conflict, and offers an opportunity to examine

identity shifts that have occurred after Mennonites have largely integrated into western

Canada.5 The events raise questions of who Mennonites are, and what they identify with, in

a situation of tension and competing claims.

Together these three Sites offer a wealth of information to understand Mennonite

identity, its contents as well as continuities and change over time. Utili 2ing grounded theory

techniques, the content of Mennonite identity emerges within each conflict context and the

comparative method enables identification of elements of constancy and change as well as

process components of change. Grounded theory provides the methods and framework to

surface initial categories, properties and processes from within the data, and then to develop

understanding and a substantive theory via the constant comparisons made within and

across the Conflict Sites, as described above (Glaser 1992; Glaser and Strauss 1967; Strauss

and Corbin 1998a).

Data Sources and Selections

All three Sites occur in the past and therefore require historical research methods in

order to locate sources and assess their importance and quality for the historical grounded

theory analysis. The following section outlines the research process for gathering the data,

the specific types of data collected and the criteria used for selecting texts for the detailed

grounded theory coding.

5 There are a few, smaller scale conflicts involving particular plots of land jointly owned by Mennonite conferences, such as land own for summer camps.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32

Gathering Data

The three Conflict Sites cover geographical territory in Ukraine and Western Canada.

I made two major research trips that covered this territory. The first was a trip to Ukraine in

2001, where I visited the State Archives and head archivist in Zaporozhye and the areas

where the Mennonite colonies used to exist. A considerable collection of materials covering

the Mennonites is housed in the archives in Zaporozhye, however most of this collection is

microfiched and is now accessible in Toronto and Winnipeg (Dyck and Tedeev 2001)/1 The

second research trip occurred between December 2001 and May 2002, and involved visiting

libraries, archives and conducting interviews across central Canada and the United States.

The majority of primary documents were accessed at the following archives and libraries:

• Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives and Mennonite Historical Library,

Winnipeg, Manitoba

• Centre for Mennonite Brethren Studies, Winnipeg Manitoba

• Mennonite Church Archives, Goshen, Indiana

• Robarts Library, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

The sources they produced included newspaper articles, public announcements,

meeting minutes, maps, as well as personal correspondence such as letters, memos and

diaries. Many primary materials from Conflict Site I are written in German or Russian.

Fortunately, a good number of significant in-group primary documents are collated and,

although originally published in German, an unpublished English translation is now available

6 Additional materials are beginning to emerge from intensive work by archivists and historians in the opened Soviet archives, however, these materials were not available for use in this dissertation research.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33

(Toews 1975, unpublished). Volunteer translators translated other materials for this

research.

Primary sources for Conflict Site II were available at the two aforementioned

archives located in Winnipeg, Manitoba. A third, shorter research trip was made in July 2004

to the Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, in Winnipeg, in order to gather additional

materials covering the 1934 to 1944 period. The written sources included newspaper

articles, public announcements, meeting minutes as well as personal correspondence.

Materials were written in both English and German. Volunteer translators translated select

materials written from German to English for the grounded theory analysis.

For Conflict Site III, primary data sources were written texts although these were by

and large not available in archives because the events occurred in the recent past. The

majority of information was made available to me through the Mennonite Central

Committee Saskatchewan Office in Saskatoon. Additional historical material was provided

by the Tiefengrund-Rosenort Mennonite Church, the Conference of Mennonites of

Saskatchewan archives, and by individuals who had personal documents they were willing to

share. The Mennonite Central Committee Canada Native Concerns documents archived at

the Mennonite Heritage Centre in Winnipeg were also useful. The written sources included

newspaper articles, research documents, church bulletins, meeting minutes, meeting notes,

meeting resolutions, letters and memos.

A series of informational interviews in Saskatchewan provided first-hand background

and insights into the conflict in Laird. Four of the interviewees lived in the area during the

period of conflict and owned farmland directly affected by the conflict; one interviewee was

involved in the ongoing efforts to address the conflict issues but did not live in the affected

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34

area; and one interviewee lived in a neighboring farm area and had access to church records.

The interviews are not used in this dissertation as primary material for the grounded theory

analysis but are used for contextual information and background to understand the conflict

and its significance for the people who live in the area. The interviews highlight the

emotions involved as well as trace an initial trajectory of the conflict. Content from the

interviews is used in conjunction with documents to write up the conflict context.

Interviewees also provide an accuracy check by providing feedback on the conflict context

write-up section to ensure that I capture the significant historical events as accurately as

possible7.

Secondary sources for all three Sites are examined to develop the historical

dimension of the research and augment the primary materials. These include dissertations,

theses, books, journal articles, documentaries and informal interviews with Mennonite

historians8. Secondary materials, published at and during a Conflict Site are considered

primary material if they relate to the substance of the conflict.

It must be noted that there are some gaps in the primary source materials. These

gaps occurred when physical circumstances prevented Mennonites from meeting or from

speaking out publicly as a collective group. The Tsarist government banned the use of the

German language in any public fora, from meetings to worship services to publishing

newspapers and magazines, which created a significant gap in the first Conflict Site. The

annual All-Mennonite Conference meeting was suspended between June 1913 and June

1917, which was a major event for discussions, documenting opinion and debates, and

7 A verification process similar to that used in (Hammer and Rogan 2002) 8 Historians informally consulted included Abe Dueck, Harvey L. Dyck, Rudy Friesen, Leonard Gross, Lawrence Klippensten, Royden Loewen, Alan Peters, Alf Redekop, John Sharp, John Staples, Dennis Stoesz, Alexander Tedeev, Paul Toews, James Urry.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35

forming a common Mennonite position on issues affecting the colonies. The meetings re

started after the ban ended, following the revolution. In 1914 German language newspapers

were able to print and so provided a public forum for opinions, although they did not take

on the same representative value and also stopped production that year. There was sparse

documentation for the years 1915 and 1916. During the revolution the information sources

were sporadic, although the Mennonite Conference did meet in 1917 and newspapers re

surfaced for a short period. The rules regarding religious associations changed following the

revolution allowing Mennonites to meet again although the events of the revolution itself

hampered meetings and documentation. The major fomm for joint Mennonite meetings

became an agricultural association instead of a religious association, with the constitution

approved by the Soviet authorities in 1921. There were fewer public documents available at

the close of this time period, when Soviet authorities closely monitored meetings; documents

that were kept by the Soviet authorities are being recovered only now. The gaps mean there

are fewer primary data sources for the grounded theory analysis procedures during the

aforementioned time periods. Grounded theory coding is an intensive procedure, and the

categories that emerge from analysis are not compromised by gaps; however, the process of

assessing whether or not the categories achieved full theoretical saturation or sufficiency is

truncated, and, as noted above, materials from some years are not captured in the analysis.

A shortage of primary documents narrowed the focus for the second Conflict Site.

Initially I had intended to look at the framing of Mennonite identity and the issues around

World War II in both western Canada and Ukraine between 1934 and 1944. However,

during this period there is no longer any way for Mennonites to gather or develop a

common voice in the Soviet Union. Stalin’s policies on eroding and eliminating religious

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36

leadership as well as removing wealthy landowners ( dekulakization ) from society, in

conjunction with the famine of the early 1930s leaves little to no “Mennonite community” to

speak of. By 1937 there are no public religious leaders, no religious gatherings in Mennonite

communities and the institutions - social, religious and economic - that once held them

together are gone. Families, often missing male members, remain as social supports for each

other but do not communicate publicly as a unified group or speak of themselves as

“Mennonite.” Therefore, the focus of Conflict Site II is on Mennonites in western Canada.

Document Selection for Grounded Theory Microanalysis

Subsets of the primary documents are used for the grounded theory analysis.

Grounded theory techniques code data until categories are saturated, or no additional data is

found to further develop the properties of each category (Glaser and Strauss 1967, 61). The

initial microanalysis coding procedures (described below) are very time intensive. In order to

gather a manageable and representative set of materials to code, a subset of the historical

documents is used. The documents selected for the grounded theory analysis are ones

generated for public or semi-public consumption to deliberately capture and frame

Mennonite opinions, beliefs or experiences as a group. The primary types of documentation

are letters, newspaper articles, public announcements, meeting minutes and meeting

resolutions. In periods where there are gaps in public communication (noted above), private

communications, such as letters or memos, are used but limited to those that purposely seek

to semi-publicly present the dialogue occurring in Mennonite communities around the

relevant issues during the Conflict Site.

Mennonite leaders who work on behalf of Mennonite institutions generally produce

the documents used. A fairly small set of influential leaders dominates Mennonite public

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37

life, particularly in Sites I and II.9 The leaders help shape the focus and development of

Mennonite communities in the twentieth century (Regehr 1996, 25). The leaders participate

in debates over the various conflict-related issues that Mennonites confront and represent

the group repeatedly to external bodies such as the government. The debates at conference

meetings are particularly rich sites for material and demonstrate how diverse positions within

the community are shaped into a common majority position. The leaders then play a critical

role in framing Mennonite identity with respect to the conflict issues as they engage with

government or reach out beyond the Mennonite community. The leaders speak at the nexus

point between Mennonite and external group discourse; the leaders are in many ways the

public gatekeepers for the community. The public documents provide a clear articulation of

Mennonite self-concepts as they relate to central conflict issues. The leaders provide the

public interface for an often socially insular group.

Data Organization

For this dissertation the primary materials were entered in electronic form into a

computer database and coded using the QSR International NVivo software, Version 1.2.

This software, formerly called NUD*IST, is designed specifically for coding and analyzing

qualitative data. NVivo is an advanced computer software program that facilitates the

coding process by allowing for an unlimited database and, a flexible organizational structure.

It allows one to search codes and text, pull all text that is coded with the same concept name

together to review, rename codes, place codes in various organizational trees and so forth.

The program also enables linking to secondary memos and external video and audio files.

9 Conflict Site III also involves a limited set of leaders, although these leaders do not dominate Mennonite communal life to the same extent that leaders did in the first and second Sites, in large part due to changing lifestyle patterns.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38

Grounded Theory: Analysis and Substantive Theory Development

The four following sections specify in greater detail how grounded theory methods

were used to move from raw data to an initial substantive theory. The sections below trace

the processes of coding, memoing, attending to personal bias and developing an initial

theory. This is followed by a very brief overview of how the methodology affects the layout

of the subsequent dissertation chapters.

Coding

Coding is a central feature of grounded theory. Glaser identifies two primary types

of codes while Strauss and Corbin identify four types of coding procedures. Elements of

both of these approaches are used in this research. The two types of codes Glaser (1992)

identifies are substantive and theoretical. Substantive codes refer to “the conceptual

meanings given by generating categories and their properties, which conceptually sum up the

patterns found in substantive incidents in the field” (1992, 27). Theoretical codes refer to

“the conceptual models of relationships that are discovered to relate the substantive codes to

each theoretically” (1992, 27). Building on Glaser, I use these two types of codes to analyze

the data during the early and later phases of analysis. A series of properties for the various

categories of Mennonite identity emerge in each of the Conflict Sites. For example, the

properties that emerge and provide the dimensions for a category of Mennonite identity that

emerges, “hard workers,” include an agricultural calling, individualism, intrinsic satisfaction

from work, and productivity. The majority of analysis focused on substantive codes.

Theoretical codes are developed as I examine when particular properties of Mennonites

identity are articulated in relation to the categories of particular conflict issues they address at

the time. This leads to a further differentiation of several categories of Mennonite identity

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39

that vary over time in relation to the conflict. This occurs, for example, in the development

of a theory of the process of detachment from the land that occurs in Conflict Site I (chapter

three), and is explored in chapter six.

Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) focus on the methods of grounded theory and

identify four main coding procedures. The four procedures are: an initial microanalysis of

texts to identify properties and categories, axial coding to relate categories to their

sub categories, selective coding to integrate and refine the theory and process coding to

examine the sequences of action and interaction over time. There is considerable overlap

between what Glaser calls theoretical coding and what Strauss and Corbin call axial coding,

although Glaser criticizes the degree to which Strauss and Corbin suggest connections can

and should be “forced” at this stage (Glaser 1992, 62).

I follow Strauss and Corbin’s suggestion of an initial detailed analysis, a

microanalysis, of the information-rich texts at the beginning of research in order to surface

the full range of categories and properties. This approach fits within the original

specifications of grounded theory procedures. Microanalysis refers to a detailed, line-by-line

analysis of the data at the beginning of a study to generate initial categories and suggest

relationships amongst them (Strauss and Corbin 1990). Following the microanalysis, I put

the data into categories and subcategories detailing possible theoretical connections in

memos — reverting to Glaser’s suggested procedures. As noted above, I utilized NVIVO

during the coding process. NVivo is particularly helpful during the microanalysis because of

its unlimited coding database and ability to allow for re-assigning, grouping or merging

coded categories.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40

Memos

There are generally two types of memos in grounded theory research, one set focuses

on theoretical sensitivity and the other on operational details (Strauss and Corbin 1998b).

Theoretical memos are important to summarize thoughts and sensitize the researcher to her

personal thoughts, actions and ideas. Theoretical memos are kept during the data gathering,

coding and analysis phases. Operational memos keep track of procedural directions and

reminders. Throughout the research process I kept both types of memos. The operational

memos helped keep track of details during data acquisition, entry, identifying key texts,

historical conflicts and keeping track of research steps. The theoretical memos were central

aids for assisting the theoretical analysis as well as identifying personal biases and using those

self-consciously to enhance the analysis process.

Addressing Bias

Personal involvement or familiarity with the group being researched can be viewed

negatively as something that produces bias or distortions in the research and positively as a

source of insight and understanding that will enhance the research process and project

(Emerson 1981). As a Canadian Mennonite whose family story is, in some ways, connected

to the events in each of the Conflict Sites — although more directly in Site I than II or III — it

is very important to take these biases into account. In order to use these biases as a source

of insight and understanding rather than as a weakness, it has been important for me to use

the aforementioned memos, as well as some distancing techniques. The main distancing

and bias-awareness technique I used was to take a break from the material following periods

of intensive involvement (for further discussion, see Emerson 1981). The primary breaks

occurred between doing the intensive research and fieldwork and writing the historical

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41

analysis, and between doing the detailed historical analysis of each case and conducting the

grounded theory analysis. These breaks have allowed me to step-back from the compelling,

detailed narratives being presented in each Conflict Site. A secondary technique to raise my

own awareness of bias was to have non-Mennonite colleagues regularly review my materials

and analysis and provide feedback.

Developing Substantive Theory

Coding of documents from each of the Conflict Sites occurs in a comparative

fashion. I code sets of documents from each Conflict Site in the microanalysis stage in order

to begin the process of comparing the emerging codes across the three Conflict Sites, as well

as within each of the sites. For example, I code a set of documents from Site I followed by a

set of documents from Site III. In NVivo, the codes are kept together in a unified list,

which allows you to use the same codes as appropriate in both Conflict Sites or add new

ones as required. If one code is used for texts from both sites, the software then allows you

to list the coded text together in a document in order to compare its usage more closely.

I then sort the data and put the fractured data and memos together into an initial

substantive theoretical model, using NVivo’s capabilities for theoretical modeling, which

allows the researcher to access the categories and add or delete at will and create multiple

theoretical models as the research progresses. Models are put together for each of the three

Conflict Sites as well as a model that brings the three Sites together. These models provide

the outline for writing the theoretical sections on Mennonite identity within each of the

Conflict Site chapters as well as the subsequent chapter on constancy and change. This

methodology follows Glaser’s (1992) process although is also roughly equivalent to what

Strauss and Corbin refer to as selective coding or “the process of integrating and refining the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42

theory” (Strauss and Corbin 1998a, 143). As mentioned above, the focus on substantive

categories and substantive theory is connected to the goal of understanding Mennonite

identity, flux and fixity, in periods of conflict.

The combined grounded theory and historical methods allowed me to bring one of

the strengths of grounded theory to bear on an otherwise intensive analysis process: the

constant comparative method.10 The constant comparisons, with their repeated return to

codes and comparisons between and across the codes during the analysis process was very

time consuming, but brought an additional rigor to data analysis. It facilitated categorization,

identifying the families of concepts, core concepts and properties that appeared with

regularity in the data. The comparative process was significantly enhanced by NYivo’s

retrieval capacity, which could retrieve not only coded sentences but also the surrounding

paragraphs — providing an opportunity to re-check the analysis. The comparative method

was therefore particularly beneficial for enhancing the understanding of Mennonite

categories of identification that emerged within the Conflict Sites, and comparing those

categories and properties over time. One of the weaknesses of grounded theory is dealing

with the dimension of time, which is where the historical research methods proved more

helpful.

The following three chapters each present an historical overview of one Conflict

Site, the conflict context and a summary of the grounded theory categories and properties

that emerged. The historical background is based on the historical research methods and

provides context for the categories and properties that emerged from the grounded theory

analysis. The categories and properties for each Conflict Site are presented after each

10 Building upon Dey (1999).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43

Conflict Site to link them to the context they initially emerged from. A comparative analysis

of the categories and properties is presented in the sixth chapter, together with a substantive

theory of Mennonite identity.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER III

CONFLICT SITE 1,1914-1924:

MENNONITE COLONIES IN WANING IMPERIAL SOUTH RUSSIA

This chapter provides background information on Conflict Site I as well as a brief

overview of the conflict context and an examination of emergent identity themes. The 1914

to 1924 decade was chosen because the time period bookends radical political upheavals that

directly affected the Mennonite colonies in South Russia.

The beginning and end dates of this decade are delimiting points during transitional

periods. The year 1914 begins with Mennonites experiencing the end of what has become

known as their “Golden Age” in Russia. The decade includes the outbreak of World War I,

the first phase of the Russian Revolution with its accompanying violence, as well as a period

of relative independence for Ukraine. The period ends during the first New Economic

Policy (NEP) years, introduced by Communist leader Vladimir Lenin in 1921, which marks a

particular lull in the Bolshevik transformation of political and economic systems. In 1924,

the communities are recovering from war, typhus, starvation, economic stagnation, and

coping with changing political and economic systems. Some optimism returns to Mennonite

colonies, economic recovery seems possible although many people are pessimistic and

pursue a plan for massive out-migration.

This chapter opens with background on the arrival of Mennonites in Imperial South

Russia in 1789 and the founding of the two major colonies, Chortitza and Molotschna,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45

developments of the Mennonite colonies over the next 125 years in order to give the context

for Mennonite identity at the start of the Conflict Site in 1914. Following the overview of

the context and conflicts between 1914 and 1924, the chapter concludes with a section on

Mennonite identity, which is divided into three sub-sections to focus on national identity,

identity categories that are undermined by events between 1917 and 1921 and a

reconstruction of identity categories up to 1924.

Background: A New Russian Homeland

Mennonites arrived in South Russia in the late eighteenth century. They emigrated

from the Vistula Delta and Danzig regions of West Prussia (Royal Prussia), where they had

settled in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to flee persecution experienced in other

parts of Europe. Benevolent leaders in Prussia had allowed Mennonites to live relatively

freely for more than two centuries, owning land, worshiping freely, and trading. However,

they were often prohibited from living in cities and were not considered citizens because

they refused to serve in the military.

Mennonites became interested in leaving when, through the 1772 and later 1793

partitions of Poland, West Prussia was annexed to East Prussia and their largely amenable

conditions began to erode (Country Studies: Poland 1992). Mennonites petitioned the new

leader, Frederick the Great, for freedom of worship and exemption from military service,

which was granted although they were required to pay a fee in lieu of service and all new

land purchases were restricted (Klippenstein 1989).1 Mennonites looked to move to a more

hospitable environment without land restrictions (Klippenstein 1989; Urry 1989b).

1 At this time an increasing number of Mennonites entered trades- and crafts-work instead of farming.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46

During the same time period, Tsarina Catherine II of Russia (1762-96), who was also

known as Catherine the Great, successfully expanded and solidified the Russian empire in

Crimea, Ukraine and annexed sections of Poland. Catherine II fashioned new immigration

policies after European colonization practices in order to attract setders, solidify control and

increase agricultural productivity within the new territory. In what is modern-day Ukraine,

Catherine IPs government had forced the last independent leader ( hetman ) to resign in 1764

and a decade later razed the Zaporizhyzya Cossack Sich, which was the political and

symbolic epicentre of the Ukrainian Cossacks (Himka 2002; Wilson 2000). Viceroy Gregorii

Potemkin administered the new land, called New South Russia, which was later administered

by a governor-general residing in Odessa (Rempel 1933).

In the 1780s a Russian land agent attracted Mennonites from Prussia to New South

Russia with promises of farmland and an appealing set of rights and privileges for new

settlers. A two-man scouting party identified suitable land and negotiated an agreement on

settler privileges for the prospective colonists (a Vrivligeum) with the Russian government

(Epp 1989a; Rempel 1973; Smith 1957; Urry 1989b). The agreement was largely based on

Catherine II’s manifesto to attract foreign settlers. It included provisions for living in

enclaves, tax exemptions, loans, exemption from military service, freedom to practice

religion and so forth (Rempel 1973). The Mennonite immigrants were part of a large-scale

Russian colonization initiative that settled approximately 43,000 people, mainly from

Western Europe and the Balkans, in South Russia (Rempel 1932).2

2 The most successful appeal went to South and Western Germany; approximately 26,000 responded.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47

Founding Colonies

The first group of Mennonite emigres arrived in 1789. They consisted of 215

families or roughly 1,117 persons who founded the colony of Chortitza (Epp 1989a; Rempel

1933, 1973, 1974; Staples 2003; Toews 1982; Urry 1989b).3 Chortitza was located in the

guberniia (province) of Ekaterinoslav, one of three main guberniias in South Russia where

Mennonites settled (see Fig. 3.1). Chortitza, alternately known as Khortitsa or Khortytsia,

later became known as the “Old Colony” after daughter colonies had been established.

The settlers were primarily families headed by trades- and craftsmen looking to

become farmers and landowners. Chortitza was north of the land initially scouted. The new

land was on the Dnieper River, part of Viceroy Potemkin’s estate and included the area of

the razed Sich. There are various theories as to why the Russian authorities placed them

there, which range from benevolent protection from the war in Crimea to economic gain for

Potemkin (Rempel 1933; Urry 1989b). In all cases, historians suggest that the settlers were

largely ignorant of the region’s history upon arrival (Epp 1989a, 132; Urry 1989b).

The colonists were initially dissatisfied with the location given numerous early

challenges. These included poor soil near the river, inadequate supplies, robbery, slow

distribution of loans, and government corruption (Rempel 1973).4 However, after eight

3 Rempel (1973) notes that Russian records show 228 families arrived. He speculates the discrepancy may be related to a high death toll amongst immigrants or that a number may have not made the entire journey to Russia (293-294). 4 An 1848 description of the Old Colony reads: ...There were magnificent oak trees, poplars, elm trees, willows, wild pear and apple trees; mixed with linden and maple trees. ... Todays wonderful woods stretch over an area of 819 Desjatines and are about 25 years old, growing into this beauty when order and supervision began. ... This is the natural make up of our steppe which measures, inclusive of Schoental, 32,707 1/2 Desjatines usable and 5,134 Desjatines unusable land. The unusable land consists of sandy areas along the Dnepr river banks and areas in the gorges where the ground is mosdy clay. Along the ravines are seven inhabitable huts to be found, which were left behind by the farmers before our settlement, in the vicinity where our colony Chortitza now is. (Heese 1848)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48

EKATERINOSLAV

KHERSON j id- i i i f 1'"'

W ot m -

TAURIDA

IN N ru-li COl O’.iES SOulHEf'^i UKRAINE

A ^Staei . &«« .-4

Fig. 3.1: Mennonite Colonies in Imperial South Russia, or what is now known as southern Ukraine. The guberniia names of Kherson, Taurida and Ekaterinoslav have been added to the map to demarcate the provinces, which were generally bounded by major rivers. Map used with permission from William Schroeder and Helmut T. Huebert, Mennonite Historical Atlas (Winnipeg: Springfield Publishers, 1996), 15.

years, sixteen Mennonite villages were established on the western bank of the Dnieper and

two on the eastern bank (see Fig. 3.2). The landscape was treed; the riverbank soil was sandy

and generally not suitable for productive farming. However, there were more fertile, flat

lands back from the riverbank that proved productive and helped convince the Mennonites

to stay (Rempel 1933).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49

> colony . f """■' '' UKRAINE ' ■"' IN 1 8 6 5 N eu h o rst \ J/ 'f\ 125^" '"*' l/ \ ! ''-r^feffisr—^— Kronswelde | '; (/ ' »-->aST \ Weuenburg /

Cemetery

N euendorf

Schoenhorst Chortitza R osenthal

Insel^* C hortitza

R osengart A rbusovka B urw alde Schoenwiese

¥ j Kronsthal N ie d e r ^ ..Chortitza

R asum ovka B lum engart

Fig. 3.2: The Chortitza Colony, 1865. Used with permission from William Schroeder and Helmut T. Huebert, Mennonite Historical Atlas (Winnipeg: Springfield Publishers, 1996), 21.

A second colony was established about 100 kilometres southeast of Chortitza in the

Taurida guberiniia (see Fig. 3.1). It was called the Molotschna Colony (alternately

Moloschna, Molochnaya, or Molochnaia). The colony was bounded on the west by its

namesake Molochnaya River and on the north by a tributary called the Tokmak. The settlers

who founded the Molotschna Colony in 1804 were mainly new emigres from Prussia who

had greater financial resources at their disposal than the earlier setders. The Mennonite civil

authority in Chortitza also helped facilitate their setdement, which assisted a smoother start

up. Molotschna grew to be the largest Mennonite setdement in South Russia. Between

1804 and 1835 more than fifty villages were setded (see Fig. 3.3).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50

III

Fig. 3.3: Molotschna Colony, 1865. Used with permission from William Schroeder and Helmut T. Huebert, Mennonite Historical Atlas (Winnipeg: Springfield Publishers, 1996).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51

Molotschna was located on flat steppe with very fertile chernozom soils. When the

settlers arrived the region was covered with thick, tall grass that spread to the horizon

(Goerz 1993). It covered a total of 120,000 dessiatines, or 320 000 acres, of land. The newly

settled villages and farms quickly became productive, with livestock and silk and later with

grain production. The Molotschna settlers also encountered a few initial difficulties, such as

learning to deal with the unpredictable and sometimes severe weather, adapting their farming

techniques to the region as well as interacting with the semi-nomadic Nogai Tartars who

were partially displaced by the colony (Goerz 1993; Urry 1989b).5

Villages within Mennonite colonies followed a fairly standard pattern of

development. Twenty to thirty households formed the core of the village; household plots

ran along a central street with the farm landholdings spreading out around the village.6 This

pattern was initially implemented to increase the security of the community against raiders.

The village plots usually contained a Prussian-style house with an attached barn as well as

gardens and an orchard. As a village was established, a school and a church meetinghouse

were typically built at the centre of the village (for more on architecture, see Friesen 1986).

Colonial Administration and the Emergence of Mennonite Political Structures

Upon arrival, Mennonites were subjected to the Russian laws governing colonists.

Although Russian laws governing colonies changed over time, the initial laws established

rules for civic participation and governance that framed Mennonite society for nearly a

5 There is an interesting dynamic of Mennonite settlement in Imperial Russia and in Canada, wherein Mennonites were part of a colonization process that displaced native populations. This dynamic is not fully explored in this dissertation, but it is an area for future, fruitful study. A few Mennonite authors have noted the parallel, such as Rudy Wiebe (1994), and Leonard Doell in the third Conflict Site in Saskatchewan. 6 The layout and design of Mennonite homes became fairly standardized during the nineteenth century, largely due to the influence of an agricultural society and its strong leader Johann Cornies (Dyck 1984).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52

century. They provided boundaries for self-governance, demanded a certain degree of

separation and affected the colonists’ understanding of themselves, their linkages to Russian

society, their privileges and responsibilities within the empire. Colonies were kept separate,

in part to prevent inter-religious conflict and the proselytizing of Orthodox Church

members (Rempel 1974). Therefore, colonists did not interact extensively with local

peasants except when the latter were used as labourers — peasants and serfs were unable to

own land in the Russian empire until the 1860s.

The Russian authorities stricdy regulated land ownership. Each Mennonite family in

the original colonies received 65 dessiatines of land (approx. 176 acres), called a Wirtschaft ,

which included a one and a half dessiatine (4 acre) lot for a house and garden. The land was

given to the colony “in incontestable and perpetually inheritable possession,” with each

family enjoying their respective portion (Rempel 1974, 6). Colonists could not sell, divide or

mortgage their allotment and only one child could inherit it. Surplus lands were designated

for population growth, and smaller plots of land were set aside for houses that trade and

craftspeople could own ( Anmhner ) or rent ( 'Einmhner). Landlessness became endemic about

fifty years after the settlers had arrived and a bitter dispute arose between the enfranchised

owners and disenfranchised renters. The Russian government interceded with new laws to

alleviate the pressure and subsequendy numerous daughter colonies were established, from

Siberia to the Caucuses (Rempel 1974).7 At the peak of expansion in 1914 there were roughly

400 Mennonite colonies (for further detail see Rempel 1933, 1974; Urry 1989b).

Mennonites considered themselves distinctive, model colonists for Russia. This view

was established early on in the interactions with the land agent and were reinforced by

7 The new laws allowed land subdivision, access to surplus lands, enfranchised the landless and required colonies set aside funds for daughter colonies.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53

Catherine IPs son Tsar Paul I (1796-1801) when he codified a Charter of Privileges for

Mennonites in 1800 (Rempel 1973). The charter, based on the original immigration

agreement, begins with the preamble:

In order to authenticate our most gracious grant in response to the petition received by us from the Mennonites settled in the New Russian provinces, who, according to the testimony of their supervisors and because of their outstanding industry and their commendable way of life, can serve as an example to the others setded there, and who, because of this, have become deserving of our special attention, we have, in this charter of privileges granted to them, not only affirmed all of the rights and privileges previously agreed to, but have also, in order to encourage their thrift and concern for agriculture still more, graciously granted them additional rights in the following articles. (Friesen 1978, 119)

The articles covered land ownership as well as various economic and religious freedoms,

including an exemption from military service or supporting the military, and a standing order

“to all authorities not to restrict the privileges granted to Mennonites” (Friesen 1978, 119-

120).8 The Russian authorities also maintained a separate category for Mennonites in

records, referring to the Lutheran and Catholic German immigrants as kolonisty (colonists)

and the Mennonite immigrants as mennonisty (Rempel 1973). Mennonite colonist and

farming practices, particularly in Molotschna, were publicly studied and documented by the

Ministry of the Interior in the 1830s and ‘40s.9 Mennonites received special visits by the

Tsar and other government officials, they were identified as model farmers by the

government, ran several agricultural programs — including ones for the Nogai, and a trial

experiment to encourage Jewish agriculture development called the “ Judenplan .” The external

attention and recognition helped cement the self-image for Mennonites that they were

unique.

8 Interestingly, economic privileges included the right to own factories, as well as to brew and distil beer, vinegar and brandy. 9 For an overview see Urry (1989b, 118-121).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54

Mennonite self-governance at the village and district levels was solidified at the turn

of the nineteenth century (Rempel 1973, 1974). Governance introduced a new dynamic into

Mennonite communities, which had previously been deliberately disenfranchised by

European nobility. Self-governance brought a major shift in internal Mennonite community

power and had implications for decision-making. It altered the relationship between church

leaders and civic leaders, and gave the latter much broader responsibilities in maintaining

community order and punishment.10 Each colony was required to have a regional

governmental body as well as village assemblies. Voting members and representatives were

male landholders until 1866, when the landholding provision was removed. The village

assembly consisted of an elected mayor (Schulte), two assistants (Beisit^er), a hired clerk to

keep records, and a body of selected deputies ( ^ehnmannet ). The regional governing body was

similarly structured with an elected district mayor ( Oberschult%), assistants, and a salaried,

government-appointed secretary ( Gebeitsschreiber ). These bodies governed colony life

according to regulations set out by a Russian oversight body, which was known from 1818

forward as The Guardian Committee of the Foreign Colonists in Southern Regions of

Russia (“Vopechitel’nyi komitet o kolonistakh iu^hnago krata Rosszf’).

Russian administration of the colonies underwent major reforms in 1866 and 1867

(Rempel 1933, 1974). These reforms brought a shift to more Russian influence in the

colonies, including more Russified terminology, such as utilizing the terms “setder-

proprietor” and volost instead of colonist and colony. There were also new requirements to

10 Numerous early disputes arose around issues of order and punishment. For example, Mennonites were used to operating as religious communities with religious leaders maintaining order and discipline. Religious leaders used mechanisms to maintain order such as dialogue, chastisement or in more extreme cases, the ban, or excommunication. The new civil authorities could impose corporal punishment in order to maintain order, sometimes applying it even in moral cases, which caused friction between the civil and religious leaders. For detailed examples see Friesen (1978).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55

keep records in the Russian language.11 A more significant reform for Mennonites was the

abolition of the colonists’ large-scale exemption from military service. This sparked a strong

response in the Mennonite colonies. Between 1871 and 1874, Mennonites sent repeated

delegations to St. Petersburg to request a continued exemption (Friesen 1978, 1911;

Klippenstein 1984). Approximately 18,000 Mennonites, or one-third of the population,

chose to emigrate to the United States and Canada. In response, the Russian government

sent a famous General to negotiate a compromise with Colony leaders, and agreed to an

alternative civilian Forestry Service, which the Mennonites administered and financially

supported.12

There was a rising tide of nationalist pressure in Russia during the mid-nineteenth

century when these administrative changes occurred. Initial colonization policy had been

developed to encourage allegiance to the Tsar without religious or cultural assimilation. The

shift under Tsar Alexander III (1881-1894) increased the pressure on colonists to assimilate

(Rempel, 1973). The instruments of Russification included the changes in administrative

structure, land ownership laws, Russian language laws, and mandatory military service.

The Golden Age: Waxing Fortunes in the Nineteenth Century

Irrespective of pressures to Russify, the Mennonite colonies expanded and flourished

in the nineteenth century. Over the century, there were significant developments in

agricultural techniques, animal husbandry, education, religious practices, art and culture as

11 Within the colonies they continued to use German terms until well into the Revolution (Rempel 1974). 12 Reimer (1993) suggests that Russian Mennonites gradually developed a tradition of voluntary service. Precedents he cites for Mennonites serving as non-combatants include the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 working as medical orderlies, setting-up field hospitals in the Russo-Turkish war (1877-78), and ferrying supplies to and wounded from the front during the Crimean war in the 1850s.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56

well as industrialisation and urbanization. Mennonite history scholars frequently refer to the

Russian-Mennonite world of the early twentieth century as a Mennonite Commonwealth

because of the relative autonomy of colonies, strong economic base, social institutions and

the growing religious and political ties between the various colonies (Friesen 1986, 1999;

Rempel 1973, 1974; Urry 1989b, 1992,1994b).

Agriculture, Social Welfare and Education. Areas where Mennonites were

particularly proud of their colonies’ growth and development in the nineteenth century were

agriculture, social welfare and education. In the early 1800s an agricultural organization

called the “Society for the Advancement of Agriculture and Industry” was established.13 The

Society and its leader were instrumental in pioneering new agricultural techniques, livestock

breeding, developing education standards, promoting external trade, and even mandating

tree planting in villages (Braun 1929; Dyck 1984; Epp 1989a; Goerz 1993).14 Social and

welfare institutions began with mutual fire insurance and included care for orphans, hospitals

and other medical services (the first hospital opened in 1887), education for the deaf and

mute (1885), banking systems and post offices (Friesen 1978).

In the early years of settlement education was a low priority for Mennonites, but it

13 It was usually known by its shortened tide the LMndivirtschaftlicher Verein and led by a strong but controversial Mennonite entrepreneur, Johann Cornies, who was elected lifetime Chairman (Dyck 1984). 14 Through the leadership of the Agricultural Society, Mennonites also moved from stock-breeding to arable farming, extended their crop area and utilized new machinery, fertilizers and cultivating techniques (Rempel 1933). The impact on the villages was captured in a quote from a visitor to the colonies in 1855: The Mennonites’ neatness and love of order can be seen at first glance the moment one enters a colony. Apart from the love for order, which can be seen in the regularity of the overall village layout and the general arrangement of the farms, there is also the neatness and tidiness with which everything is cared for and maintained. No matter how rapidly one travels through such a colony ... one is left with the conviction that responsible and orderly people live here. Entering the home and its individual rooms one finds the same Dutch neatness and superior order prevailing there (Goerz 1993, 151-152, quoted from Alexander Petzhold's "Riese im westlichen und siidlichen europaischen Russland in 1855" (Leipzig, 1864)).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57

became an integral part of the communities during the nineteenth century.15 By mid

century, quality elementary and secondary schools for boys and girls were established in

villages, and teachers participated in regular teacher’s conferences. Schooling occurred

primarily in German until 1881 when Russian reforms meant the Ministry of Public

Education more closely controlled teacher’s credentials and curriculum in the colonies. As a

result of the reforms, there was more Russian content and the language of instruction

changed to Russian for many courses. In order to not lose control over their education

system, the Mennonite Colonies improved their teacher-training institutions to meet the new

standards; they also expanded women’s education and higher education institutions (Rempel

1974).16 In 1914 there were about 2,000 students in secondary schools in the colonies,

approximately 100 teachers, and Mennonites were becoming more worldly, studying at

Russian and European Universities (Braun 1929; Ens 1989; Loewen 1990, 2003).17

Religious and Civic Institutions. At the turn of the twentieth century,

Mennonites were also developing more cohesive religious and civic institutions.18 Large

schisms and animosities had marred the nineteenth century, although towards the end of the

century cooperation grew with the joint administration of the Forestry Service and various

educational institutions (Dueck 1989).19 The two major Mennonite religious conferences

15 Improvements were made under Johann Cornies tenure in the Agricultural Society (for overview see Braun 1929; Ens 1989; Friesen 1978, 689-808). 16 Mennonites built five secondary schools for girls around the turn of the century, including three in Molotschna and one in Chortitza (Ens 1989). 17 Jakob and Johann Esau, brothers, were the first Mennonite university graduates and became successful urbanites in Ekaterinoslav. Jakob opened a hospital and eye clinic, Johann built the first steel manufacturing plant, became a city engineer, and was eventually elected Mayor (Epp 1989b). 18 By 1910, Mennonite culture was also maintained through the regular periodicals and newspapers {Christian Family Calendar, Christian Almanac, Mennonite Almanac, Die Friedenstimme, Der Botschajter) (Friesen 1978). 19 Two major reform movements emerged during the 19th century, responding to external influences as well as internal colony disagreements over religious codes of behaviour and practice. The first, more minor

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58

were the General Conference of Mennonite Churches in Russia (usually referred to as

Alkgemeine (Bundes) Konferen^der Vertreter samtlicher Mennonitengemeinden in Bussland) and the

Mennonite Brethren Conference ( Bundeskonferen%). They formally agreed to join together

into one All-Mennonite conference in 1910. However, there was tension regarding the issue

of evangelism, which Russian law prohibited except for a five-year period between 1905 and

1910. The Mennonite Brethren strongly supported evangelism while the General

Conference viewed it as a liability in negotiating their status as a “confessional” group rather

than a “sect” with the government; they were pursuing “confessional” status as new, more

restrictive laws were being applied to “sects” (Friesen 1978, 1997; Resolution of a Meeting

Concerning 1914).20 The internal dispute was not resolved before the war broke out in 1914

and then the revolution in 1917.

Political Awareness. Mennonite leaders were alert to political changes that affected

their status as a semi-autonomous group in the decaying Russian empire. Following the

1905 revolution many of the restrictions that were imposed on minorities in the late

nineteenth century were removed and some old privileges were restored (Service 1997).

There were also constitutional reforms that included an elected parliament (Duma), the

formation of political parties, and greater civil rights including religious toleration and

freedom of the press. It was during this period that evangelism became legal for a short

period of time. Mennonites were also closely watching the proposals for land ownership

reformist movement emerged in 1812 and was called derogatively the little church (Kleine Gemeinde) (see Plett 1985). The second reform movement, heavily influenced by German pietism, proved to be larger and more successful; it emerged in 1860 and was called the Bruderschaft, later named the Mennonite Brethren (see Toews 1975; Friesen 1978). 20 For an overview of the full debate see (Dueck 1989, 1995). The minutes of the 1914 meeting are re printed in Dueck (1997, 132-136); as well as in Dueck (1995, 472-475).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59

reforms in Russia. A sub-set of Mennonites had even become involved in formal Russian

politics and two Mennonites were elected to the third and fourth Dumas: Herman

Bergmann in the third Duma (1907-1912) and Peter Schroeder in the fourth Duma (1912-

1917) (Dueck 1989).

At the cusp of World War I, land was a large source of wealth in the Russian empire,

and the average Mennonite farmer was considerably better off than the neighbouring

Russian or Ukrainian peasant.21 Peasants were often labourers on Mennonite farms or

worked in Mennonite-owned factories. Relationships between Mennonites and their

neighbours varied in the different villages and colonies, ranging from very good to very

strained.22 There was also a disparity of wealth within Mennonite communities. There were

some very wealthy, large-scale estate landowners as well as quite poor, landless Mennonites

in the villages.23 The wealthy Mennonite estate owners would employ poorer Mennonite

farmers as part of their labour force on the farm — some of whom might supervise the other

peasant workers.24 The landless Mennonite villagers were generally not well off and had

limited levels of education. In 1914 there were approximately 104,000 Mennonites in Russia

spread across four major mother setdements and about 15 major daughter colonies, with

large numbers of hamlets and estates for a total of approximately 400 communities. While

Mennonites viewed this growth proudly, Russian nationalist factions viewed such expansion

with concern.

21 By 1914, after a period of about 10 years of land reforms, roughly 40 percent of peasants owned their land (Klebnikov 1990). 22 For example, see Urry (1994). 23 Research indicates that about 70 percent of Mennonites were farmers, living on land they owned, about 25 percent possessed little or no land, and less than 2 percent were very wealthy estate owners (Urry 1989a, 118-119). 24 For an account of life on an estate from a young Mennonite girl’s view see Baerg (1985).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60

As noted above, Mennonites were proud of their agricultural and industrial

productivity. In summarizing economic indicators, Mennonite historian Rempel notes:

None of [the colonists], however reached such a high degree of economic prosperity and cultural development as did the German colonists and above all, the Mennonites. ... It was they who converted the south in the seventies of the last century from sheep-rearing into a grain-growing country. Before the Great War they produced in Kherson, Tavrida and Ekaterinoslav some 100,000,000 puds of wheat for export alone.25 (Rempel 1932, 50-51)

Industrial enterprises also proved lucrative. Some commonly cited economic figures were

that in 1911 Mennonites owned 73 motor- and steam-driven mills and 105 smaller mills,

which together comprised 51.8 percent of the Ukraine milling industry; 26 Mennonite

agricultural implement factories produced 10 percent of all agricultural implements in

southern Ukraine, and about 6.5 percent of the total Russian production (Epp 1989b). In

1911, the eight largest Mennonite producers of agricultural machines accounted for 6.2

percent of the total Russian production (Ehrt 1932) — a large percentage for a small minority.

Components of Mennonite Identity in 1914

The above background and context provides a window into understanding

Mennonite identity at the beginning of this Conflict Site. By 1914 there was a strong sense

of in-group cohesion and Mennonite-ness that included a state-based nationalism. The

Mennonite colonists felt they had developed a unique identity and garnered success within

the Russian empire. There were several components to this identity, which combined

elements of their religious, economic, social and political lives.

Mennonite identity was in part tied to being a chosen, model people within the

empire. They viewed their history and privileges in Russia as fulfilling their religious calling

25 One pud equals thirty-six English pounds.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61

to be a productive people: Russia chose them to be model agriculturalists, they responded,

and in the process God had blessed them. For example, the editor of the Mennonite

periodical Friedensstimme, Abraham Kroeker, wrote, “We were called to Russia to cultivate the

steppes and we have done that. This has accrued to our benefit, but also to our neighbours,

the Russians and other groups”(1914).26 Mennonites were proud of the hard work that

produced the agricultural and industrial gains noted above. They still saw themselves as

primarily agriculturalists although various industrial and urban successes were gradually

changing this perception.

The relationship between Mennonites and wealth was uneasy. The wealth that was

generated from their hard work was generally interpreted as a sign of God’s blessing

although there were some people in the Mennonite community decried this pride and

acquisition. For example, Kroeker, in the same article as above, suggested that increasing

pressures against Mennonites might be linked to growing luxury, self-indulgence and risky

speculation. An example of the fairly high level of wealth acceptance is captured in an off

hand way in a simple remark by one Mennonite in a letter to Friedenstimme: “Our home

training makes us very unassuming, quiet, and withdrawn. We like to work and spend, but

we do not make a big fuss about that” (Friesen 1914). In some respects the wealthy estate

owners were viewed very favourably, and other Mennonites admired their finery, estates, and

beautiful horses with a sense of pride that Mennonites were so accomplished. The estate

owners also made considerable financial donations to the social welfare organizations and

26 This section was translated by John B. Toews (1982, 74).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62

the forestry service, which the community appreciated. However, there was also an

undercurrent of criticism against the wealthy, their worldly possessions and pride.27

Politically, Mennonites were very loyal to the empire. They were particularly

thankful to the Tsar for the protection and privileges they had received:

We have been given land, privileges and civic freedom. Are not our village and district assemblies miniature parliaments? Have not our schools had sufficient freedom so that we could preserve our customs and identity for more than 100 years...? All the benevolences (we have experienced) entwine our souls, they tug at our hearts, so that we must love our fatherland with an upright, genuine love. ... our forefathers found protection in Russia under the wings of the double eagle; our religious conscience has received the greatest protection under the mighty scepter of the Romanovs. (Unruh 1914a)28

The concern that Mennonites needed to be faithful citizens of the empire also arose in the

intra-church debate over evangelism. The argument against evangelism was presented in

very state-centric terms: “The government prohibits preaching to the adherents of the state

religion. For 125 years the Mennonites have honored this law; now the government should

not be led to believe that the Mennonites have become unfaithful to these basic principles”

(Resolution of a Meeting Concerning 1914). There were some concerns over the land

legislation and the issue of evangelism but criticisms against the government were muted and

an attitude of thankfulness prevailed in public discourse.

Mennonite identification with the state might be called a hybrid identity. Mennonites

used the German language in internal interactions — Low German at home and High

German in the education system and during worship. They regularly drew upon German

periodicals, religious resources, and felt some identification with the other German colonists

27 Some younger Mennonites in the villages identified strongly with the Marxist critiques against capitalism, which became evident in the discourse around the revolution and Mennonite’s relationship to it (All-Mennonite Congress 1917). There were newspaper reports of some Mennonites being killed because they were Bolshevik supporters (Letter 1918; Halbstadter Volost 1918). 28 Also translated in Toews (1982, 73-74).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63

in Russia.29 Mennonites, as noted above, were also loyal to the Tsar and considered Russia

their home.30 They did not see any contradictions with these Mennonite, German and

Russian pieces of their identity. Several Mennonite histories were written at the start of the

twentieth century (Goerz 1907; Isaac 1908; Friesen 1911; Epp 1909, 1910). They traced the

history of the Mennonites to Dutch ancestry rather than German ancestry and in doing so

emphasized another element of Mennonite national identity — Dutch.31

Finally, alongside these nationalist sentiments, Mennonites considered themselves a

unique, quiet, peace-loving people. Historian Harvey Dyck has observed that the term

Mennonitisches Volklein was widely used for in-group publications prior to WWI (1982, 317).

This terminology supports an interpretation of Mennonite identity as both unique and

dependent upon other identity groups. Volklein literally means “little people” and its use

indicates a sense of Mennonite self-identity that, while not equivalent to a national Volk

(people), was nevertheless significant. Other terms used in literature are das Mennonitische

Volk, the Mennonite people, or unser Volk, our people.32 It is interesting to note that while

Mennonites were quite strongly cohesive, and in the process of coming together across intra

group divisional lines, there was still considerable in-group dissent. Leader and historian

P.M. Friesen, summarizes a meeting to discuss unification with the statement: “Such were

the formal and substantive developments of the discussions in Schonwiese and in Halbstadt.

29 Many joint resources and news reports from the German colonies were published in German language periodicals like Friedenstimme, The Odessa Zeitung and a German Christian family calendar, to which Mennonites and non-Mennonites contributed. 30 For an analysis of identification with Russian nationalism in different areas of Mennonite life see Berg (1999), Epp (1986), Toews (1982). 31 These Mennonite history writers also noted Mennonites contributions to the building-up of South Russia, hard work, communal agricultural and industrial productivity and loyalty to the Tsar. There have been numerous discussions on the content of these histories (Dyck 1982; Friesen 1988; Reimer 1993,1989; Staples 2003; Urry 1994a). 32 For discussions on these terms see Toews (1974b, 407), Dyck (1982) or Urry (1994b).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64

Alongside, however, there flowed another stream, which recently has threatened to grow

into the well-known Mennonite torrent of discord” (Friesen 1997, 144).33 This statement

captured the tensions between unity and conference as well as congregational independence

within the Mennonite community at the time.

In sum, Mennonite identity in 1914 wove together political, social, religious and

economic strands. Mennonites perceived themselves as good, faithful Russian citizens who

were a small, semi-autonomous ethno-national group within the empire. They were a

religiously committed group that sought the ideal of communal support through various

institutions and charity work, and the ideal of non-resistance through alternative forestry

service. Mennonites were also strongly independent, which was evidenced in the form of

individual family farming they practiced and the relationship between churches and the

larger conference body. Mennonites saw themselves as a blessed people, who had prospered

as they had followed their agricultural calling. In 1914, Mennonites were enterprising and

optimistic about the future of Russia and their place in it.

A Decade of Conflict: 1914 - 1924

While Mennonites were alert to some political events that impacted their lives they

were also quite insular within the colonies and daughter colonies. For example, while they

were aware of political trends and legislation dealing with religion and land ownership it

appears they were less aware of the national political tensions or, more specifically, less

aware of the implications these tensions might have for them. Flistorian John B. Toews

suggests “The ideologically confident and materially expanding Mennonite World of the

33 The undercurrent of dissent here refers to the unresolved issue of evangelism between the General and Mennonite Brethren conferences.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65

early twentieth century had little warning of its impending demise until 1914. Judging from

the reports in Der Bntschafter and Friedenstimme, the outbreak of the World War I took the

Mennonite world completely by surprise” (1982, 46). Yet there were signs to be read. The

following section provides an overview of the significant events that occurred during the

period 1914 to 1924 in Ukraine, and identifies some of the dynamics occurring within the

Mennonite community. This information is presented to give a more detailed understanding

of the Conflict Site, the context within which the Mennonite colonies were embedded and in

which their identity was articulated. An analysis of the identity themes that emerged during

this Conflict Site follows the description of the context, and includes extensive quotes from

the grounded theory analysis with respect to Mennonite categories of identification.

World War I

In 1914 the Romanov dynasty still ruled Russia. The dynasty had just barely

withstood an ill-fated war against Japan (1904-1905) and threats of an overthrow in 1905.

Its survival was linked to Tsar Nicholas II’s concessions to form a representative parliament,

called the Duma. The first and second Dumas (1906, 1907) were both terminated early by

the Tsar, who did not approve of their legislative direction. The third and fourth Dumas

(1907-1912; 1912-1917) each lasted the full five years, which followed a revision in election

rules that ushered in representatives more favorably disposed towards the Tsar.34 In the

summer of 1914 Russia announced a general mobilization following the assassination of

Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and Austria’s declaration of war on Serbia (Service 1997). In

quick succession, Germany declared war on France and Russia, and the triple Entente held

34 It was under these revised rules that the Mennonites Bergmann and Schroeder were elected to the 3rd and 4th Dumas respectively.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66

when Britain — in solidarity with France and Russia — declared war against Germany and

Austria. World War I brought with it both the problems of war and the benefits of

nationalist public support for the Tsar in Russia.

With the opening of war, there was general patriotic fervor across Russia, which

helped quell thoughts of revolution. The nation prepared for war against Germany, which

meant there was considerable anti-German sentiment within Russia. Mennonites also joined

the patriotic Russian response, mosdy via volunteering for alternative service options in the

medical or forestry service, although some also volunteered for full military service.35 There

were patriotic statements and calls for service to the fatherland in the Mennonite papers.36

For example, an Elder in Halbstadt, Molotschna, called upon young male recruits to perform

a “Samaritan service for the wounded and sick on the batdefield, [and to do that] with God,

for czar and Fatherland”(Unruh 1914b).37 Or, the farewell to recruits where the speaker

affirmed giving unto Caesar what was Caesars’ and the assembled group sang the Russian

national anthem as well as a hymn requesting the Grace of God to be with the group

(Suderman 1914).38 Between 1914 and 1917, over 6,000 Mennonite men served in medical

service and approximately 7,500 served in the forestry service — 12 to 13 percent of the total

Mennonite population in Russia (Reimer 1993).3

joined the All-Russian Union of Zemstvos (3,500-4,000), which operated the bulk of the

35 There were 1000 volunteers in the first few months of war (Reimer 1993; Toews 1982), with the Old Colony Chortitza showing a stronger response likely because of its proximity to the city of Alexandrovsk. 36 The situation in the colonies during World War I is explored by a number of authors (see Klippenstein 1984; Reimer 1993; Toews 1982; Urry 1994b). 37 Translated in Toews (1982, 69-70). 38 Translated in Toews (1982, 72-73). 39 A significant proportion although the sheer number paled next to the 14 million men conscripted into the Russian Imperial Army by the end of 1916

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67

hospital trains servicing the front lines. The remainder served in the Red Cross or similar

medical service organizations.40

Mennonites were subjected to anti-German sentiment and actions during and

following the war years. Already before the war broke out there were legislative proposals

(1910 and 1912) prohibiting the sale and rental of land to and by Germans or other non-

Russians, as well as condemnations of the Forestry Department for permitting Mennonites

to “escape their national obligations with the substitutes of ‘polishing shoes and drinking tea’

in the forestry camps of Ukraine” (Klippenstein 1984, 141). Central complaints against

German-speaking colonists in Russia included the charge that colonists had bought all the

best lands in south and west Russia, had failed to raise the level of the peasantry, had

prospered unfairly due to their former privileged standing, and that sects received financial

support from the German government to undermine the Russian Church (see particularly

Bondar 1983).41 In November 1914 the use of German in publications was banned and

public meetings were prohibited. Other areas where biases against non-Russians emerged

were in teaching and military service. All teachers were required to be Russian nationals

unless teaching religion or German language courses (Braun 1929). A group of Mennonite

medical orderlies were arrested as prisoners of war in 1915 and released only after extensive

advocacy in Moscow.42

40 Other medical service organizations included the All-Russian Union of Cities, Red Cross, and the United Council of Noblemen (Reimer 1993, 137,147; also see Rempel and Dueck 1993; Epp, 1989) 41 Rempel explores the critiques (1932, 52-53). 42 For more details see Rempel and Dueck (1993).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In 1915, land reform proposals were finally implemented. They were designed to

provide land for Russian peasants by nationalizing enemy-affiliated colonist lands.43 The

February Laws required the “liquidation of land ownership and land tenure of Russia

subjects of Austrian, Hungarian, or German descent in the boundary zones” (Rempel 1932,

49).44 Mennonites sent two delegations to Moscow to appeal their inclusion in the category

of subjects being forced to liquidate lands, based on their Dutch ancestry. The appeal was

denied upon the commission’s decision that they were German by culture and therefore

subject to the laws (Rempel 1932).45 The land laws existed into the revolution. Mennonites

had a variety of reactions to being identified as German, ranging from agreeing to the

identification with Germany, to embracing a Russian, Dutch or independent Mennonite

identity (discussed further in the following section) — or a combination thereof, such as

displayed in Unruh’s comments quoted at the start of this dissertation.

It should be noted that anti-German sentiment was not uniform in Russia since there

were large numbers of German-speaking citizens in the Empire. While some papers hailed

the land laws and other similar acts as a way of helping to liberate Russia from German

oppression, other papers expressed fears about the effects of liquidation on agriculture

production and emphasized the need to maintain production as well as attested to the loyalty

of the colonists (Rempel 1932).46 There were also vocal defences of German colonists in the

43 The third and fourth Duma’s had rejected similar land reform packages, but war led to a political shift and desire to at least appear sensitive to peasants’ needs and war losses (Rempel 1932, 51). 44 Rempel quotes Sobranie U^akonenii, 1915, arts. 350 and 351. 45 One delegation was sent from the Council of the Mobilized Mennonites in Moscow, and included Aaron P. Toews, Peter Sawatzky (both Mennonite orderlies) and civilian Viktor Heese (reputed to be an actor in the Moscow Art Theatre, and son of a Mennonite lawyer in Ekaterinoslav). The second delegation was sent from the Council of Mennonite Mobilized Men in Ekaterinoslav, and consisted of Peter Funk (attorney), Heinrich Andres and Gerhard Sawatzky (both teachers who served as medics with the Red Cross) (Rempel and Dueck 1993,155). 46 Liberal papers included Riech and Russkia Vedomosti (Rempel 1932, 55).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69

Duma during the war years. For example, the Socialist-Revolutionary Alexander Kerenksy

in August 1915 argued: .. And you, who stand for the sacredness of private ownership,

you wish to enact laws of compulsory expropriation of the land of the colonists-

peasants.. .You are the destroyers not only of the principle of private ownership but of the

foundations of right and justice” (quoted in Rempel 1932, 60) .47 However, voices for

moderation did not prevent the land-laws from being passed.

Revolution

Support for the war and the Tsar began to fray as the national economy suffered and

early war gains were lost (Fitzpatrick 1994; Kotkin 1998; Service 1997). Latent political

unrest returned. Rapid inflation, transportation difficulties, tremendous war losses, a

shortage of industrial goods, labour strikes, dissatisfied soldiers, rumours around the failings

of the monarchy, peasant calls for land and class antagonisms all fuelled the February

Revolution. On 26 February 1917, Nicholas II closed the Duma, which thrust Duma

members from across a broad political spectrum into opposition. A rapid series of events

ensued and on March 2 the Tsar abdicated. The Provisional Government that formed on

March 3 was a compilation of members from the Kadet, Menshevik and Socialist-

Revolutionary parties struggling to maintain leadership as the war situation worsened. The

Bolsheviks, catalyzed by Lenin’s return from Switzerland (in April 1917), solidified their

membership base, and they successfully overthrew the Provisional Government in Petrograd

on 25 October 1917. The Second Congress of Soviet Workers and Soldiers ratified the

Bolshevik’s seizure of power after the Mensheviks walked out of the meeting in protest. On

47 Or, Menshevik Mikhail Skobelev stated: . .However, we shall defend Russian subjects of German descent most resolutely... for we know that we do so only to the honor of Russia and the Russian people”(quoted in Rempel 1932, 60).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70

26 October Lenin signed two important documents: 1) the Decree on Peace, which

described WWI as the greatest crime against humanity; and 2) the Decree on Land, which

called on peasants to undertake radical agrarian reforms.

The revolution provided an opportunity for the Mennonite community to resume

activities prohibited in 1914, and with those activities came optimism. The Mennonite

conferences began to meet again, and one Mennonite newspaper — the Friedensstimme —

resumed publication.48 The fall of the Tsar was met with a range of emotions among

Mennonites, from open jubilation to fear and uncertainty over what was to come.49 In 1917,

enthusiasm and a look toward a positive future with new freedoms under a newly emergent,

nationalist Ukrainian Provisional Government emerged. There was a general sentiment that

Mennonite communities would work to help build a better Russia. For example, the

Minister who opened the All-Mennonite Congress in August 1917 stated, “All citizens of

Russia are at work to establish a new commonwealth on a new foundation, and there it is

essential that the Mennonites too put their hands to it” (All-Mennonite Congress 1917).

There was a range of opinions around socialism and the degree to which socialism and

Mennonite faith could be consistent. The younger men, who had served as Medical

orderlies and been exposed to more radical social elements and experiences during WWI,

argued that there was consistency (All-Mennonite Congress 1917). The older men and

leaders tended to disagree, although they saw the need to integrate the old ways with the new

social order being created (All-Mennonite Congress 1917; General Conference of the

48 Friedenstimme was reprinted under several names, including Nachrichten des “Volksfreund, ’’Flugblatt, and Volksfreund, and re-named Friedenstimme during the German occupation of 1918. It was published until late 1920. For a more detailed examination o f the print culture more generally see (Reimer 1989, 229). 49 These themes are also captured by Epp (1989a), Rempel (1992), and Urry (1995; 1994b).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71

Mennonite Church in Russia 1917).50 The enthusiasm and hope of being part of a positive

change in Ukraine in 1917, unfortunately, was to be short-lived.51

The abdication of Tsar Nicholas created a political vacuum with numerous parties

vying for power. In Russia, the struggles between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks took front

stage. In Ukraine, the emergent Provisional Government formed an initial central council

(Rada) in the Dnieper area of Ukraine, which struggled for independence until 1920

(Armstrong 1990; Lieven 1999; Magosci 1996; Reid 1999; Wilson 2000). Ukrainian elections

were thwarted by a Bolshevik assault on Kiev in early 1918.52 As part of the Treaty of Brest-

Litovsk, German troops occupied parts of Ukraine in 1918 and installed a conservative

“Hetman” leader (Paul Skoropadskii) in April. The Hetman leadership collapsed in

December, and the Ukraine People’s Republic (Ukrains’ka Narodna Rsspublika— UNR)

replaced it for a period of almost two years. Ukraine was consolidated into the Soviet

Socialist Republic of Ukraine in 1920 after Kiev was occupied and an armistice was signed

with Poland. Throughout this time there were military clashes and rival forces sweeping

through the countryside. The two primary forces were the White anti-Bolshevik and Red

Communist armies, there were also a variety of other militarized groups including Ukrainian

nationalist forces, local peasant groups attacking former landlords, and larger semi-political

50 This interpretation is also supported by Toews (1975). 51 For example, the 1917 biography of Heinrich Unruh, quoted at the start of Chapter One, underscores the mix of uncertainty, fear and optimism at the time: “The government we have today, does not deserve to be identified as such. For this reason, that is, because Russia has no stable and strong government, everything threatens to fall apart... But the power (not to say tyranny) of the Russian state church is over and done with. And that means: an open road for evangelism! A bright light in these dark times. Everything else is veiled in darkness!” (Unruh 1917). 52 Western Ukraine (Galicia, Volhynia, Transcarpathia, and Bukovyna) was part of the Habsburg empire until its collapse in 1918. The provisional government attempted to develop a separate Ukrainian state but was unsuccessful and the lands were divided between Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania until they were reunited with eastern Ukraine in 1945.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72

movements such as Nestor Machno’s Anarchist forces, which were the largest and located in

the southern steppe (Armstrong 1990; Sysyn 1977).

The original Mennonite colonies of Chortitza and Molotschna, as well as numerous

daughter colonies, were located in the southern Steppe. These fell within the ravaged and

chaotic moving civil war front, with its main fighting forces being the White and Red

armies.53 The area was also subjected to attacks by Machno’s forces, which periodically sided

with the Red army, as well as some unaligned groups. Particularly problematic for the

Mennonite colonies were local robberies and peasant land squatters motivated by the

Bolshevik decree on land reform. Because of the general looting, a number of deaths, and

breakdown of law, the Mennonite colonies welcomed the German occupying army in 1918

with open arms. Many saw them as liberators. In an article expounding on the negatives of

the village soviet system and anarchy of the civil war preceding the occupation, the author

states, “Thanks to God that we here are well protected by Germany and Austria’s military

might from these rabble thieves”(From the Time of the Governing 1918). During the period

of German and Austrian occupation, revenge attacks against Bolsheviks occurred, including

some that were based on information provided by Mennonites, which had negative

consequences when the army retreated later that year. The occupying German force also

provided support to Mennonites and the other German colonists to develop self-defence

units, which they armed and trained (General United Mennonite Conference 1918).

Mennonites in various villages in Chortitza and Molotschna formed the controversial

self-defence force ( Selbstschut ^), primarily to fight against the Anarchist-bandits. This resort

to armed defence was controversial because it contradicted the basic early Mennonite

53 Mennonite historian Cornelius Dyck (1967) suggests that in some regions the front passed through Mennonite villages more than twenty times.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73

doctrine of non-resistance. In June 1918, Mennonite delegates spent almost a day and a half

of a three-day Conference debating the subject of non-resistance and self-defence. The

debate ranged in scope and content; it included issues of scriptural interpretation, Mennonite

identity, commitment, sacrifice, justice, defence of fatherland, and protection from robbers

and murderers. The group finally voted to leave the matter of deciding whether to defend

themselves with arms to an individual’s conscience, but generally affirmed the historical

principal of non-resistance (General United Mennonite Conference 1918).54 Interestingly,

the timing of the decision was partly pushed forward by the occupying German

commandant’s office who demanded a list of all those who refused to take up arms.55 The

Selbstschut^ had a fairly short life and primarily focused fighting against bandits and Machno’s

forces, even when the latter was aligned with the Red Army. Mennonite communities

perceived the Selbstschut^ as successful in early skirmishes. However, gains were quickly lost

and some of the massacres in Mennonite communities, such as that in Blumenort, were seen

as reprisals against the Selbstschut ^ (Neufeld 1919).56 Eventually some selbstschut-:^ units joined

the White Army and retreated with it into Crimea. A number of Mennonites also took up

arms and joined bandit groups or fought with the Red Army.57

The full force of the revolution, war and chaos descended on Mennonite colonies

after the withdrawal of the German forces. Many Mennonites supported the White Army’s

54 The actual wording of the resolution was: “The United Mennonite Conference holds firmly to the prevailing confession of nonresistance. It finds it to be grounded in the actions of Jesus in his earthly life and in His Word. It recommends, however, that the churches place no restraints of conscience on those who think differently on this question” (General United Mennonite Conference 1918). 55 Various authors explore this decision and hypothesize on why it occurred. Toews (1995), for example, suggests that the origins of the Selbstschut^yjzxe. rooted in the dilution of nonresistant teaching, cultural pro-Germanism, a reaction against earlier horrors, and active recruitment by German army officers (P-52)- 56 Translated by JB Toews (1995). This point of view is supported by a number of historians (Loewen and Urry 1991; Reimer 1993; Toews 1995, 1967). 57 For example, see Baerg (1922), Unruh (1918)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74

conservative political agenda, particularly the estate owners. These political affiliations were

largely moot in the face of occupying armies moving through the area, requisitioning goods,

billeting in homes and enlisting able-bodied men — although there were stories of poorer

Mennonites who were sympathetic to Bolshevist-ideals being spared death or robbery.

Machno’s less disciplined Anarchist-bandit forces left a particular scar on the Mennonite

colonies with a number of incidents of large-scale massacres, an undocumented number of

rapes, and the spread of venereal diseases and typhus in the villages.58 For example, a

description in three years retrospect: “The national (ethnic) \sic\ hatred was particularly

observable during the dreadful time of the Machno terror. The insurgents and particularly

the population of the surrounding Russian villages have tortured and murdered the

Mennonites and sacked and pillaged their colonies” (Ens, Klassen, and others 1922).59

Military requisitions and bandit raids took the majority of movable assets, from livestock and

wagons to food and clothing, from the Mennonite colonies. The Mennonite settlements

were relatively more wealthy than surrounding peasant villages, and likely targeted for that

reason.60 The wealthy estates were among the first properties to be plundered.

By 1919, villages in Chortitza were devastated. Soldiers remained in the area for

billeting, people were worn out physically and mentally from destruction and disease. The

area was almost paralysed by typhus, there were also high number of orphans, internally

displaced, and depleted food stores. An inhabitant in Molotschna reported:

58 There are at least two debates around Machno, one of which centres on the degree to which he was politically motivated by Anarchism, and the second around his degree o f Ukrainian nationalism (Sysyn 1977). Mennonite historians tend to argue that he and his troops were little more than opportunistic bandits (see the particularly emphatic comments on this debate in Rempel 2002). 59 For personal accounts of the time period see (Baerg 1985; Rempel and Rempel Carlson 2002; Toews 1995; Neufeld 1977); for historical summaries see (Toews 1967, 1974a; Kommissions-Verlag der Mennon. Fliichtlingsfursorge E.V. Heilbronn a. Reszar 1921). 60 This interpretation, also suggested by Dyck, Staples and Toews (2004) is consistent with basic military strategy for an un-funded armed force.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75

Following the withdrawal of the Machnovze a number of Schoenwieser undertook a reconnaissance trip to Einlage, Chortitza and Rosenthal. The picture that presented itself to them was so heart-rending as to defy description. The inhabitants, due to mistreatment, billeting and starvation had become totally apathetic, wanted only to die, and so became unresisting victims of typhus ... At first coffins were still being made: later there was no one to make them. Then “sleep benches” with the feet knocked off were utilized, but they too ran out and then bodies were laid into the grave, the face covered with a board and buried. (Lepp 1920)

The requisitions and robberies meant there was virtually no working farm equipment nor

healthy horses or cows for ploughing; planting and harvesting were minimal. When the less

severely affected Mennonites in Molotschna heard about the suffering in Chortitza they sent

material aid. A three-member Study Commission ( Studienkommission ) was formed in

Molotschna and dispatched abroad to inform Mennonites in Europe and North America of

the plight of Mennonites in Russia, secure aid for the sick and starving, and identify possible

locations for immigration and settlement in December 1919.61

Immediate recovery from the civil war was hampered by new hardships. The

nascent Soviet government placed high levies and taxes on farmers. Initially payment-in-

kind levies were set at 10 percent of “normal” production. Elowever, the shortages of

working farm equipment, animal power, seed grain and drought conditions meant

production was far below normal and the levy was prohibitive. In 1921 Benjamin B. (B.B.)

Janz summed up the situation in a letter to American Relief Agency in the United States,

reporting: “Shortly after the order for the 1 million pud, there came another one for further

large deliveries of grain from the new crop. When we add to this the national policy - or

rather harassment - as practised in Tokmak and tolerated in Alexandrovsk, there will be no

bread left and then we in the South, barring the intervention of God, will be the first to

61 For details see Epp (1982,147; 1962, 44-48).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76

starve” (Janz 1921c). Food shortages were widespread and people resorted to selling their

remaining possessions to buy flour and other staples. Problems with thievery became

widespread. Hunger and starvation were imminent.

In 1920 and 1921 Mennonites in the United States organized to send assistance to

Mennonites in Ukraine in late summer of 1920. After a lengthy period of negotiation with

the governments in Moscow and Kharkov, the American Mennonite Relief (AMR) gained

approval to bring in aid in October 1921 (Epp 1982; Hiebert and Miller 1929). It is

suggested that the independent Ukrainian government was particularly interested in

approving AMR aid because in doing so, they garnered a certain degree of international

legitimacy (Janz 1921d). Before the aid finally arrived hunger, poverty, and suffering were

widespread in Chortitza and Molotschna. Desperate for survival, people ate whatever they

could, including reportedly cats, dogs, crows and rats (Klassen 1922). One of the aid

workers from the United States who went to assess the situation wrote back to his colleague

in 1920, “They are almost at the point where they do not care a bit who rules them or what

happens to them. They are discouraged, pessimistic and hopeless” (Miller 1922b).

Nevertheless, Mennonites in Ukraine formed a new civic organization to assist their

own recovery, which was headed by B.B. Janz.62 The new civic organization was created at a

special, and final, All-Mennonite Conference in Alexanderwohl, Molotschna, on February

19, 1921. It was originally called the Union of Mennonite Communities and Groups in

South Russia ( Verband der Gemeinden und Gruppen des Sueden Russland), shortened to the Union

of Mennonites of South Russia ( Verband der Mennoniten Sued-Rjissland), and more frequently

known as the Union or Verband. However, at this point in time religious organizations no

62 Janz insisted that the Mennonites re-affirm the principal of non-resistance before taking the position.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77

longer had legal standing in Ukraine or Russia. The religious reference to Mennonites

therefore had to be removed from the name in order to receive official approval by the

Soviet government. It was renamed the Union of Citizens of Dutch Lineage (Verband der

Buerger Hollaendischer Herkunfl) on April 25, 1922. The Verband’s basic purpose was to restore

the Mennonite colonies economically as well as socially. A similar sister organization was

formed in Russia.

The political, legal and economic context within which the Verband operated was

unpredictable and chaotic. The transition to communism was difficult; new laws were

passed regarding land redistribution, private ownership, religion and so forth, but were

implemented unevenly and often arbitrarily. In a petition to emigrate, the situation was

described as follows:

Life is played with and treated like an object that costs “Samogon” (brandy distilled by the Russians) [sic] and flour. Arbitrary deeds that evoke the greatest outrage take place. ... Efforts to restore the rule of law by working up the line of the governmental institutions continue to be unsuccessful. One person works only for large bribes, while the other does not believe that such arbitrariness even exists. (Janz 1921b)

Local officials were often difficult to deal with and were typically former combatants and

peasants with strong ideals but little to no experience in governance. Therefore, much of

the Verband s work was focused at the national level.

The Verband took on several major tasks immediately. In 1921 and 1922 it worked

with the American Mennonite Relief effort to distribute food and clothing aid throughout

the areas where Mennonites were located in Ukraine, including immediate Russian neighbors

in the distribution. It also represented Mennonites to Soviet officials in Charkov and

Moscow on important issues. Representation and advocacy efforts focused on getting an

exemption from the draft for young Mennonite men, promoting economic reconstruction

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78

amongst Union members, preventing massive land redistribution and pursuing emigration.

The leader of the Verband, B.B. Janz, was a former schoolteacher from the Molotschna

colony. Janz doggedly pursued government approval on various initiatives and was

surprisingly successful. For example, he obtained significant support from the Moscow

government in July 1921 regarding land redistribution; an interview with a Central Executive

Committee member (PG Smidovich) led to a special memorandum being sent to the

independent Ukrainian Commissariat of Agriculture that suggested every effort be made to

preserve the historic centers of Mennonite culture and advised against further land division

(Janz 1921c). Mennonites were concerned about the land redistribution and, even with a

possible exemption, their maximum land allocations would be 32.5 dessiatines. This re

allocation meant there would be surplus Mennonite land available in their communities,

which others would be placed on if they were not allowed to distribute it to internally

displaced Mennonites, it also meant their methods of farming would likely be unsustainable

(Mennonite Union in South Russia 1922).

Mennonites were divided on the issue of whether to stay and rebuild or to emigrate.

Many, including Janz, were convinced that the best solution was emigration. For them, the

religious prohibitions, loss of land and economic setbacks from the war and revolution were

prohibitive. Others maintained hope that they would be able to rebuild farms, albeit in a

more cooperative fashion, and largely reconstruct their communities. For them, Lenin’s

New Economic Policy provided opportunities to rebuild their economic holdings. The

Verband — with international assistance — offered reconstruction support, crops were

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79

improving and some religious ritual was still permitted. This group also included those who

supported Bolshevism and the communist ideals it promoted.63

The Verband pursued a strategy of large-scale emigration that simultaneously

promoted economic reconstruction in southern Ukraine.64 The argument to Ukrainian

Soviet officials was that the excess population, particularly those displaced by the revolution,

needed to be removed and could be by “repatriating” Mennonites (Janz 1921b). In

exchange, the Verband and AMR arranged to bring in 50 tractors and seed grain to speed up

agricultural recovery. In 1923 the Soviet government approved the first group of emigrants

and roughly 3,500 left for Canada under Verband supervision. Another 5,000 successfully

emigrated in 1924. Crop yields were up in 1923 and 1924, a number of the former industrial

owners were supervising production in their former factories, which were now nationalized.

The Mennonite colonies were recovering without food assistance from AMR, although they

were looking for further financial backing. A resolution passed at a 1925 meeting of the

Verband closed the formal support for emigration and captured the dual nature of the

recovery strategy, as well as the need to maintain government approval in an increasingly

repressive state:

The delegate assembly states herewith that the executive of the Verband has acted appropriately, in harmony with the government, as well as generally, in connection with the agitation for emigration, and in the exercise of a restraining influence, in terminating this particular activity. There are still many possibilities here on the old soil for making a living, and it is the responsibility of the Verband to work with all its might at their

63 For an exploration of Soviet-Mennonite literary figures see (Loewen 1993). For biographies of two Mennonites who left the church, were strong Communist supporters and experienced some success within the Soviet Union see chapters on David Penner and David Schellenberg in Loewen (2003). 64 Several secondary sources describe the relief effort and emigration in great detail (Epp 1962; Hiebert and Miller 1929). There was a series titled “Zur Geschichte des Verbandes der Burger Hollandischer Herkunft in der Ukraina” published in Der Bote three weeks in May 1925. Also see a series of articles by J.H. Willms titled “Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Auswanderungsbewegung” in Der Bote between 9 February and 20 April 1927.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80

accelerated development, so that the economic reasons for emigration can be eliminated as soon as possible. (General United Mennonite Conference 1925)

The Verband continued to actively pursue agricultural reform, economic recovery and

Mennonite communal well being into 1926 with some success.

By the end of this Conflict Site, the Mennonite community was experiencing some

economic and social recovery. The former colonies remained divided over their chances for

full economic, social and religious recovery in Ukraine. Many looked towards emigration.

Many looked to reconstruct their farms and lives within a new political reality. The relative

wealth of the Colonies was, however, a thing of the past, and the final details of land reform

and communism were being worked out. Mennonite villages were by and large no longer

Mennonite-only, as former peasants took up residency on new land allotments. A new era

was beginning in Soviet Ukraine.

“We do not Recognize Ourselves:” Mennonite Identity in a Time of Upheaval

The dramatic events of 1914 to 1924 produced astounding shifts in the Mennonite

world, their view of the world and themselves. Foundational elements of their identity in

1914 were confronted by a variety of unyielding circumstances that caused them to shatter

and re-evaluate who they were as individuals and as a collective group. Mennonites also

interacted with structures and people external to their usual community, which played a role

in solidifying how they thought about themselves and their Mennonite identity.65 The

identity themes that emerged from this turbulent decade are explored below. Analysis

begins with the category Mennonite national identity, followed by an analysis of the three

65 This analysis is based on intensive grounded theory coding of documents from the time period, which were translated. As noted in the methodology chapter, there are no documents utilized for the years 1915 and 1916, very limited documents for 1919 and 1920.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81

central categories of Mennonite civic and religious identity, which were challenged and

contradicted during the revolution. It concludes with an examination of the reconstruction

of identity categories following the violence of the revolution.

Vying National Identities

In 1914 there were strong nationalist pressures in Ukraine and Russia. A nation-

based or national identity formed a core category for Mennonite identity, which had several

sub-categories that changed in emphasis over the Conflict Site. These sub-categories were:

German, Russian, and to some degree Dutch, which were interwoven into a unique

Mennonite national identity. These sub-categories and their properties are explored in the

section below.

Russian. Mennonites were strongly patriotic to Russia, the Tsar and “fatherland” in

the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. They publicly attested to this faithfulness in

1914 with statements like that of the editor of the Mennonite newspaper Botschafter who

appealed to readers to support the Red Cross and called for prayers “to intercede for our

beloved monarch, for the greatness of his realm, and the strength of his armies” (Epp 1914).

Similarly, the report of a meeting in Halbstadt, Molotschna, stated that a special service of

thanks and supplication conveyed, “.. .a warm and pure love for the fatherland, a love for

the great Russian people and the All-Russian throne” (Unruh 1914a). Or, in a daughter

colony it was reported that "It was a ... joy to see and hear the enthusiastic and patriotic

willingness displayed by the many present who stood up and with loud words announced

‘We want to and can help, now and in the future — we are faithful subjects; our beloved

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82

fatherland is Russia’” (Fur das Yaterland 1914). One leader tied the Mennonite sentiments

direcdy to the land itself:

God allowed us to be born under Russia’s sun, upon Russia’s earth, and no piece of ground is as dear and precious to us as our home. This genuine, real feeling of home, and hardly any feeling is as genuine as this, this is the source of sensitivity for our Russian fatherland. The immense South Russian steppe has enveloped us in her arms and has implanted much in our souls of which we can never divest ourselves. (Unruh 1914a)66

Defense of the Russian fatherland arose again during the debate over armed self-defense

units in 1918. Some Mennonites argued that it was their religious duty to defend the

fatherland: . there are those, and not just a few, who would wish to have Biblical ground

on this important issue [of non-resistance]. Among the latter are those who feel that defence

of the Fatherland is duty based on the Holy Scriptures” (General United Mennonite

Conference 1918). Russia was deemed worthy of protection even after the Tsar was gone.

The context of war and the early months of the revolution brought about a

reiteration of loyalty and love. The most salient element of Mennonite identity from the

Russian and Ukrainian neighbours’ perspective appeared to be Germanic. Mennonites were

accused of being internal enemies and spies and part of Germany’s attempt to take over

Russia. These accusations brought about a sense of indignation and a reiteration of

Mennonite loyalty in public, even after the Tsar abdicated. For example in the August 1917

All-Mennonite Congress meeting minutes it is noted that:

Particularly lively debates are generated by individual questions raised by the section about equality of rights and status with the other citizens of the realm. In these debates a glaring picture unfolds before the assembly of how our national consciousness is constantly suppressed and our loyalty called into question. (All-Mennonite Congress 1917)

66 Translated in Toews (1982, 73-74).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83

A nd then:

The chairman responds that we probably do have a right to appeal to our loyalty, we are faithful citizens of our Russian Fatherland. This faithfulness is instilled in us. We sense it instinctively. We are by nature incapable of traitorous acts on the basis of our training and our religious principles. Besides that, we love the Russian state with the depths of our souls, (applause), [sic\ (All-Mennonite Congress 1917)

The framing of this Russian identification, love and loyalty, also involved reference to being

citizens, which reflected the political change from empire in the early period of the

revolution to a potentially more equal social order. Overall, the dominant property themes

of a Russian identity component for Mennonites for the first half of the Conflict Site were

love and gratitude to the Tsar for protection, love of the land, which was considered the

fatherland and homeland, and the great loyalty of the Mennonite people to the Tsar and

Russia, which bordered on a sacred duty.

After the brief occupation by the German army in 1918 — which Mennonite leaders

had largely welcomed — there was a terrible period of violence. Three years later, when

regular communication was re-established, Mennonite leaders were no longer vocally

patriotic to Russia or to Ukraine, which was asserting itself as an independent nation at the

time. Instead, the focus was inward, on the Mennonite community and its recovery . 61

References to Russia and Ukraine were framed carefully without the earlier emphasis on

loyalty or love. There was support for establishing an orderly state and the use of new

language about equality of citizens, but the main focus was on Mennonites. For example, the

Verband constitution states:

1. The Union is brought into being in order to represent the total interests of the village communities of Ukrainian citizens of Dutch lineage.

67 There were also Mennonites who supported communism. However, these individuals, such as David J. Penner, left the Mennonite church and did not support the religious community and ethnic structures for obvious ideological reasons (see Letkemann 2003).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84

The Union sets for itself the task of restoring the seriously stagnated agriculture industry in the colonies of the citizens of Dutch lineage to its former strength and well known glory within the framework of the state, as well as to promote the general welfare of the members of the Union. (Janz 1921a)

References to the state were limited to its ultimate authority in determining the legality of the

Verband and the scope of its operations, such as the inclusion of the following provision for

liquidation within the Verband constitution: “iv) by government decree, when the activities

of the Union are deemed to be threatening to the state” (Janz 1921a). The state and

Communism were recognized but the internal focus of reconstruction was evident even as

the Communist system gained power and control. For example, at a 1924 Verband

meeting:68

The delegate assembly is greeted by the Chairman of the Union of Citizens of Dutch Lineage, B. Janz, Charkov, who extends a word of welcome to all assembled delegates and guests. He expresses particular joy at the fact that this Congress is convened in Donetz province. He then calls attention to the loss suffered by the Russian and the world proletariat through the death of their leader, V. Lenin. The assembly stands to honour the memory of the deceased. The Chairman wishes the assembly a united, productive and positive process in their work during the days of the conference, and that this may then work to the welfare of our colonies. He closes with the thought that cultural and agricultural reconstruction is possible only through brotherly holding together and mutual assistance. (Union of Citizens of Dutch Lineage in Ukraine 1924b)

As these passages indicate, the Mennonites in leadership positions were clearly focused on

internal recovery.

In some cases leaders were disillusioned and had become vehemently anti-Russian.

For example, a 1922 memo from leaders in Chortitza stated:

When the ill-fated war with Germany broke out in 1914 the hostile actions of the government and society forced the Russian Mennonites to the tragic conclusion that

68 At the meeting there are representatives of the local communist political party who are not Mennonite. The conveners also note the three permits they were required to attain in order to hold the meeting.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85

they have no fatherland, that Russia cannot be their fatherland to which they can attach themselves with devotion. (Ens, Klassen, and others 1922)

Another leader denounced the “fatherland” and called it the “wicked stepmother” now:

Though we had ample opportunity before the war to come to this realization, we have been brought to this understanding during the war, particularly the civil war and until today, by ruthless cruelty. We have been convinced that in Russia we are no more than tolerated strangers whose remaining here is impossible. The country for which we have always conscientiously carried out our civic responsibilities, and which we have always endeavored to love as our Fatherland and whose weal and woe we honesdy wished to share, has destroyed all the love and loyalty in our hearts. It has demonstrated to itself to be a wicked stepmother who wishes to get rid of the stepchildren in order to claim the inheritance for her own children. Now we no longer have a Fatherland. (Braun 2000)69

The strong anti-Russian sentiment emerged most prominendy in documents written by

Mennonites looking to emigrate from Russia. Interestingly, even those who wanted to leave

noted that they would miss the land itself. For example, “We do have a home here, and we

older ones will probably never find a second one anywhere which will allow us to forget the

old one. In foreign places we will think back to our South Russian steppe with longing and

never be totally able to suppress the homesickness” (Braun 2000). Or, “All these things

mentioned [hatred, loss, famine], and many more, have gradually loosened the ties which

bound us to our present homes and we wish most anxiously - although with bleeding hearts

when thinking of all the good things we have enjoyed here — to get out of Russia as quickly

as possible” (Braun 1922).

In sum, the positive Russian sub-category of Mennonite identity had disappeared

from Mennonite leaders’ articulation of their identity by 1924. The pro-Russian discourse

was replaced by anti-Russian speech amongst many of the leaders (“we are not Russian”).

State authority was regularly acknowledged but it was not regularly articulated as a piece of

69 While Toews attributes this letter denoted by the initials P.B. to P. Baerg, Abraham Friesen (2001) argues convincingly that it was actually written by P. Braun.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86

Mennonite identity — which became the dominant focal point for reconstruction.

Citizenship terminology began to be used by Mennonites after the revolution, but overlaid

notions of ethnic-based nationalism. Interestingly, Ukrainian nationalism, which played a

role in politics and events occurring around the Mennonites in the former South Russia, did

not emerge as a significant point for Mennonite identification.

German. Mennonite national identification included a frequently used German sub

category. The most dominant property of this category for Mennonite leaders was an

attachment to the German language, rather than German nationalism or political

identification. The German language was viewed as the mother tongue and a central piece

of Mennonite identity. High German was viewed as the proper mother tongue, as opposed

to Low German, which was used in homes. It was to be maintained in education as far as

possible. For example, a 1917 Conference discussion of the education system: “At the same

time, along with the serious cultivation of the national language, the most loving attention is

to be given to the mother tongue” (General Conference of the Mennonite Church in Russia

1917). Or at the civic Congress meeting that same year the majority of participants indicated

they were in favor of subjects like arithmetic being taught in German throughout elementary

school (All-Mennonite Congress 1917). The Mennonite communities felt wrongfully

discriminated against during the War period due to the language ban and the land

expropriation laws, and re-asserted the use of German as part of their basic citizenship rights

in 1917. For example, in the 1917 Congress meeting the resolution that passed regarding

printing in German began with the statement “The ban on the publication of a periodical for

the sole reason that it is printed in the German language is in contradiction to the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87

declarations of March 2 and 21 of this year by the Interim Government, as well as to the

most elementary concepts of citizenship rights” (All-Mennonite Congress 1917).

While there was love for the German language there was also some ambivalence

within the Mennonite community as to the degree of identification and support they should

give Germany and other Germans living in the former Russian empire. At the outbreak of

WWI there was some attempt to distance Mennonites from German politics, such as in the

following passage:

What political connection do we have with Germany? How do the actions of Berlin and Vienna concern us? We have never betrayed the fatherland, especially Russia which has given us so many benefits. We were called to Russia to cultivate the steppes and we have done that. This has accrued to our benefit, but also to our neighbors, the Russians and other groups. (Kroeker 1914)70

Later, Mennonite leaders were supportive of the brief German occupation in Ukraine in

1918, and even felt compelled to chastise those in the community who were not supportive:

With deep regret the Bureau has to admit individual cases of unfriendly reception have taken place and, as a matter of fact, according to our information only on the part of rich people. In general, however, this is malicious slander. ... let our guidelines on these matters be stated. Such regrettable individual cases must not occur, and the actual state of affairs must be brought to public awareness through documented evidence. May we never forget that we are indebted for to the German troops. Let us always keep in mind that we repay only a small part of our indebtedness when we relinquish something from our surplus in material goods in exchange for preserved life and spiritual values. (All- Russian Mennonite Congress 1918)

The ambivalent nature of Mennonite leaders to identify with Germany completely was also

evident in a debate on citizenship:

We believe we are right when we assume that among the Mennonites three groups will take shape. Some will favour a return to Germany, others will contemplate emigration to other places in the world and a large number will want to remain on the soil they have come to love... Those who wish to remain here could also gain the necessary

70 Translated in Toews (1982, 74).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. clarification from the discussion on the Ukrainian citizenship law and on the acquisition of German nationality. (All-Russian Mennonite Congress 1918)

It is interesting to note that the sub-categories of national identity were not deemed to be

exclusive, but rather could be multiple, and were being adapted to the new language of

citizenship.

Politically, Mennonite leaders tried to maintain a degree of independence from the

other German groups who were colonists. For example, in the minutes from the August

1917 Conference a decision to join a larger German group is noted as follows:

He [the reporter for the Organization Commission] presents the resolutions of the commission regarding the Mennonites joining with the Union of Russian Citizens of German Nationality. They are accepted in total with only minor amendments. They read: 1) The Congress decides in favour of the Mennonites joining the all-Russian Union, without prejudice to their own independence. (All-Mennonite Congress 1917)

Mennonite independence was again asserted in 1921:

... the Swabians have been permitted to establish a “Union of South Russian Germans and Citizens of Germanic Origin”. The intention is to move us Mennonites into it as well, with the exception of the organization of the relief committee. Our firm purpose, however, is to maintain the independence of our organization, including the civil one, relying on the support of our brothers from abroad. (Janz 1921d)

Mennonite leaders viewed the German language as an integral part of their common identity;

they supported the German and Austrian troops in 1918, who they thought would bring

order and protect their way of life, but remained at arms-length from the other German

speaking groups, preferring to focus inwardly on Mennonite communities.

Dutch. The Dutch sub-category of Mennonite national identity was less clearly

formulated. Most references to Dutch ancestry had to do with setting the historical context

for Mennonites and distinguishing themselves from the other German colonists. For

example, Mennonite leaders used the argument of Dutch ancestry as the basis for their

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89

request for an exemption from the land expropriation laws.71 The term “Dutch Lineage”

gained widespread use when it became part of the name for the Verband in the Ukraine in

the 1920s. The term was used to capture Mennonite ethnic uniqueness without a clear

religious reference and thus gained acceptance by the Soviet authorities. For example, Janz

summarizes, “The whole [Verband\ structure rests on an ethnic Mennonite foundation, since

any other basis (e.g. religious) would be illegal” (Janz 1921c). This point was also stated at a

Verband meeting:

P. Braun, Halbstadt, reports on the reorganization of the Union, which had formerly gone under the name “Union of the Communities and Groups of Mennonites in Russia” and that has recendy received official confirmation under the name “Union of Citizens of Dutch Lineage in the Ukraine.” He states that on the basis of the new constitution the Union is a fusion of a national (ethnic) and of a cooperative organization. (Union of Citizens of Dutch Lineage in Ukraine 1922a)

Dutch identity remained largely a historical reference to nuance their ethnic Mennonite

identity, and was not an independent national identity that was closely held.72

Nascent Mennonite National Aspirations. As is already evident from the

framing of German and Russian national identification, there was a strong, independent

Mennonite self-identity that existed throughout the time period. Repeated external

representations were made to political leaders to ensure this independence with advocacy

made on behalf of “our people” by Mennonite leaders. At the civic Mennonite Congress

meeting in 1918 the aspirations for self-determination were clear:

71 There is an interesting hybrid of Dutch-German identity captured in one former leader’s biography referencing Dutch ancestry-related advocacy, “In our petitions to the government, in which we sought exemption from compulsory land seizures because of our Dutch ancestry, it appears that the teaching of German in our schools will be forbidden, and religious instruction must be done in the low-German dialect (Plattdeutsch). Another result of war” (Unruh 1917). 72 For example, in a letter from Janz to the Dutch relief agency, Janz writes: “I come to you with this report because I am encouraged by the kindness of the Anabaptists in Holland, our one-time homeland. I beg you to grant this far-off, strange appearing wanderer entrance and reception” (Janz 1921d).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90

Up the Ukraine! Up the Crimea! Up and independent, great and powerful Russia! Up Germany! And however else the political batde cries may sound in chaotic confusion. ... The position of the Bureau is as follows: In principle we have no objections to the aspirations of the various individual territories for autonomy since they are in accord with the widely proclaimed right of self-determination. We emphasize only that the establishment of the borders of the states thus created be done on the basis of specific, objective data, or, where these do not exist, this be done by way of a general poll of all the residents of the territory in question. What must not be lost sight of in all of this is that one day when there is a unifying bond which could closely unite all Mennonites in former Russia, that such a poll can achieve results which may be viewed by the authorities as a contrived guard around a silent but strong party. (All-Russian Mennonite Congress 1918)

While Mennonite self-identity was greatly challenged during the revolution, there was a

strong sense of a unified, ethno-religious group that frequendy had separate political and

territorial aspirations for a “little people” (Vblklein). The independent identity was to be

present in a separate education system. For example, the recommendation for elementary

school system at the All-Mennonite Conference meeting in 1917 was that “Our school

system is to be a national (ethnic) one and it is therefore not advisable to incorporate it with

the universal [Soviet system] just yet because this could jeopardize its character” (All-

Mennonite Congress 1917). The focus on Mennonite communal reconstruction following

the revolution was detailed above in both the sections on Russian identity and Dutch

identity. Throughout the texts there are repeated references by Mennonite leaders to “our

people,” and “our colonies.” The in-group identity was both broadened and re-affirmed

when Mennonites from Holland and North America provided emergency assistance, which

is discussed below. Overall, Mennonite identity was extremely strong and contained a

national element that was ultimately captured by referring to Dutch ancestry in order to

minimize the religious reference, there was a German-language element, and there was also a

religious component that was publicly de-emphasized during the latter half of the Conflict

Site.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91

In sum, Mennonite nationalism was composed of multiple, sometimes contending,

national sub-categories. The Russian identity element, which was emphatic in 1914

gradually ebbed in discourse, was rejected by some and carefully modulated by others. The

German sub-category remained strong, particularly around language usage with German

viewed as the mother tongue, and with frequent but ambivalent interactions with other

German groups in former South Russia. The Dutch sub-category captured a unique

Mennonite national identity that was historic, set them apart from others in the region, and

was a non-religious nationalist referent. Accompanying all of these sub-categories was a

dominant Mennonite in-group identity, and interest in self-determination. Each of the other

sub-categories affected Mennonite identity, as did the context in which Mennonites found

themselves, which delimited their ability to frame their independent identity either with

respect to supporting Russia during WWI or being an independent group of “Dutch

Lineage” during the transition to communism. There was also a burgeoning concept of

citizenship, which went beyond being subjects under the Tsar, but this conceptualization was

just beginning to take hold. The following section explores elements of Mennonite identity

beyond the national or ethnic component detailed above.

“We Are Aware of our Contradictions:” Mennonite Identity Antithesis

The revolution resulted in massive losses for the Mennonite colonies of Molotschna

and Chortitza, particularly Chortitza. The circumstances of the revolution and Mennonite

responses to and interactions with these circumstances produced profound dilemmas and

contradictions for Mennonites and their collective self-identity. The following section

identifies three central concepts of Mennonite identity that fit together to form the core of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92

Mennonite identity, as well as exploring how each category faced an antithetical moment

during the tumult of the Russian revolution.

Descriptions by Mennonites of the events of the revolution that followed the

withdrawal of the short-lived German occupation force were harrowing. They bespoke of

the storms of war, fear of attack, wild hordes, anarchy, confusion, loss and pain. They were

narratives of Mennonites giving testimony as victims. For example, Jakob Neufeld begins

his recounting of “The Days of Terror in Blumenort, Halbstadt Volost,” which involved an

attack and two counter attacks that extended over two days, with: “As possibly the only eye

and ear witness who experienced the terror in Blumenort from beginning to end and

survived I want to report what I know about the incident” (Neufeld 1919).73 Initially there

were losses of possession and property, then of life and loved ones. Janz summarized the

losses to the Dutch and American Mennonite relief agencies:

The colonies have suffered through ten different upheavals and have suffered frequent tremendous losses in property and blood, not to speak of the costs in spiritual and emotional energy that have been expended. And where these energies were insufficient to bear up, ‘the grey hairs of our loved ones (and not only the grey ones) have been borne in sorrow to the grave.’ (Janz 1921c)

Physical losses included property, homes, farm equipment, livestock, grain, hay, wood and

food. The military requisitioned many of these items, while others were lost in robberies by

the anarchist troops or roving bands of peasants. Lost blood referred to those murdered

during raids, as well as deaths from disease, such as from the typhus epidemic that

accompanied later stages of the fighting and killed many in the villages; lost blood also

potentially included those who were raped and later suffered from venereal diseases. Before

the war, Mennonites considered themselves a spiritually and economically strong, pacifist

73 Translated and reprinted by John B. Toews (1995).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93

and moral community, who were desired inhabitants of the empire, and hard workers -

farmers and industrialists — whom God had blessed. Experiences and events during the

revolution highlighted Mennonites’ shortcomings and produced moments when actions and

responses were directly antithetical to those core categories of Mennonite identity. These are

explored below.

A Strong Religious Community? A core category of Mennonite identity was their

strong, spiritual and religious community. One dimension of this religious identity was the

tenet of non-resistance, or pacifism. As evident the conflict context overview, this

dimension was directly challenged by the formation of the selbstschut% and the decision of the

Mennonite conference body not to condemn the position of self-defense and leave the

matter up to individuals’ conscience. A rejection of non-resistance had implications for

changing the way Mennonites thought about themselves and the Mennonite community.

For example, Jakob Thiessen states, “... The speaker is astonished at the reversal in the basic

convictions of many Mennonites in the past year. If we give up nonresistance [sic[ then

others will become bearers of this principle in our place” (General United Mennonite

Conference 1918).

Or, similarly:

There are many denominations. Each denomination has its task. It is our task to hold firmly to the principle of nonresistance [.«J . What we have inherited from our fathers, we want to secure in order to possess it. We want to search for and find the answer to the question under discussion in the Holy Scriptures through the eyeglasses of our confession of faith. We want to be forbearing toward those who offend against the principle. (General United Mennonite Conference 1918)

Or,

Our fathers had a right to hold to the principle of nonresistance because they were nonresistant from inner conviction. We, on the other hand, have simply had it handed

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94

down to us. And we know how things are among us regarding nonresistance [tir], namely quite bad. But whoever among us stands on the position of nonresistance, must also be consistent. Before all else we must cease to be untrue on this point. Away with the he! (General United Mennonite Conference 1918)

While the position on non-resistance was officially reaffirmed, in practice it was severely

weakened and the community clearly saw the contradiction. Commitment to non-resistance

was partly restored when Janz insisted that the doctrine of non-resistance be re-affirmed by

vote before he would take leadership of the Verband.

Another dimension of the Mennonite communal religious identity was the spiritual

and moral strength of the members. The civil war and its accompanying fighting, atrocities,

and typhus deaths weakened individuals and the community as a whole. Many Mennonites,

including ministers, in Chortitza were spiritually broken. For example:

No worship services took place in the Chortitza villages during the time of the Machno occupation until Heinrich Braun came and visited the villages. He was the first, after months of distress and misery, to be able to preach the word of God. During this time all the ministers have failed. Without their own inner stay, they could not then be a blessing and comfort to others. (Lepp 1920)

And,

The church at Ch. collected money for the purchase of wine for the celebration of Holy Communion. The money could not be brought in. This lamentable fact can, I believe, be ascribed more to the mercenary spirit of the collectors, but that the church could not get beyond the mean spiritedness of the collectors on their own impetus is evidence enough. (Baerg 1922)

As the famine set in, following the hard years of the revolution, there was also a declining

moral life. Mennonites found they resorted to thievery, lying or paying bribes to corrupt

officials in order to have loved ones returned or to find food for hungry mouths. This shift

was captured in numerous reflections, such as:

It was inevitable that this time of barbarous violence and the disappearance of any form of morality should have a corrupting influence on the Mennonites. We note with alarm that Mennonite uprightness has frequently been lost, that the Mennonite word no longer

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95

carries its former weight, that conscience is becoming flexible, and that we are frequendy put in the position where me must He and deceive. We ask ourselves whether this corruption, in a land where Hes and deception are order of the day, will not lead to a Hteral moral bankruptcy. (Ens, Klassen, and others 1922)

Similarly:

PubHc opinion is always a good barometer in determining the highs and lows in the moraHty of the people. Whoever has made observations according to this barometer will often have had deep concerns about our future. Our views about decency, ethics, and moraHty are influenced by and frequendy saturated with the national spirit of the times, which we could not oppose properly for we were not adequately armed. (Comies 1922)

The spiritual and moral challenges were great and Mennonites found their community did

not embody the strong, spiritual and moral dimensions they previously thought they did.

Instead, they found themselves spirituaUy broken with a clear violation of pacifism, and

engaging in immoral acts of bribery and thievery.

Desired Settlers? A second category of Mennonite identity that was undermined

during the war and revolutionary period was the concept that they were a desired and

appreciated people. They had thought of themselves as a model people, former colonists

who had helped develop the Russian empire. Instead, they found themselves unwanted

outsiders. The former had produced privileges, the latter produced attacks and stories of

suffering and victimization. For example, in a Hsting of reasons for emigration leaders from

Chortitza stated:

The perfidious slanders in the Russian press that trample our best sentiments and aspirations, the outrageous violations which individuals and whole villages were forced to endure, the prohibition against assembHes which extended even to funeral gatherings, the prohibition against the use of the mother tongue in pubHc places and to preach freely in churches, the land expropriation laws that would drive us from house and home impoverished as common criminals. AH this caused us to sense very deeply the value of a fatherland in which aH citizens have equal rights as members of an organism and awakened in us the longing to seek a fatherland where we are not met by racial hatred, where no mean state officials wiH mistreat us. (Ens, Klassen, and others 1922)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96

Or, in the petition to emigrate:

Another important factor is the popular movement against our colonies; that is, the attempt to force all foreigners out of them and to move in themselves. This phenomenon has been observed in all of the Ukraine and it cannot be charged totally to the account of Machno. It has appeared in places where Machno never showed up. The popular will and the popular upsurge use every opportunity to carry out this plan. (Janz 1921b)

And, again:

... our privileged status aroused the jealousy and frequently the hatred of our Russian neighbours who already saw us, and still do, as foreigners and intruders, who own the land which by right should belong to the Russian farmers. In recent years, during the war and especially during the civil war and until today, these contrasts have been sharpened and deepened, not only among the Russians but among ourselves as well. ... All better feelings and emotions have been violently destroyed. In the place of love and goodwill toward Russia that we nourished earlier, not only in word but honestly and actually, have come contempt and hate. Very deliberate hate. (Braun 2000)74

A narrative of ethnic, racial hatred began to displace the narrative of a privileged setder

people who were loyal to Russia and was linked to the changing national narratives discussed

above. Mennonites had discovered they were not the desired people they once thought they

were and instead encountered opposition.

Hard Working and Productive? A third important category of Mennonite identity

was that they were a hard working, productive people. Work was linked to the Mennonite

spiritual identity because the products of work were understood to be the blessing of God.

The outward symbols of blessing, their possessions and prosperity, were stripped away by

74 Braun clearly articulates the more extreme articulation of this new narrative: The events of recent years have brought us to the point where we see our oppressor, our tyrant, our enemy in every Russian - not in the individual person, but in each representative of the nation. Just at the very sight of them the emotion is stirred. They are the ones who have destroyed our houses, devastated our goods and our fields, eradicated our forests. They have robbed us, cursed us, humiliated us and made us poor and wretched, mistreated and raped our mothers, wives, sisters and daughters. They have consigned our fathers, brothers and sons to death in shameful ways, like dogs and worse and have murdered the flower of our people. (Braun 2000)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97

the requisitions and ravages of war (WWI) and civil war, the billeting of soldiers and then by

the communist re-ordering that imposed hefty levies on farmers and began to redistribute

and limit land ownership. Janz summarizes the situation for Mennonites in the new socialist

state in 1921:

Extremity drove people to their lofts to sweep up the last of the wheat together with dust and dirt and to deliver it [for levies]. Feed grain had already been exhausted a long time ago. Horses had to work in the harvest without proper feed, and many have perished from exhaustion. The few stored sacks of flour have been broken open. Lots of butter and eggs had to be delivered as national taxes. The last of the calves and pigs which met weight requirements (not really, since pigs weighing under 3 pud were already accepted as the norm) had already been liquidated in the winter. This was done by the soldiers. So finally, for our farmers, who have had things taken from them for years, but who have continued to build in hope, everything is gone! (Janz 1921d)

Agriculture work was closely tied to Mennonite identity. Drought and tax requisitions

undermined motivation to work and removed the products of labour. This further

undermined the Mennonite identification with work: “All this has depressed our farmer to

such a degree that he has serious doubts about an early economic recovery, particularly when

he takes into account the exorbitant levies in kind that are collected with greatest harshness.

He no longer has any joy in his purposeless work” (Ens, Klassen, and others 1922).75 The

communities struggled with hunger and found themselves to be in an inverted social and

economic position:

Today’s messenger reports that in the Molotschna almost nothing is being seeded. There is no grain there and there are almost no draft animals. The winter wheat appears to be almost a total loss. Prof. Hiebert is seeing the formerly blossoming, rich, proud Molotschna in the deepest humiliation of the total time of her existence. Nothing but beggars. (Janz 1922)

Or, “ Our village, which in past years appeared as an oasis even in the drought of summer,

has become a desert. All its charm is gone” (Harder 1922). The descriptions of horses,

75 Similar sentiments were evident in personal letters to acquaintances abroad. For example, Heinrich Janzen (2003) wrote, “The opportunity of earning something is nil. As weak as we are, no one wants us.”

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98

often included as side notes, captured the discouraged state of the formerly proud

community. For example: “Useful, fit horses of the kind Mennonite farmers would not have

been ashamed of before the war comprise only about one quarter of the total” (Baerg 1922);

or “O f the six horses per farm of earlier days, a few crippled, gaunt old nags are left” (Janz

1921d); “In many a village for example, hardly a team of usable horses could be found” (Janz

and Cornies 1954). The Mennonite community found itself on the receiving end of charity

from Mennonites elsewhere, which further highlighted their desperate state. Its affects are

captured in quotes such as:

If, however, over 44 years one has brought his own family through by honest hard work without having to unlatch any doors, then the depressing sensations one has to master standing before strange doors need to be experienced in order to be understood. It becomes even more difficult to come hat in hand as a representative of the community; a community with whose national sentiment I am familiar and which focuses on one thing; a community which, according to an estimate from 1909 had a worth of 246 million [mbles] ...; a community which for a hundred years could open doors and give and never receive ... ; a community which could give until most recent times when things were already scarce. (Janz 1921d)

Or, captured in self-referential comments like “our Lord God’s and our Dutch and our

American brother’s beggar children” (Cornies 1922). The Mennonite leaders in Molotschna

and Chortitza were used to giving charity not receiving it. The situation reinforced an

identity that was antithetical to all that they had previously known — one where the products

of their labor vanished, they lost the will to work and were forced to rely upon charity.

The revolutionary war created an antithetical moment for Mennonite identity and

reversed the three central categories of identity that emerged from the documents.

Mennonite religious identity was found wanting with respect to pacifism, spiritual strength

and moral fortitude. Mennonite loyalty and economic contributions to the state were

negated and even unwanted. The community that prided itself on work and production

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99

found they had to receive charity to survive. The times were difficult and unpredictable and

Mennonite leaders struggled to understand their situation and themselves within it. A

Mennonite in Molotschna captured the conflicted and contradictory state of being

poignantly in a letter to an American Relief aid worker:

Dear brother, during your stay you have come to know us to some degree. But do you really understand us? Alas! We hardly understand ourselves any longer. We scarcely recognize ourselves. Is it really us or is it an evil dream? One thing is certain: we are uneasy. Insoluble problems agitate us. Tell your brothers over there that we are ill from the soles of our feet to the tops of our heads. Too many events in rapid succession have assaulted us: too many tragic experiences. Our nerves could no longer endure it and we became apathetic. We are inwardly torn. We are aware of our contradictions. We feel insecure. We have become skeptical. There is no zest for work, no rousing of oneself to joyful, productive activity. (But from where should the landsman receive courage when in one village only seven miserable horses are left?) We have almost lost faith in a worthwhile future. We see it in our farms, our houses, our fences: no hand moves to make repairs. We have surrendered to an “it doesn’t matter” attitude. Hunger and poverty have debilitated us physically and morally. There is no longer any backbone, not many struggle with this poverty and its social consequences. Life appears bleak. Therefore the cry of one of our ministers, “Oh God, we don’t want to become an idle mob that just allows others to feed it. We want to work ourselves in order to have our daily bread.” (Classen 1923)

Classen’s testimony captures the antithesis in the categories of Mennonite religious identity

(particularly the property of pacifism, and morality), being a desired and worthy population,

and as a productive, hardworking people — the categories no longer held.

“Is the Night Soon Passed?” Re-knitting Mennonite Identity

While the Mennonite community was challenged and faced a contradiction in its

identity it was not entirely unmoored; an institutional church apparatus remained and,

although weakened, provided a basis for recovery. The conference structures, education and

other institutions enabled communication and organized connections between those who

were devastated and those who were less affected within Russia and Ukraine, as well as with

those in the larger Mennonite religious community overseas. The following section

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100

examines the process of reconstruction of Mennonite identity and the core categories that

were restored for those who chose to emigrate from Ukraine and those who stayed — either

by choice or because they were unable to leave.

Mennonites leaders viewed the external aid, which began in 1921, as the stimulus for

their spiritual and physical recovery. In 1922, Philip Cornies wrote:

You brothers out there, to the right and the left of the great water, next to God, that is your achievement. You seized us by the hair when we were at the point of sinking and slowly brought us to land. Admittedly, not everyone. But, thanks to God, we can gratefully state that in general, they have all come to land. (Cornies 1922)

Similarly, Janz wrote:

Here in the entire Mennonite community [the relief work] has been of great moral significance; the effecting to a large degree of the idea of the solidarity of our people, of consolidation, and the separation from many new and powerful influences, quiet apart from the actual faith life in the churches. It has preserved for us courage and the hope for a better Mennonitism for the future, and has not allowed us to cave in. The steadfastness of the people’s (national) character has won out. (Janz 1924)

Or, earlier in the relief effort:

The South has received two letters from Mr. Wilhelm Neufeld, Reedley, to his relatives. These have become the general property of the community. They were a couple of warm, bright sunbeams in the hopelessness of our Egyptian darkness, sent by our heavenly Father through the prism of our American brothers’ hearts. How that kindled hope and strengthened confidence in an eventually positive solution to the problem of our existence. Ever and again we want to ask, “Watchman, what of the night? Is the night soon past?” (Janz 1921c)

Mennonite leaders felt a new sense of global Mennonite solidarity, which gave them hope

and the promise of material support. Reflecting on his own ability to lead the recovery

effort, Janz stated “... I want to emphasize, how your trust gave me strength. Accept my

thanks” (Janz 1924). The external engagement bolstered internal recovery efforts in Ukraine

and Russia, and provided those who worked for the newly created Verband with emotional

strength, resources and conviction.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101

For the Mennonite community, individual recovery was tied to communal recovery.

The context for recovery was that Ukraine was struggling to be independent and the Soviet

communist system was being established. This meant political and economic turmoil, which

involved negating land rights, removing religion from education and other social institutions,

and establishing a new political order. There was also legal instability and corruption

amongst new government officials. The Verband led the Mennonite community in Ukraine

with two major strategies for recovery and reconstruction. One was to leave and start anew,

and the other was to reconstruct the community based on the past with some adaptations.

Both strategies relied on a mix of internal fortitude and external aid. Both strategies were

also accompanied by a re-forged identity, which had common elements as well as

differences.

Hard Workers. A common category that began to reassert itself across the

Mennonite community was that they were indeed hard workers, and therefore would

become productive agriculturalists again. This general category was the same for groups that

looked to emigrate and those that looked to stay although they had slightly different

properties. In both cases it built upon the Mennonite history and record of past success to

point to the future. For example:

Dear brother, tell your - our brothers (you cannot put the paint on too thickly in order to picture what has come over us), tell them that in spite of everything we still hope, in spite of it all we still believe that it is not all over with us yet, that God will lift us up again after we have been down so long. We will again work successfully, create and produce joyfully. (Classen 1923)

Or, similarly, the constitution of the Verband stated: “The Union sets for itself the task of

restoring the seriously stagnated agriculture industry in the colonies of the citizens of Dutch

lineage to its former strength and well known glory within the framework of the state, as well

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102

as to promote the general welfare of the members of the Union” (Janz 1921a). The concept

of Mennonites being a people that work hard was reinvigorated.

The narrative of those looking to rebuild in Ukraine had two properties in addition

to the basic emphasis on productive work. One was identification with the fertile soil, and

the second was an emphasis on their proven past. Examples of the first property were

found in reflections on farm work. For example: “Despite much that is still discouraging

and depressing the farmers in general are working courageously to improve their farms and

their remaining energy, which has been strengthened by the assistance they received and by

the good crops” (Janz, Wiens, and Dueck 1923). Or,

Where ordinarily an ocean of green stalks tossed in waves, weeds now sprout in variety and luxuriance that are truly amazing. The farmer’s worried look wanders between such fields and his poor emaciated horses and he says with a shake of his head, “How can that be cultivated?” Courage, dear friend. With a tractor we shall get the better of your weeds and you will rejoice. You are worried about the seed for fall? Be at peace. You shall have it. (Cornies 1922)

The strength and bounty of the land was to be regained with assistance from Mennonite

abroad through new farm equipment — 50 tractors. Interestingly, Mennonites who looked to

emigrate echoed a personal attachment to the land and place:

The communities are aware that they wish to leave a land that gave our fathers hospitable reception in difficult times, a land that has become loved and dear in its unique beauty and its prosperity producing richness, a land that we have learned to cultivate, whose population we know, where we have experienced an economic evolution that is almost unique in the world, where the graves of our fathers, our loved ones are. (Ens, Klassen, and others 1922)

Mennonites were emotionally attached to the land, whether they were looking to stay or go.

However, for those who looked to stay, the strength of the soil for cultivation and growth

was more prominent.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103

Mennonite leaders not emigrating also persistently believed their excellent

contributions to farming would be recognized by the soviet authorities and larger land

allocations would be made for specialized or model farms. The concept of the model farms

was closely tied to the second previously constructed identity category of being a desired,

model people. These farms would be based on a land allocation larger than those for other

citizens, and would allow them to employ farming practices similar to their previous ones

with some adaptations to the new collective system. For example, in 1922:

It is clear from this that the [Land] Commissariat certainly wants to make allowance for the farming culture in our colonies, and that it is further prepared to become familiar with one of the projects to be introduced by the Mennonite Union and to accept practical suggestions regarding special crop agriculture. In the view of the assembly, the best solution to this serious land question would be to divide the total land area along with residential property belonging to the colonies equally among the resident Mennonites including the Mennonite refugees. (Union of Citizens of Dutch Lineage in Ukraine 1922b)

Or, in a resolution passed at a 1924 Verband meeting:

Resolution: Based on local reports the Congress finds that, regardless of all the governmental decrees relative to the settling of land norms, the land share for Mennonites who operate specialized farms has not yet been determined. While on the one hand the central government authorities support the establishment of specialized farms, on the other hand, many local institutions do not appear to share this view. ... Further, the reports of the representatives indicate that the land distribution in many areas has not yet been completed. These abnormalities hamper the development of specialized farms to the greatest degree. Therefore the delegate assembly instructs the central executive: 1) to apply all available means to expedite the final implementation of the land reform in the colonies pointing to the repeated ignoring by the local agricultural authorities of the orders of the NKS of Mar. 9, 1923, which established the land norm for Mennonite specialized farms at 32 dessiatines. (Union of Citizens of Dutch Lineage in Ukraine 1924a)

Or, as Janz summarizes in 1924, “The psychology of our people, on the other hand, wishes

to carry on special agriculture, where one places greater demands on life than does our

Muzhik, or one doesn’t establish a farm at all. This is one of the driving motives that

continue to endure” (Janz 1924). Mennonites who were to stay, looked to re-establish

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104

model farms based on their past success. Together, the combination of love of land, the

Mennonites’ past record of farming accomplishments and model farmers were the central

properties for the work-related identity category for those who would stay in Ukraine.

For those who desired to emigrate, the framing of the work ethic took on a future-

oriented productivity. For example:

You [American brothers] have given us many gifts. Now give us work as well. For years already we have been seeking work protected by law and order, and for the blessing of labour. We are convinced that you have seen in those of our brothers who are already among you how seriously the emigrants take the obligations they have taken upon themselves. We too, who are still here, assure you that while we come with empty hands, we come with the firm will to welcome any work, any effort, any position that allows us to eat our own bread in peace. (Enns et al. 1923)

Or,

Our people are still capable of work. Extraordinarily capable in fact. They just need new ground under their feet, and a better, nobler frame of mind will once again make itself apparent. In this present atmosphere, pregnant as it is with lust for murder, thievery, base denunciation, jealousy, hatred, no prosperity is possible. I was forced to agree with people who responded to my presentations with, “Create human conditions for us and we will once again be human.” (Baerg 1922)

The future productivity relied, however, on a new environment. The perception was that

the conditions in Russia and Ukraine would not permit a full recovery, that Mennonites were

not sufficiently strong to withstand the new pressures. There was a belief that as an

undesired, foreign group in Russia, they would not be able to recover. For example:

The attitude of the common Russian toward us aliens will always be that the latter has reduced the amount of land available to him and his. Land shortage among Russians is generally severe. They have the idea that the land belongs to them free. Now, when the aliens are to establish new settlements, and with a larger per farm land quota at that, the Russians do not want to allow that to happen.... This element is too unreliable. (Janz 1924)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105

There was the dimension of being undesired as a people that affected their expected

productivity, as well as the means by which Mennonites pursued their work. The very

methods of farming were also seen as antithetical to the Soviet economic order:

The Mennonite manner of farm operation is organized around a landholding of from 40 - 65 dessiatines. Already the fact that all Mennonites, with few exceptions, do not think it possible to reduce the size of the farm is evidence that any kind of reduction would mean its decline. The Mennonite farmer with his equipment and buildings neither can, nor wishes to adapt to a smaller operation. ... [I]n a socialist state social differences among the different population groups are in principle not permissible. In this way it may well be possible that, due to our diligence, we will always be among the exploited. In Russia individual agricultural activity will long be out of favour. Any other form of agricultural activity is, however, foreign to the Mennonite character. (Sawatsky 1922)

Mennonites based their farming identity on an individual model rather than a communal

model — Mennonites were strongly independent individuals nested within a strongly cohesive

community structure. The threat of communism to both the individual and Mennonite

community model were clear for some. For example:

The threat of the implementation of the new agrarian policy with the inevitable intrusion of disintegrating elements in our midst seemed to us to be fatal to our prevailing and well proven agricultural system and for our continuing existence as a distinct religious community. (Ens, Klassen, and others 1922)

The properties of this category of being a desired people, for those who looked to emigrate,

included a negative analysis of the current conditions and a prioritization of an individually-

based agricultural model.

Intriguingly, the argument to the Ukrainian authorities to allow for a mass emigration

built upon the basic notion that Mennonites were model farmers and that their work in

Ukraine was finished and staying would only be detrimental to the local population:

And truly, by determination of history, the task of our colonies to serve in Russia as models of good farmers has been fulfilled in 130 years. The method of working the land on the part of the Russian population bears witness to this. If our farmers move out voluntarily they will avoid continuous friction and bloodshed. This elemental characteristic of the energy of the people (in which the land shortage also plays an

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106

important role) will reach its goal. In any case, we must give in to superior might and power. So we will step aside voluntarily. (Janz 1921b)

The future-oriented productivity was only possible if they were allowed to leave. This

property was a key defining difference between those who emigrated and those who stayed.

The self-identification as hard workers was returning, although the context of where that

work would occur was very different and either in Ukraine and Russia, or anywhere but

Ukraine and Russia.

A Worthy People. The basic revitalization of the work-centered category of identity

provided the basis for recovering the category of being a desirable, worthy people. As noted

above, for those who looked to stay, this category centered on building model farms.

Leaders here suggested that they would be able to modify their previous, well-known and

proven agricultural practices enough to be considered again citizens in good standing. For

example, it was suggested that redistributing land within the Mennonite community

according to socialist principles would reduce the friction with other Ukrainian and Russian

neighbors and still allow the community to retain significant land holdings:

There is the awareness that this would mean a substantial reduction in the size of the land norm for the old farmsteads already assigned larger land quantities by decisions made at higher levels of authority. Yet, this sacrifice is made for the benefit of the land poor and the landless of our population, for whom the land norm will thus increase. In this way cause for disturbances and unrest about land could be avoided from without (on the part of the surrounding population) and from within (on the part of our own landless people). We must wait to see to what degree agricultural standards can be maintained with smaller landholdings. This cannot yet be demonstrated. With such a project the national confusion, which in itself could prove disastrous to our survival, could also be eliminated. (Union of Citizens of Dutch Lineage in Ukraine 1922b)

Further, it was suggested that the Ukrainian government authorities were interested in the

Mennonite plan for land redistribution: “The Government at Charkow \sic\ had up to Jan. 22

not approved any of these [Russian peasant] plans. It wanted first to examine a plan that the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107

Mennonites were to draw up themselves.. (Braun 1922). Or, there was hope that the

German Red Cow, a widely recognized breed of catde developed in the Mennonite colonies,

could be a means to revive their former role:

Jelsisejev, the zoologist of the Donetz Provincial Land Authority, discusses this question. His interesting explanations regarding the importance and the advantages of the Red Cow generated the liveliest debates among the representatives. These found expression in the following resolution worked out by a commission and accepted by the delegate assembly: After hearing the local reports and the report from Comrade Jelisejev of the Donetz Provincial Land Authority, the delegate assembly states that in carrying out the resolution regarding agricultural issues accepted by last year’s delegate assembly, the Halbstadt, Gruenfeld and several other regions have already organized supervisory and cattle breeding associations for the proper rearing of the Red Cow. For the successful promotion of this task, as well as of the task of restoring agriculture in general, it is essential to enlist the rank and file of the population to active participation through the efforts of the Union and the land organizations. (Union of Citizens of Dutch Lineage in Ukraine 1924b)

Mennonites viewed themselves as still being considered worth retaining by the government.

Those who looked to stay, either by choice or by circumstance, anticipated re-asserting their

role as contributors and therefore desired and appreciated citizens.

For those who looked to emigrate, they hoped to regain worth in a new place. They

were particularly concerned about the moral implications of staying, and the loss of their

moral worth as a people. For example, in a summary of the deliberations of Mennonite

leaders over whether or not to pursue out-migration, it was stated:

Dr. Dueck, the practicing physician and experienced public worker, characterized for us in concrete lapidary sentences the impossible social conditions which in the last decades had a demoralizing effect on the life of our people, consuming their moral strength and leading us and the growing generation in the direction of our ruin. (Janz and Cornies 1954)

And, again:

Besides the economic measuring rod there is here the social and generally human measuring rod which must be applied to the conditions of the time and the leads to a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108

negative result. This is the position of the colonies on the Molotschna, the Old Colony and the refugees from the ranks of the estate owners. (Janz and Cornies 1954)

Similar views on the need to emigrate were expressed and specifically related to the need for

spiritual recovery, which are explored in the section below.76 The Mennonite concept of

collective worth was slowly being reconstructed. For those who stayed it revolved around

returning to a narrative of a model people that was closely tied to economic productivity.

For those who looked to emigrate, they looked to regain their worth by leaving their present

social conditions, and tied their worth more closely to spiritual recovery.

Strong Spiritual Community. The third identity category, that Mennonites were a

strong, spiritual and moral community, was not reconstructed as it once had been by the end

of this time period. There was a much more humble reframing of Mennonite religious

identity that focused on the need to, and possibility of, rebuilding their spiritual core and

community. Leaders who looked to stay, focused on reconstructing the moral and spiritual

aspects of Mennonite community life in Russia, and believed it could be recovered. While

they too saw threats in the communist system, they believed they could survive within it if

they stayed unified as a tight Mennonite community, and built upon former Mennonite

institutions, farming practices and separate way of life. Recovery centered on reviving the

social and religious system and institutions:

A mental and spiritual recovery is imperative, a rediscovery of old tried ways and goals, and a return to altars. We need to create, if at all possible, a new unified front in the home, the school and the church. This could pave the way to the so essential regeneration of our society. (Cornies 1922)

76 American, Mennonite aid worker Alvin Miller also noted the link between moral decline and the desire to leave: “As one mem ber o f the Committee puts it - when a Mennonite is ready to leave all his land and all his goods, hoping and praying only for escape, there are reasons for it that he much deeper than economic organization and theory of Government. ‘Wir verderben’ [we are decaying] goes to the heart of the matter. Despair is paralyzing the Mennonites o f south Russia” (1922a).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109

Or, in May 1924 the Mennonite Conference for Church Affairs submitted a memorandum

to the government that requested a number of basic requirements for their survival:77

1. Unhindered religious assemblies and discussions for young and old in churches and private homes; 2. Unhindered organization of religious gatherings, choirs, religious and theological instruction for children and youth in the places noted in paragraph 1; 3. The founding of Mennonite children’s homes with Christian training; 4. Not to levy special assessments on church buildings and spiritual leaders of the churches, and permission to establish new houses of worship; 5. To remedy the shortage of books in our churches by providing them with Bibles, auxiliary materials, and generally with Christian literature, not excluding periodicals; 6. To offer courses for the broadening and deepening of our teachers of God’s word; 7. To recognize the school as neutral territory, neither religious nor anti-religious, exclusively for learning. In the same way, teachers refrain from any propaganda, and in their free time they are personally in control of their private lives; 8. To exempt Mennonites from military service basic military training. This would be replaced by service useful to the state. To modify the loyalty oath on the basis of the same religious convictions and to affirm loyal service by a simple promise. (General United Mennonite Conference 1925)

Recovering elements of the past, with some accommodations to the new order — such as

accepting schools as neutral territory — was perhaps the only way the leaders could attempt

to reconstitute the community under antagonistic conditions.

Those leaders who looked to emigrate drew upon a much older narrative from their

European past and Mennonites. It centered on recovering the spiritual core of the group as

a people who must move to retain their religious beliefs and ideals. For example:

In just a few years, that which we have inherited from our fathers, that which at one time took their fear of death and persecution, that which drove them from their homes to foreign lands, can be seriously undermined and can finally disappear completely. Is it not then our sacred obligation to think of rescue? And where does this rescue lie if not in emigration? (Ens, Klassen, and others 1922)

77 In retrospect these actions seem futile, although at the time they must have been optimistic, particularly since the five year plan had given them some economic freedom.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110

Do not think that we are driven by a passing discontent. For our own sake and for that of our children we hold it to be our most sacred duty of conscience to neglect no attempt that would further the cause of emigration. Therefore we plead once again, “Give us your trust and help us!” (Enns et al. 1923)

The leaders also compared Mennonites to Israelites, utilizing the inference of being a

chosen, wandering people. Janz made repeated references to Mennonites being like the

Israelites struggling in the desert, or leaving the “Egyptian darkness”(Janz 1921c, 1921d,

1922); others referred to similar Old Testament incidents, such as “May God help us and a

guide us as He helped and guided Israel under Ezra and Nehemiah” (Klassen 1922). This

restructured identity category was supported by the belief that the Mennonite religious core

was also doomed under Communism:

Should we be offered the shortest time for our departure from this country, we would say “Tomorrow”, if only in that event we could take our children by the hand and go, leaving all our belongings, our houses and lands in Russia! If we would then come away a whole in heart, mind and spirit, and would then be able to carry away with us our ideal values, then I would say that we have lost little. We are sinking. (Janz 1921d)

Or, with reference to the corrosive Soviet influence on Mennonite youths’ religious beliefs

through the education system:

Education, then, will have to be established on other foundations which do not find response in the Mennonite character and which actually put the continued existence of the Mennonite people into question. The confessional bond, which could equally hold the Mennonites together, is also disappearing and cannot be legally maintained. Among the youth a general immorality and irreligiousity has become noticeable which, in Russia, can only heighten. (Sawatsky 1922)

For these leaders, Mennonites could only become spiritually and morally strong again in a

new land. Emigration was the only way to preserve the faith and community.

The reconstruction of Mennonite identity was not complete at the end of this time

period. The reconstruction did not mean a lessening of Mennonite identity, but a re-knitting

process that overcame or incorporated the antithetical experiences of the revolutionary

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I ll

period. The categories of being a hard working and productive people and a model or

desired people were reformed, and the strong spiritual community component was also

being reinvigorated. Those who stayed looked to reconstitute the future based upon their

past work within the Russian empire, with some accommodations to the communist system.

For those who emigrated, there was no hope for a future in Ukraine and they saw the return

to productivity and desirability as possible only in another country. Similar differences

existed in the incomplete reformulation of religious identity in 1924.

Summary

This chapter focused on the conflict context of WWI and the Russian Revolution. It

provided background on the Mennonite colonies in Imperial Russia in order to put the 1914

to 1924 period into a meaningful historical frame. It then provided an overview of the

decade of conflict, including WWI and the revolution. The categories of Mennonite identity

that emerged from the grounded theory analysis were then explored in detail.

Within this Conflict Site there was a dramatic deconstruction and reconstruction of

Mennonite identity. Mennonite identity had a core ethno-national component that

incorporated a series of national affiliations, which varied over the Conflict Site. Russian

patriotism started strongly and declined into antagonism, there was a staunch but ambivalent

German affiliation, and the use of Dutch ancestry increased over the time period as a

defining historical identity referent. The changing political environment was accompanied

by shifting Mennonite identification from loyal Russian subjects to citizens with equal rights

to self-determination. Both types of political membership were overlain by the concepts of

ethnic-national affiliation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112

The revolutionary war was devastating for Mennonites in Chortitza, as well as

Molotschna, and precipitated an antithetical moment in Mennonite identity. Depression and

apathy overwhelmed those in the most aversely affected regions and Mennonites were aware

of their “contradictions.” The contradictions centered on the three central, constituent

categories of a unified economic, social and religious Mennonite identity: 1) a strong,

spiritual and morally upright religious group; 2) a desired and appreciated model people, and

3) a hard-working and productive group. All three of these were found hollow in the

revolution.

An internal revival was catalyzed by the provision of external aid through Mennonite

institutional structures. Mennonites in the affected areas were able to identify with a global

group of Mennonites beyond their own communities, inside and outside the former Russian

empire, which helped restore their sense of a strong community, albeit one that was broader

than their previous sense of community. As Mennonites sought to recover they rebuilt their

identity narrative. The identity category of being hard, productive workers was initially

reconstituted and fueled the reconstitution of the desired, model people category. These

two categories contained similarities for those who looked to stay and emigrate, but also

significant differences. Those who would stay built upon their legacy in founding the

colonies and were rejuvenated by the possible economic productivity of the land. Those

who would leave looked for the opportunity to work and reconstruct in a new land, and tied

the reconstruction to a moral and spiritual recovery.

The category of being a strong, spiritual and moral community was not entirely

reconstituted by the end of the Conflict Site. Those interested in emigration based their

spiritual community narrative on a historical reading of themselves as a wandering people,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113

who moved for their ideals to survive. They looked to the future with the hope of working

hard once again, to produce and become desirable, contributing citizens in a new location.

Those staying based their reconstruction of the spiritual community on the recovery of

Mennonite communities with their attendant economic, social and religious institutions, with

some accommodations to the new political environment. They saw that as the only way to

retain their core within the new communist system.

In 1924 Mennonite identity for the former colonists of Chortitza and Molotschna

was an identity in process of reformation. External events overwhelmed Mennonites and

created conditions contradictory to those upon which Mennonites built central categories of

identification. Mennonite recovery was stimulated with assistance from the larger

Mennonite community, which brought much needed hope. Categories of Mennonite

identity were carefully re-pieced in a slightly new pattern during recovery. The new patterns

— for those staying and leaving — built upon the categories of Mennonite identity that were

used before: hard workers, worthy model people and a strong spiritual community.

Modifications included the re-surfacing of much older properties of Mennonite identity,

such as a group who moved for religious beliefs, the elimination of some properties and sub

categories altogether, such as a Russian national identity, as well as the modulation of, or de

emphasizing of, some properties (pattern of agriculture could change, attachment to land

could be severed). Mennonites leaders were putting together elements of their old identity

with new ones as they responded to new challenges of emigration or reconstruction in an

unstable environment.

The content of the categories of identification, and the processes of change and

continuity that surfaced in this chapter are returned to in greater detail in chapter six. The

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114

next two chapters surface further substance and categories of Mennonite identity, as well as

subtler dynamics of identity change in periods of less-intense conflict. Chapter six then

focuses on developing a substantive theory of Mennonite identity, as well as developing

some theory around identity change and continuity, utilizing the grounded theory,

comparative methodology.

Post Script

In 1924, when this Conflict Site time period ends, the Bolshevik political and

economic course was not yet certain. Emigration continued steadily throughout the mid-

1920s, so that by 1929 approximately 24,000 Mennonites had emigrated — roughly 20,000 of

whom went to Canada (Epp 1962). Throughout the period, Iosef (Joseph) Stalin

consolidated a new phase of Communism. In 1927 and 1928 Stalin began to shut the iron

curtain. The final few hundred Mennonites who emigrated in 1928 were only able to get out

of Moscow with considerable assistance from the German government. Those who

remained in Ukraine suffered a fate similar to the other minority and Ukrainian populations.

This period is described briefly in the following chapter.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER IV

CONFLICT SITE II, 1934-1944:

CONFRONTING WAR IN THE NEW CANADIAN HOMELAND

This chapter picks up the “Russian” Mennonite story ten years after the end of the

Conflict Site described in the previous chapter. This second Site is restricted geographically

to western Canada, where the majority of Mennonite immigrants from Ukraine and Russia

settled. The time period was selected because of the nature of the conflict it contains. As in

the previous Site, a large-scale, violent conflict (WWII) affected a large Mennonite

community and impacted their identity. The Site was initially chosen with the idea that it

would also focus on the Mennonites in Ukraine, who were directly affected by the war front;

however this was not possible because of the breakdown in community structure in Ukraine

that occurred under Communism before 1934. Therefore the focus is on the identity of

immigrant Mennonites in western Canada who, though not affected directly by the warfront,

were nevertheless affected as new citizens of a country at war against Germany, a country

with whom they identified. The Conflict Site starts in 1934 prior to the outbreak of WWII.

In the mid-1930s there was discord over National Socialist discourse preceding the war,

when Mennonites struggled with calls to support a greater Germany and the ideals of

National Socialism (Nazism). After the war began Mennonites in Canada faced challenges of

not only being perceived as German, but also being perceived as cowards or disloyal by

Anglophone Canadians because of Mennonite pacifist and nonresistant beliefs. The Conflict

115

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116

Site ends just before the close of the war, by which time the contested issues around

Mennonite identity were largely worked through.

The chapter begins with background on Mennonites in western Canada. The

background section provides a brief overview of Mennonite settlement in the west, as well as

an overview of how the Mennonite communities were organized and some of the

Mennonite communal identity concerns at the cusp of 1934. A snapshot of Mennonite’s

experiences in the Soviet Union then follows this background; it is included because those

experiences significantly influenced Mennonites’ positive view of Germany, which was seen

as a bulwark against Communism. The chapter then provides a description of the Conflict

context of 1934 to 1944 for Mennonite communities in western Canada. The chapter

concludes with an analysis of identity categories and themes that emerged from the

grounded analysis of publicly oriented documents produced within the Conflict Site.

Background: Mennonites in Western Canada (1873-1934)

The arrival of Mennonites in western Canada fit into the history of the settling of the

west. Canada became an independent “Dominion” with the British North America Act

(BNA) on 1 July 1867. The core of the new confederation was in the east, with the

provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec. The vast mid-western part

of the continent did not become part of the Dominion of Canada until Manitoba and the

Northwest Territories were added in 1870.1 Once the Northwest Territories were acquired,

the Canadian government looked to the west for setdement and agricultural production.

1 The other provinces or territories added in the nineteenth century were: British Colombia (1871), Prince Edward Island (1873) and Yukon (1898). Saskatchewan and Alberta were added in 1905, Newfoundland in 1949, and Nunavut in 1999. For a concise overview of Canadian history see Conrad and Finkel (2003), or visit the on-line Canadian Encyclopedia (accessed January 17, 2003) at: http://www.canadianencyclopedia.ca/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=Al ARTA0001842.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117

The land first had to be prepared for private, agricultural setdement and then setders

had to be recruited. The government negotiated a series of treaties with First Nations

peoples between 1871 and 1878 and carved out various reservations for bands to live on in

order to free up large swaths of land for homesteading (this process is described in greater

detail in chapter five).2 The government also looked to delimit Metis land usage; the Metis

were a unique group descended from French trappers and First Nations peoples (Morris

1880 (reprinted in 1971); Friesen 1984).3 The Canadian government then recruited colonists

to settle and develop an agricultural base in the west, which Mennonites were a part of -

similar to the founding of Mennonite colonies in Imperial South Russia.4 The following

background overview is divided into three sections that provide background on Mennonite’s

arrival in western Canada, an overview of how the Mennonite communities functioned in

the west, and a brief discussion of Mennonite communal identity in 1934.

Settling the West: Two Central Waves of Immigration

Mennonites were amongst the early European settlers to the Canadian west (Epp

1974; Francis 1955; Driedger 1970). A history of Canadian immigration notes that

Mennonites and Icelanders were the two notable, larger settler groups of the 1870s (Burnet

and Palmer 1988, 25-26). The immigrants were solicited by land agents, and gradually settled

across areas of modern day Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta (see Fig. 4.1). Mennonite

setders arrived in western Canada from Russia, Prussia, the United States, and eastern

2 In 1870 there were approximately 25,000-30,000 indigenous people in western Canada, 10,000 Metis, and 2,000 of direct European descent (Friesen 1984, 137). 3 In 1867 the government of Canada negotiated a compromise with Metis in Manitoba to recognize “a dual culture in the political union.” In the 1870s the government recognized another category of citizenship for “Indians,” who became treated as wards of the state (Friesen 1984,128). 4 Mennonites view themselves positively as settlers, rather than negatively as displacing colonists. This theme is returned to in Conflict Site III and discussed further in Chapter Seven.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118

Canada (Ontario); further, some of those who initially settled in Manitoba moved

progressively west as additional land opened for settlement.

Province 1901 1911 1921 1931 1941

Alberta 546 1,555 3,131 8,289 12,097 Saskatchewan 3,787 14,586 20,544 31,338 32,511 M anitoba 15,289 15,709 21,295 30,352 39,336 O ntario 15,257 12,861 13,645 17,661 22,219

Fig. 4.1: Canadian Provinces with Large Mennonite Populations. From Frank H. Epp, Mennonites in Canada, 1786-1920: The History of a Separate People (Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1974), 304; and Frank FI. Epp, Mennonites in Canada, 1920-1940: A People's Struggle for Survival (Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1982), 604-607.

The Mennonites from Ukraine, Russia and Prussia immigrated to western Canada in

two central waves or groupings — one in the 1870s and another in the 1920s. The first wave

occurred around 1880, and people who arrived during this period became known as “old

timers” or Kanadier. Roughly one-third of the Mennonite population in Ukraine, or

approximately 18,000 people, left South Russia for the Canadian and American west

between 1873 and 1884, when the Russian government was altering the laws dealing with

colonists (Epp 1974; Francis 1955; Smith 1927). In some cases, entire villages moved to

block settlements in the new North American frontier. Of these immigrants, just under half,

or 7,442, settled in Canada where they received guarantees from the government that they

would receive religious freedoms, such as exemption from military service and control over

education (Epp 1962).5 The Mennonites in eastern Canada, who had settled in Ontario

from the eastern United States — and claimed a slightly different, Swiss-based heritage —

5 The Hutterites and Doukhobors were granted the same freedoms in Canada (Epp 1974; Ens 1994a). The larger half of the Mennonite immigrant group settled in the United States, with about 5,000 settling in Kansas and the others spreading across Minnesota, Dakota, Nebraska and Iowa (Dyck 1967).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119

assisted the new Russian Mennonite immigrants (Correll 1937, 8-14).6

The first-wave of Mennonites largely setded in the newly formed province of

Manitoba. An advance party scouted land and negotiated the terms of setdement with

government officials. The Canadian government set aside two tracts of contiguous land for

the Mennonite immigrants’ exclusive use, called the East Reserve and West Reserve. An

initial letter laid out the terms of agreement and was legalized in an Order in Council, 25

April 1876. The letter became the basis for Mennonite understanding of their exemption

from military service and various other religious freedoms.7 Land was owned individually

with a base of one, quarter (%) section (160 acres) per person over 21 years of age. The East

Reserve was established east of the Red River about 20 miles south of the provincial capital

Winnipeg.8 Setdement in the West Reserve began three years later, and as its name suggests

it lay just west of the Red River.9 The early setders built villages and farms according to the

construction pattern of the villages they had left in South Russia. Due to the numerous

immigrants, the reserved land was soon occupied and Mennonites looked west for additional

land.

Initially, Canadian government officials were pleased with the progress Mennonites

made as setders. The early success of the West Reserve was use to garner support for

additional Reserve land in Saskatchewan. For example, the 1895 Order-in-Council for the

Hague-Osier Reserve reads:

6 This group of Mennonites was from Switzerland, France and South Germany, and arrived in Canada in the late eighteenth century. For additional detail see Smith (1957), MacMaster (1985), Toews (1935a). 7 Letter reprinted in Francis (1955). 8 It consisted of initially seven and then eight townships covering 185,000 acres or 290 square miles (Ens 1994b). Details can also be accessed on-line at www.mlisc.ca/encvdopedia/contents/E2383.html. 9 The West Reserve included 17 townships and covered 612 square miles (1,620 km squared). Land in the West Reserve proved very fertile while the land in the East Reserve was both more rocky and swampy.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120

The people had prospered to a remarkable degree since their arrival in Manitoba, and have fulfilled with singular good faith all the obligations undertaken by them in that relation, repaying the advance money made to them, with interest.. .and fully colonizing their reservations with the choicest setders... it is important, in the public interest, that the efforts of the Mennonites to induce the immigration of their friends in Europe and elsewhere to the Northwest should be encouraged, and to do this it is necessary to give the intending setders an assurance that they will be enabled to carry out the principles of their social system, and to setde together in hamlets (for which provision is made by Section 37 of the Dominion Lands Act) by obtaining entries for contiguous lands. (Order-in-Council, 23 January 1895, quoted in Epp 1974, 312-313)

The government agreed to form several new reserves for Mennonites in what became the

province of Saskatchewan. One reserve, the Hague-Osier Reserve, was established in 1895

just north of the city of Saskatoon between the North and South Saskatchewan rivers.10 A

second reserve was formed further south and west in the Swift Current area of Saskatchewan

in 1904. In 1906 the Carrot River Reserve was established east of Prince Albert. These

reserve lands were set aside for Mennonite group settlement, with hamlet provisions. Old

Colony Mennonites led block settlement efforts and were particularly keen on establishing

the old-style village structure that they had established in Russia.11 The government did not

approve all applications for block settlements nor did all Mennonites choose to homestead

in large block reserves.12 Mennonites did tend to setde in groups, however, often within the

vicinity of the Reserves, and in specific congregational church communities. Legislation

guaranteeing the block settlements also included a termination date, after which an area was

no longer guaranteed for Mennonite-only settlement. For example, five additional

10 The reserve comprised the even numbered sections of four townships along the railway line, while the odd numbered sections could be bought from the railway (Hague-Osier Reserve Book Committee 1995; Ens 1994b). Two additional areas of land were temporarily added to the Hague-Osier reserved, discussed further in Chapter Five. 11 In both cases quarter sections of land were owned individually. 12 In some areas like Edmonton, Alberta, applications for block setdement were denied. It is suggested this was due to local sentiments against such privileges (Bargen 1960).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121

townships were annexed to the Hague-Osier Reserve in June 1898 and were reserved only

until November 1902 (Ens 1994b).

The government regarded Mennonite setders quite favorably until around the advent

of World War I. A number of issues emerged that sparked public disapproval. Two related

concerns were Mennonite’s exemption from military service and their opposition to war;

these were interpreted as indications of disloyalty and cowardice. Language and cultural

issues reinforced fears of disloyalty. Mennonites preferred to speak German at church, in

homes and schools, and live separately, which prompted some Anglophone Canadians to

view Mennonites as possible enemy aliens (Epp 1974; Francis 1955).13 The conservative

Mennonite groups also vigorously protested government intrusions into education — such as

government requirements to fly the Canadian flag, teach English and set the curriculum at

schools — which compounded negative public perceptions of Mennonites by the government

and other Canadians. Concerned about government intrusion into religious life, the more

conservative Old Colony groups emigrated from Canada to Mexico and Paraguay where they

were assured of control over their schools and exemption from military service (Ens 1994a).

Their arguments were not well received by the Canadian public. There were further public

concerns when news reports suggested Mennonites and Flutterites were fleeing the United

States and coming to Canada from in order to avoid the draft.14 In 1919, the Canadian

government banned all new immigration by Mennonites, Hutterites and Doukhobors - all

pacifist groups. The ban was implemented just when Mennonites in Ukraine and Russia

were desperately beginning to look abroad (as discussed in chapter three).

13 Mennonites made numerous financial contributions to the government in lieu of service to show their loyalty. For a partial list see Epp (1974, 369-372) 14 Some newspapers reported the number of pacifist immigrants from 30,000-60,000 people, although the Minister of Immigration reported there were about 500-600 Mennonite and 1,300 Hutterite immigrants from the U.S. in 1918, the peak year (Epp 1974, 395).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122

The second wave of emigration from Ukraine and Russia to Canada occurred

between 1923 and 1929. Mennonite immigrants were only permitted to enter Canada after

the ban on immigration was lifted in June 1923 — a result of multiple trips by Mennonite

leaders to petition the government in Ottawa and a change in the majority political party

(Francis 1955; Epp 1962, 1974; Paetkau 1984; Redekop 1979). As detailed in Conflict Site I,

these second-wave Mennonites left Ukraine and Russia largely because of famine, post-war

fatigue and loss, fear of the changing social, political and economic landscape and a general

desire to start anew. Between 1923 and 1929, approximately 20,000 Mennonites arrived in

Canada from various regions of the former Russian empire — estimated at around one-sixth

of the total population of Mennonites in Russia at the time. The immigrants of the 1920s

were referred to as “new setders” or Russlander.

By and large, the Mennonite immigrants of the 1920s arrived in Canada with few

possessions. Most had to work off a personal or family transportation debt owed to the

Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization, which was an institution that formed in western

Canada to support and coordinate the mass migration (Epp 1962; Fretz 1944). The

government required that the new immigrants setde in rural areas on farms. Unfortunately,

land was expensive for new immigrants. Fortunately, some relatively affordable farmland

came available in areas that the Old Colony Mennonites vacated when they departed for

Mexico and Paraguay (Epp 1962). About three-quarters of the new immigrants settied on

farms and the remainder settied in cities like Winnipeg. Some of those who started on farms

moved into towns or cities shordy after initial setdement because they had previously been

artisans, small business owners or more educated professionals.15

15 For discussion of this see Paetkau (1984).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123

The final group of Mennonites who left Russia just before the iron curtain clanged

shut had traveled to Moscow in the fall of 1929. They were part of a larger group of roughly

13,000 people who were in Moscow to gain permission to leave the country. The Russian

government refused to let them leave, and the Canada government declined assistance.

After some pressure, the German government intervened on the emigrant’s behalf and

brought a group of 5,673 refugees, which included 3,885 Mennonites. These refugees

traveled to Germany and then were eventually settled in Canada, South America and Europe

(Epp 1962; Dyck 1969).16 The Soviet government forced the remaining 8,000 people who

had gathered in Moscow to return to their villages.17 This final group of Russian Mennonite

immigrants to Canada concluded the second wave of immigration.

Functioning as a Community: Organization and Communication in Western Canada

The Mennonite communities in western Canada were not neatly bounded enclaves as

they had been in Imperial Russia. There tended to be three main mechanisms to retain

connections amongst Mennonites across the vast western expanse: 1) some geographical

propinquity remained, 2) the populations were connected through some larger church

institutions, and 3) there were Mennonite German-language newspapers to share

information.

Geographically, Mennonites tended to settle in particular areas even outside the

block settlements. Clusters of Mennonites were typically based on kinship or congregational

ties. The settlements were often close to the former block settlements. However, these

16 There was increasing criticism against new immigrants from South-East Europe beginning in 1927 and in 1929 the door to Canada closed again. It took considerable work for the Mennonite refugees Germany had assisted to gain entrance into Canada in 1931-32 (Epp 1982). 17 Another group of Mennonites from Siberia trekked to northern China between 1929 and 1934, see Toews (1982, 135-150). For a fictionalized account see Wiebe (1970).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124

clusters were spread across vast expanses of prairie. Churches provided a gathering point in

these communities, which early setders would sometimes travel considerable distances to

attend — either as members or ministers. The general propinquity ensured that some

community support functions could still occur, even though church members lived apart and

on individual farms.

The local congregation (the Gemeindej, formed the core institutional body for most

Mennonites to relate to. In the local congregation community bonds were strong and new

members joined when they were baptized.18 At the time, leaders tended to be men, and

decisions were made by vote — generally by men although these practices began to shift as

early as 1928 (Enns 1928).

Like in the previous Site, a church conference structure brought unity to the

disaggregated population. A number of congregational bodies associated together in a larger

institutional body that was usually called a conference. Conferences were formed when

congregations joined together with similar sets of beliefs and practices (Toews 1935a).19

Unlike the previous Site, there were more numerous conferences in western Canada and they

tended to be divided by the interpretation of particular practices. An example of an issue

that divided churches in separate conference affiliations was the manner of baptism — some

conferences argued that baptismal candidates could be sprinkled with water whereas others

argued that they required full immersion or “dunking.”20 Elected leaders represented

congregations at conference meetings. The meetings were places where common concerns

18 The Gemeinde is both a source of pride and weakness for Mennonites. At its most positive it is seen as a manifestation of a God’s kingdom on earth and a structure that has helped to preserve the Mennonite communities during periods of persecution. At its most negative it is seen as a disaggregated structure that supports narrow-mindedness and intolerance in local communities (Epp 1982, 249). 19 For a detailed list of congregations and their conference affiliations in 1940 see Epp (1982, 269- 291). 20 For a brief overview of the differences between conferences see Toews (1935a).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125

and issues were discussed. Conferences allowed congregations to work through important

issues as a whole and to develop or access ministerial resources beyond their own

independent capacities, which was particularly useful for more smaller, remote

congregations. Many also hoped that conference associations would counter-act external

pressures to assimilate. While the conferences facilitated discussion, final decisions were

generally left to congregations. For example, a 1930 resolution read: “Questions of principle

may be debated beforehand but not decided upon by the membership of the churches. The

Conference adopts the resolutions, which may then be accepted as binding by the churches,or

rejected’’ (translated in Paetkau 1984, 82, emphasis retained). Conferences were important

structures for maintaining communication and some unity across the various congregations

within it, but the local congregation was considered the most important body for

Mennonites.

The first conference in western Canada — the Conference of Mennonites in Central

Canada — was established in 1903. In 1934 there were eight different conferences in the

western provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. The largest

body was the Conference of Mennonites in Central Canada, which was affiliated with the

national North America-wide General Conference of Mennonites (Toews 1935a, 87), and

played an important leadership role during this Conflict Site.21 Two other sizeable

conferences were the Mennonite Brethren Church and the Bergthaler. During the war,

leaders of the conference bodies worked together to identify a common platform and stance

21 The largest conference in Canada in 1934 was the General Conference (approx. 28 percent of the 75,000 Mennonites), followed by the “Bergthaler” (20 percent), the Mennonite Brethren Church (15 percent) and the Old Order Mennonites (11 percent) (T°ews 1935a).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126

on critical issues like alternative service and produced joint statements, which were used as

text for the grounded theory analysis for this Site.

The congregations and conferences developed and supported independent church

institutions to facilitate interaction on particular issues, such as immigration and settlement

assistance or relief aid. For example, the Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization was

formed to facilitate settlement of the new Russlander immigrants to Canada in the 1920s. The

Board of Colonization was formed out of the previously established Canadian Central

Committee, which had organized Canadian contributions to the relief aid that reached

Mennonites in Russia and Ukraine in Conflict Site I (for further details of the organizational

history see Epp 1962). A separate organization was established to oversee cultural and

economic development for the second wave of Mennonite immigrants, called the Central

Mennonite Immigration Committee (Zentrales Mennonitisches Immigrantenkomitee - ZMIK). It

was founded in 1923 as an advisory group to the Canadian Mennonite Board of

Colonization and had a mandate to support the cultural, moral and religious development of

Mennonites in Canada. Its most successful work was distributing over 121,000 German and

religious books to Mennonites.22 The Committee was brought under the wing of the

Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization in 1934 as the Committee for Cultural work and

alternately the Cultural Division — just at the time when German-English tensions were on

the increase in Canada and elsewhere in the world (Canadian Mennonite Board of

Colonization 1934, 1935).

22 Urry (1996) explores a number of Mennonite German nationalist efforts, including the ZMIK. Further information on the Canadian Central Immigration Committee is also available on-line at the Canadian Mennonite Encyclopedia website at http://www.mhsc.ca/encyclopedia/contents/c4591me.html.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127

There were regional organizations that focused on relief assistance, such as the

Ontario-based Non-Resistant Relief Organization, the Manitoba-based Canadian Mennonite

Relief Committee, the Mennonite Central Relief Committee of Western Canada. An inter

conference institution that became stronger during the WWII period was the U.S.-based

Mennonite Central Committee (MCC), which was originally named American Mennonite

Relief and had taken the lead on recovery assistance to Ukraine and Russia. There were also

institutions formed to take the lead in addressing wartime issues, such as the Conference of

Historic Peace Churches, which also included representatives from Quakers and other

pacifist groups.23 It is worth noting that the leaders of these various church institutions

were typically the same men who led the conferences. For example, David Toews served as

Chairman of the Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization as well as the Chairman of the

Conference of Mennonites in Western Canada (1904-1940, with some breaks in

Chairmanship). It has been suggested that the conference structure produced a more

hierarchical form of Mennonite interaction than Mennonite theology suggested (Regehr

1996, 25). Gender roles were also quite circumscribed at the time and women rarely held

leadership positions.24 Therefore a relatively small group of men — elected conference

leaders and Bishops or elders of congregations — became quite influential in shaping

Mennonite collective action in the early half of the twentieth century.25

23 Mennonite Central Committee Canada eventually developed an independent institutional identity by the merger of these relief and peace organizations, with a number of other organizations in 1963. 24 Maureen Epp (2000) provides insights into the difficulties that single women with children, who had escaped from the Soviet Union during WWII (some of whom had been raped) and who didn’t fit the proscribed social expectations, encountered in trying to fit into Mennonite church-life in Canada. Women’s historical role in the Mennonite church became the subject of closer study in the 1980s and 1990s (see for example Epp 1987; Neufeld Redekop 1996). 25 These men received railway passes and so could attend meetings more cheaply than other members of the church, which further reinforced the dynamic (Regehr 1996, 25).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128

The newer Mennonite immigrants also maintained contact and a collective identity

via German language newspapers. Two periodicals in particular served this function: Die

Mennonitische Rundschau and Der Bote. Der Bote was founded in Rosthern, Saskatchewan in

1924 and was the German-language newspaper of the General Conference Mennonite

Church and read by many of the new immigrants — including ones who belonged to the

Mennonite Brethren conference. Die Mennonitische Rundschau did not have a denominational

base, and moved to Winnipeg from the U.S. in 1923. It was circulated in both the U.S. and

Canada (Epp 1965). Both contained world news as well as more Mennonite-specific articles,

updates and letters to the editors.

“Russian” Mennonites in Western Canada in 1934

At the start of this Conflict Site, the two waves of Mennonite immigrants from

Ukraine/Russia had different experiences, which affected their identity and cohesiveness.

During W W II, these groups interacted in a process of negotiating responses through the

conference and other institutional bodies. These interactions helped close the gap and

solidify a more common understanding of being Mennonite in Canada during the Conflict

Site period.26 The analysis in this chapter therefore includes both groups. In 1934, there

were differences, which are briefly presented here in order to provide a reference point for

changes that occur the ensuing decade.

The Russlander immigrants of the 1920s had prospered to a much greater degree in

Ukraine and Russia, had branched into industrial pursuits beyond farming, and had generally

attained a higher education than the Kanadier had when they left Russia. Many Russldnder

26 This interpretation is supported by E.K. Francis’s (1955) suggestion that: “The time lapse between these two migrations was sufficient to create real distinctions in the whole outlook on life between the two groups. But the deep gulf which existed in the years following the Russlander immigration has been largely closed” (3).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129

were proud of their agricultural and business accomplishments, and the cultural life they had

enjoyed. The Russlander had also lived through more harrowing experiences during the

revolution, which had ruptured their identity and sense of community, as noted in the

previous chapter. These were immigrants looking to rebuild, to re-establish themselves and

their community, to work and prosper in a new place. However, they were confronted by

new challenges in Canada. Adjustments to Canada included learning English and being

exposed to British-influenced history and culture. The "Russlander had only lived in Canada

for about a decade by the time this Conflict Site began.

For many Russlander immigrants, there was a strong desire to retain elements of the

old life, such as the German language at home and in worship. The Central Mennonite

Immigration Committee, or ZMIK, pursued a cultural agenda for many of the new

immigrants.27 J.J. Hildebrand, a one-time leader in Russia, pursued an independent

Mennonite homeland in 1934. Hildebrand’s efforts did not progress far but highlighted the

degree to which some Mennonites saw themselves as a unique population. Interestingly, in

1934 the Central Mennonite Immigration Committee was brought under more close control

of the Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization as a “Cultural Division” (Canadian

Mennonite Board of Colonization 1934). The group continued to provide German language

resources to congregations, youth groups, Sunday schools, other Mennonite education

institutions and libraries although with more limited success because of Depression era

financial constraints (Epp 1934, 1935).

27 There was also a group formed called the Mennonite Immigration Aid (MIA), which was headed by a small group of Mennonites without formal church backing (Epp 1962,179-182). It formed a business alliance with the Canadian National Railway Company and the Cunard Steamship line in 1926, and saw itself as a competitor to the Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization, which worked with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The MIA was not very successful in bringing Mennonite immigrants but did prod other Mennonite agencies to work more vigorously on resetdement in Canada (Epp 1982, 196-197).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130

In some contrast, the Kanadier immigrants had arrived to settle the west and had

endured hard years as new homesteaders. Over years of hard work they had built up farms

and towns, and were part of the founding agricultural communities in many areas. The

Kanadier had also established the churches and conferences, and had assisted the Russlander’s

immigration to Canada. By WWII, the older Kanadier had endured negative public response

to Mennonites in Canada; they had garnered experience in negotiating with the Canadian

government over flying flags at schools and ensuring an exemption from military service in

WWI, they had also successfully advocated changes to the Canadian immigration laws in the

early 1920s. The most conservative Mennonite groups had largely emigrated further south

to Paraguay and Mexico by the end of the 1920s and those who remained were more

comfortable with some accommodations to the English language and culture.

However, the Kanadier also struggled with the degree to which they should conform

to the culture and standards around them or be “non-conformed,” particularly with respect

to style of dress, occupation and language - issues on which the various conferences took

different positions.28 For example, there were debates over the degree of modesty and

decency in apparel, and some excluded particular modern fashions, such as short sleeves or

flesh-colored stockings, while others insisted women should wear a cape dress and head

covering (Toews 1935a; Stauffer 1939). Farming remained the most appreciated form of

livelihood and cities were viewed as morally suspect. There was also a concern for

maintaining the German language for worship and study. The Kanadier were grappling with

issues of integration in Canadian society.

28 For a concise overview of these debates see Chapter 11 in Epp (1982).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131

In 1934, the Russlander were struggling to re-establish themselves and their

Mennonite identity within this new context where the Kanadier were more comfortably

established. The economic crash of 1929 and ensuing depression and drought meant the

new immigrants had to focus on local survival, and revived older forms of cooperation and

mutual aid.29 Agricultural incomes fell by almost 80 percent between 1928 and 1933, which

hampered settlement and recovery. The Russlander relied on the more established Mennonite

community in Canada and the United States for further assistance, although they too

encountered difficulties during the depression. Many new Mennonite immigrants

experienced personal debt problems during the depression, and there was likewise difficulty

in repaying the large collective transportation debt Mennonites owed the Canadian Pacific

Railway from the 1920s mass migration.30 Before the war began, the Mennonite community

was somewhat divided and diffuse; the conferences and institutions did not regularly

cooperate until WWII started and they began to respond to war-related issues together.

In 1934, there were looming political and national challenges. Terrible stories were

arriving in Canada by word of mouth from relatives in the Soviet Union under Communism.

Mennonite attitudes towards Germany’s pre-war policies were in part linked to these

experiences of relatives in the Soviet Union. A brief description of the situation for

Mennonites in the Soviet Union is therefore included below to provide more contextual

information. Other points of Mennonite identification with Germany are described more

thoroughly in subsequent sections below.

29 For a discussion of the impact of the depression see Epp (1982, 347-394). 30 Several large interest payments were cancelled by the railway because lack of funds to pay.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132

Mennonites in the Soviet Union in the 1930s

Mennonites in the Soviet Union were affected by the mass project of Soviet

collectivization. Collectivization began unevenly during the NEP period when some private

farming and businesses were allowed, as described in the previous chapter (Fitzpatrick 1994;

Service 1997). The better-off farming communities, like those in Ukraine, resisted

collectivization quite strongly. There was also a history of individual ownership in these

areas of resistance in Ukraine. In order to ensure collectivization, Stalin introduced his first

five-year plan in 1928. The first major phase was to ensure dekulakization occurred and land

was liquidated from prosperous landowners and farmers called kulaks?' Dekulakization for

landowners meant exceedingly heavy taxation, arrest, confiscation of property, exile to

Siberia, and/ or immediate death.32 Given that many Mennonites were landowners, those

who remained were affected. The dekulakization rates in Mennonite villages were equal to

and sometimes higher than rates in Russian and Ukrainian villages — rates have been

reported to range up to 20-25 percent, which compared with a rate of 5-15 percent in most

Russian and Ukrainian villages, although rates varied significantly from village to village and

were higher in agricultural regions (Neufeldt 1998; Toews 1982).

Religious leaders and religious practices were simultaneously removed from public

life with thedekulakization process.33 There were numerous anti-religious campaigns that

focused on youth, while religious leaders were removed from their land and exiled — locally

31 Mennonite kulaks were defined by a variety of methods, such as tax lists, property records, participation in the Selbstschutz or White Army, preaching, or refusing to join a collective. People who identified kulaks were typically other villagers who did so for a variety of reasons such as fear, quotas, desire to improve personal standing (Neufeldt 1998). 32 For examples see Toews (1982), Dyck (1997). 33 For examples, see Unruh (1933), Dyck (1997).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133

or to Siberia — or executed (often as ‘kulaks’).34 In 1930 a religious leader wrote in a rare

report: “Like a lightning bolt for us believers the ‘notification’ flashed through the

periodicals just a year ago, ‘This year the Slavgorod area will be relieved of its ministers.’

The consequence is death for our churches. Death for our Mennonite peoplehood”

(unknown 1930). By the mid 1930s there were no public religious leaders in Mennonite

communities and the social, economic and religious institutional framework was shattered.35

A prominent Mennonite, who was located in Germany and periodically made trips into the

Soviet Union, summarized the Russian Mennonite situation:

World war [I] and civil war, revolution and famine, pestilence, persecution... Since then the plunge has gone further into the depths. I do not wish to give a political address here just now, but we must make it plain that the economic as well as the religious need in Russia is tremendous. The churches have been destroyed or have been confiscated for other purposes. The bishops and preachers are scattered and in exile... (Unruh 1934, 65)

The Mennonite community no longer existed as a separate entity. The general situation in

Ukraine and the Soviet Union only got worse.

Dekulakiv(lion was accompanied by massive grain requisitions, which contributed to

an enormous famine in the winter of 1932-33.36 It is debated how much the famine was

engineered and targeted at particular populations, such as Ukrainians, but there is general

agreement that it was geared to break the remaining resistance to collectivization. In

Ukraine it is estimated that 5 to 8 million (about 15 percent of the population) died

(Conquest 1986; Lieven 1999). The famine was most severe in Ukraine, western Siberia and

the Russian Cossack lands where resistance to collectivization was strongest. Stalin’s tactics

34 In the Mennonite community, a German-language newspaper reported excerpts of court proceedings and judgments against Mennonite kulaks, public renunciations of religious faith and caricatures of leaders (Neufeldt 1998). 35 Mennonites who escaped the Soviet Union tell of learning about Low German, Mennonite hymns and some religious prayers at home, usually from their mothers (Dyck 1997; Epp 1998; Klassen 1994). 36 For a Ukrainian nationalist perspective see Wilson (1995).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 134

were brutally successful and by 1937, 93 percent of peasant households were part of a

collective ( kholko%) (Nove 1969). “The Great Terror” of the Soviet secret police (NKVD)

followed the famine (Conquest 1990; Letkemann 1998). Conquest (1990) estimates that

about 7 million people were arrested between 1937 and 1938, and about one million of these

executed.37 Mennonites were of course also directly affected by these events. Arrest rates in

former Mennonite centers have been estimated at 8 to 9 percent of the male population; in a

few cases women were also arrested by secret police (Letkemann 1998; Toews 1982).

Mennonite relatives in the west heard sporadic news of fear and death from relatives

in the Soviet Union. The news further fueled their already strong reaction against

communism and garnered additional support for Germany, which was seen as a bulwark

against Communism.38 While in the Soviet Union, the rise of Nazism also helped re-kindle

antagonisms and hatred towards Germans.39

A Decade of Conflict in Western Canada: 1934 - 1944

This Conflict Site covers a period of time that includes the build-up to WWII as well

the majority of war years. Within this Site, the conflict is related to external, world events,

but focuses on how it plays out for Mennonites in western Canada, both within the

community itself and between the Mennonite community and the larger socio-political

context they are embedded within. This section provides an overview of the conflict context

37 An unpublished report by a 1960s commission under Khrushchev states that 19,840,000 persons were arrested as “enemies of the people” between 1935 and 1940; of these 7 million (around 5 percent of the population) were executed (from Shutunovskaya, translated in Letkemann 1998). 38 As fate would have it, the German army was also seen as the one hope for Mennonites, and other Germans in Ukraine and Russia, to get out of the “Soviet hell.” In 1943 some 35,000 Mennonites fled the Soviet Union with the exiting German army as part of a large ordered retreat of about 350,000. Roughly 20,000 Mennonites were repatriated to the Soviet Union (Epp 1998, 2000). 39 Hitler’s examples of land for German Lebensraum were first and foremost the lands of Ukraine and other border Soviet states (Hitler 1939).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135

during the period from 1934 to 1944. The emergent categories of Mennonite identity are

then detailed in the ensuing section.

In the years preceding the war, ethnic nationalist discourse was heightened and

contested amongst Mennonites in western Canada. Diaspora German communities in

Canada were drawn into these dynamics with calls to join the larger German Volk or people,

which some thought should include the Mennonites in western Canada. The conflict in the

early years of this Site was focused internally in the Mennonite community, but which

echoed the larger conflict brewing in Europe. There was a debate over national

identification and the degree to which Mennonites identified with the state of Canada or

Germany. Amongst Mennonites in Canada, there was a fairly high identification rate as

German. In a 1931 Canadian census on race, 39 percent of the Mennonite community

identified themselves as “German,” 42 percent as “Dutch” and 14 percent as “Russian.”

Interestingly, ten years later, in 1941, there was a substantial shift in reported racial

identification and 28 percent identified themselves as “German,” while 58 percent identified

as “Dutch” and 6 percent as “Russian” (Epp 1965, 19). Epp argues that this shift may have

occurred because Mennonites were politically distancing themselves from WWII Germany,

which seems plausible.40

The strong German National Socialism (Nazism) promoted by Adolf Hitler in

Germany was aimed at the larger German Volk worldwide and attracted adherents amongst

the Mennonite community. Hitler was seen as a strong leader for Germans at the time,

before the full extent of his anti-Semitic views and policies became apparent. He was

initially understood to be a proponent of Christian ideals as well as a staunch voice against

40 There was less anti-German immigrant sentiment expressed in Canada during WWII than WWI (Burnet and Palmer 1988; Keyserlingk 1984).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 136

Communism. This combination appealed to many Russlander who were struggling to rebuild

in western Canada. Calls to support German national ideals were made by a prominent

Mennonite leader living in Germany, Benjamin H. Unruh, as well as by an up-and-coming

Mennonite leader, and staunch Nazi supporter, Walter Quiring.41 For example:

'I am 100 percent for Hitler,' he [B.H. Unruh] said, as we came around to this subject. He compared Hitler with the Oberschulze [district mayor] in South Russia, who was usually a man of action who brought the Mennonite settlements to the heights of development and maybe was not always the most pious. Hitler is the man for Germany; the German people have him to thank for the present well-being. (Neufeld 1936)42

Unruh had been one of the Mennonites on the study commission that the Molotschna

colony sent out during the revolution and remained in touch with and supported by the

larger western Canadian Mennonite community for on-going relief and assistance work for

Mennonites still in the Soviet Union.

In the mid-1930s Mennonites debated issues of German identity amongst themselves

in the Die Rundschau and Der Rote. There were opinions of support for or arguments against

identifying with Germany and Nazism.43 Some identified with Germany because their

ancestors were from Prussia, for others there was an appreciation for German language and

culture. Benjamin Wall Redekop (1985) analyzes Mennonite expressions of Germanism in

articles in Die Rundschau, and notes that: “The ‘German’ ethnic background of Mennonites

was cited as responsible for the qualities which carried Mennonites through their

wanderings, helping them to make improvements on the land wherever they settled” (48).44

41 Interestingly, Quiring changed his first name from Jakob to Walter to be more Germanic. For a brief description of Unruh and Quiring’s lives, including their association with National Socialism, see the biographies in (Loewen 2003). They were both involved in promoting German National Socialism in the Mennonite colonies in Latin America, although Quiring was more directly engaged (Thiesen 1999). 42 Translated by Thiessen (1999, 88-89). 43 For analysis of the articles in Der Bote see Epp (1965). For an analysis o f articles in Die Mennonitische Bundschau see Redekop (1985). 44 Redekop (1985) cites five examples of this discourse from the 1930 to 1932 period.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137

It was an identity that could help give stability to the new immigrants — although others

pointed out that Mennonites were more a faith group than an ethnic group (for example, see

Janzen 1934; Toews 1936b). It is not clear to what extent supporters understood the hateful

anti-Semitic dimensions of Hider’s ideology in the early 1930s. There were Mennonites, like

Quiring, who were strongly anti-Semitic, as noted above, and saw Bolshevism as a Jewish

project.45 Other Mennonites refuted ant-Semitism (for example A.K. 1938). There were

also pockets of Mennonites who resonated with the growing militarism that Germany and

Japan embodied — this was another point of disagreement within the Mennonite

community.46 Recruitment notices from the German consul were printed in Die Rundschau

and Der Bote in 1937 and 1938.47 Selbstschu/-> veterans announced a reunion in 1938, and

there were several books published on Selbstschuk ^ exploits around the same time (Schmidt

1938).48

Around 1938 there was a marked shift in Mennonite public discourse with regards to

German nationalism. In the late 1930s, voices opposing the association of Mennonites with

Hider, his ideology, Germany, Nazism, anti-Semitism and militarism prevailed among the

Mennonite leaders. Strong counter-arguments were made, particularly by B.B. Janz - the

former leader of the Verband who had helped so many Mennonites emigrate from Russia —

in the Mennonite newspapers (janz 1938, 1935b). The counter-arguments focused on the

need to disentangle the German language from Germany’s politics, and the need to be

45 B.B. Janz also exhibited anti-Semitism (Janz 1935a); although Janz (1935b) was vocally against the Reich - writing, for example, “ Like a farmer I need markers to plow a straight course. Thus I point myself in the direction of my mother, the home, the German school, the German sermon, my German Bible ... but not towards the German Reich with its political centre in Berlin” (Translated in Redekop 1985, 68). 46 This argument is supported by Epp (1982; 1965), Reimer (1993), and Urry (1996). 47 There were a number of entries in the paper (Deutsches General-Konsulat 1937a, 1937b; Ueber die Erfassung 1938; Granow 1937). There were also some unconfirmed verbal reports that some ardent supporters did travel to Germany to join the army. 48 H.H. Schroedere’s Fusslanddeutsche Friesen and G.G. Toews’ Heimat in Frummem.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 138

faithful and supportive Canadian citizens. These arguments, which were made over a

number of years, eventually quelled strident support for Germany amongst most Canadian

Mennonites. Mennonite references to German politics shifted in 1939; there was a

concerted effort by the Mennonite leadership to counter militarism, following a meeting in

May 1939, when war with Germany was looming. The 1939 meeting produced a unanimous

request to Mennonite newspapers to “refrain from printing any news or articles contrary to

our principles” (quoted in Epp 1982, 574). On 20 September 1939, the editor of Die

"Rundschau wrote that Mennonites were privileged to live in Canada and should be true to

their history of being the “quiet in the land” (Ein Aufforderung 1939).

It had also become clear that the world was on the cusp of another great war. There

was an example of a Mennonite family changing their last name to be more Dutch in 1939 in

order to show they were not German-supporters, however the Mennonite leadership viewed

this type of move negatively (Toews 1939d).

Mennonites had begun to engage in more constructive ways with the larger global

conflict issues between 1935 and 1939, including peace education, research into

conscientious objection status issues and international relief aid.49 The Peace Committee of

the General Conference of Mennonites in North America was active during this time period

and included a Canadian member on it, Rev. J.G. Rempel from Rosthern. This committee’s

activities focused primarily on the U.S but also served as a resource to the Canadian

Mennonites (Neuenschwander 1938). The Peace Committee developed a number of

pamphlets on peace teachings, aided Mennonite individuals in the U.S. who had not been

49 This likely occurred because Mennonites in North America had difficult experiences during WWI, when their stand on conscientious objection was called into questioned; they were therefore likely preparing for a stronger peace position if a second war were to break out. For further exploration of the peace position in North America see Bush (1998).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. naturalized citizens, and worked to produce a non-antagonistic public statement regarding

Mennonite faith, non-resistance and loyalty for those who desired to become naturalized

citizens (Neuenschwander 1935). Between 1935 and 1938, the Committee also encouraged

participation in Peace Study Classes and Peace Conferences, encouraged Mennonites to

write national legislators to support peace, and suggested cooperation with like-minded other

groups (Krehbiel 1938; Neuenschwander 1938).50 In 1935, Conference Chairman David

Toews corresponded with a lawyer and government representatives regarding the exemption

status of the new Mennonite immigrants with respect to military service (Toews 1935c,

1935b; Magladery 1935).51 This action indicated that he and other Mennonite leaders were

aware of and preparing for the possibility of war. Mennonites were also concerned about

conditions elsewhere in the world and gave aid to Mennonites in the Soviet Union as well as

to victims of the Spanish civil war. A final way that the Mennonite leadership in western

Canada engaged with world issues was to vocally support British leaders. For example,

Mennonites celebrated the British Monarch, King George VPs 25th Jubilee year in 1935

(Jahrbook 1935 1935). Mennonite ministers in Manitoba wrote a letter to British Prime

Minister Chamberlain in 1938 supporting his efforts to negotiate peace. Further, a letter of

Mennonite support was also written to the British Monarch in May, about four months

before the outbreak of war (Toews 1939e).

Of course, there were numerous other issues that occupied the Mennonite church

during the pre-war period, as evidenced in the minutes from conference and board meetings.

There were concerns over retaining youth, and therefore new developments in youth

50 However, the committee’s actions were limited during this time period when limited funds were dedicated to its activities (Bohn 1941). 51 For a biography o f Toew’s life see Harder (2002).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 140

education, Sunday school curriculum, youth groups, boarding homes for young Mennonite

women in cities, and choirs in the 1930s. The Canadian Board of Colonization continued to

spend considerable time and energy collecting the travel debt from the 1920s immigrants - a

task shouldered by C.F. Klassen. Mennonites pursued mission work in a number of

countries such as India and China. Mennonite conferences also debated issues of

appropriate dress. These issues were part of the panoply of concerns that Mennonites faced

during the pre-war period, and were tied to retaining a common identity but peripheral to

the larger national and international conflict that was brewing.

WWII began in September 1939. On the 1st of September Germany invaded Poland

and destroyed its western defenses utilizing the blitzkrieg (lightening war) while the Soviet

Union advanced on Poland’s eastern border. Poland quickly surrendered. Britain and

France declared war on the 3rd of September, honoring a treaty commitment to Poland.

Canada held a special Parliamentary session on the 7th of September and approved going to

war in support of Britain and France two days later.52 Canadian Prime Minister William

Lyon McKenzie King initially indicated that there would be no conscription, however there

was immediate pressure for young Canadian men to join the war effort. In 1940 there was a

national referendum on conscription, which supported a reversal in the position on

conscription.

The war meant Mennonites were in conflict with many of their fellow Canadian

citizens over their beliefs about war and faced antagonism and suspicion over potential

German enemy affiliation, citizenship, loyalty, and military service (Epp 1962; Epp 1965;

52 For an overview of Canadian history, including WWII, see Conrad and Finkel (2003). The history of Canada’s involvement in WWII is also available on the Veterans Affairs Canada website at http://www.vac- acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=history/secondwar/canada2/warbeg (accessed December 4, 2004).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 141

Epp 1982).53 In May and June 1940 there were acts of vandalism against some Mennonite

communities.54 There were tumors that ethnic Germans, including Mennonites, were

collaborating with Nazis, which circulated in articles in western Canadian newspapers like

the Saskatoon Star Phoenix. Some notable hostile acts in western Canada included the

burning of two churches in Alberta, the dismissal of several Mennonite teachers who had

alleged sympathies towards Germany, and the closure of a number of Mennonite Saturday

German-language and Bible schools (Riediger 1940; Gerbrandt 1941).55 One employer in

Saskatoon requested that employees stop attending Mennonite churches (Toews 1939d,

1939f). These incidents were more prevalent amongst the newer Mennonite Kusslander

immigrant communities.56 The episodes generated public responses from Mennonite

leaders, some of which addressed the events directly, others of which addressed the more

general concerns and presented the Mennonite faith position and culture to increase the

general public’s understanding (Gerbrandt 1941; Toews 1939c, 1939a; Janz 1940).

Mennonite leaders from the different conferences collaborated together to respond

to the new challenges confronting them.57 They addressed issues of faith, participation in

war, conscientious objection, alternative national service and international war relief work.58

Two organizations established by the Mennonites in Ontario to address war-related issues —

the Non-Resistant Relief Organization and Conference of Historic Peace Churches’

53 Before the war Mennonite leaders sent a supportive letter to British Prime Minister Chamberlain when they thought he had averted war (Ewert et al. 1938). 54 Regehr calls these acts “patriotic vigilantism” (1992, 466). 55 These incidents are also highlighted in histories of the WWII experiences amongst Mennonites (Regehr 1992; Regehr 1996). 56 It is suggested there was more tension for the newer immigrants who had not yet built up substantial relationships with government or neighbors (Regehr 1987). 57 There are a number of historic works that corroborate this understanding of inter-Mennonite cooperation at the time (Epp 1974; Janzen 1990,1992; Reddig 1989; Regehr 1992; Regehr 1996). 58 These various issues are raised in meeting minutes and correspondence between board members in meeting minutes from the time. These issues are also dealt with in more detail in Janzen (1992) and Neufeldt (2003).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 142

Committee on Military Problems — were joined by Mennonite leaders from western Canada

in the 1940s to promote a more coherent Mennonite position on non-resistance.

Interestingly, there were initially tensions between the newer Mennonite immigrants and the

longer-standing Swiss-Mennonite settlers in Ontario regarding alternative service, but these

differences were worked out and the prospects of “constructive” national work brought

them together (Conference of Historic Peace Churches 1941, 47).59 Together, the non-

resistance groups arranged joint delegations to Ottawa, represented conscientious objectors

and negotiated alternative service arrangements with government officials after the National

Resources Mobilization Act of June 1940 was passed. Conscientious objectors were

counseled to register when required, show up for hearings and follow the legal procedures to

apply for conscientious status. Work for conscientious objectors included forestry

maintenance in national parks, agricultural labor, fire fighting, as well as industrial and

hospital labor. Leaders like David Toews and Benjamin Janz repeatedly corresponded with

civil servants and judges to ensure that young Mennonite men were treated fairly in the

judicial process to establish conscientious objector status, or to ensure young men in service

camps were not mistreated.60 Mennonite leaders in Canada also cooperated with Mennonite

leaders in the United States. For example, the combined General Conference of Mennonites

had already drafted a joint statement on peace in 1937, which was officially approved in 1941

(Krehbiel 1941). There were also various meetings and consultations during the war years

that took Canadian Mennonites to the U.S. and American Mennonites to Canada, and an

exchange of letters between the Mennonite leaders on war issues.

59 Janz voiced an opinion based on the Forestry Service and medical orderly work they performed in Russia, which Mennonites in eastern Canada did not agree with. 60 In September 1939, when WWII began, Toews wrote four letters to a Member of Parliament in seven days, each following up on particular issues that was raised in the previous correspondence (5, 7, 9, 12 September).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 143

N ot all Mennonites who were drafted in Canada were conscientious objectors. Some

Mennonites chose to enlist in the military. O f the 16,913 eligible Mennonite males in

Canada, more than 12,000 persons entered either military or alternative service (Regehr

1996).61 O f those, approximately 4,500 (approx. 38 percent) enlisted for active military

service and 7,500 (62 percent) for alternative service (Epp 1982; Regehr 1996). The

enlistments by younger Mennonite men caused tension in many communities. For example,

it was a point of much consternation to a Mennonite leader in Ontario when one of the

“new Mennonites” apparently told a newspaper reporter about the self-defense forces in

Russia and suggested that Mennonites could fight just as well as other people (Coffman

1939). Interestingly, historian Ted Regehr suggests that Mennonite military enlistments

dropped “once really useful alternative work became available” (Regehr 1992, 470).

Mennonite leaders were fairly unanimous in their opposition to military service and therefore

there was not a widespread debate at church conference meetings on the issue, as there had

been in Ukraine during the revolution around self-defense.

A major activity for Mennonites in western Canada during the war years was to

provide war relief aid for victims. Mennonite women’s groups and sewing circles made or

collected blankets, clothes, bandages and other relief supplies to be distributed by the Red

Cross, alternative service camps, and other relief organizations in North America and in

Europe. The Mennonite Central Committee coordinated and shipped relief supplies that

were gathered by three Canadian organizations, the Non-Resistant Relief Organization, the

Canadian Mennonite Relief Committee, and the Mennonite Central Relief Committee.62

61 Fifty-five women voluntarily joined the military, primarily in nursing and medical services (Regehr 1996, 58). 62 For an overview of activities see Regehr (1996, 64-72).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 144

These aid contributions were noted in papers and by local government authorities. For

example, the Liberal Member of Parliament from Rosthern, SK, was quoted in a 1945 article:

“We also find the older people of this sect [Mennonites] take an active part in Red Cross work. It is likewise a matter of record that every Victory Loan drive in the Rosthern constituency during the present war has been over-subscribed.” Canadian Mennonites had supported five homes in Britain for small children, convalescent boys and aged persons, sending overseas $130,000 for this purpose. Just recently they had sent a $4,500 shipment of clothing which included 400 quilts and comforters and 4,000 dresses, coats, shoes and other wearing apparel, Mr. Hooge said. “I am not saying this in any boastful spirit but merely to show that, contrary to the general belief, the Mennonites in general and in Rosthern constituency in particular, have not only conscientiously performed their duty according to the tenets of the faith but many have gone beyond it.” (Should Be Known as Canadians 1945)

Russ lander were acutely aware of the affect of the war on Mennonites in Eastern Europe.

After the war came to a close in May 1945, a very large-scale relief effort focused on

supporting Mennonite refugees from the Soviet Union from a refugee camp in Berlin (see

Dyck and Dyck 1991; Kreider and Waltner Goosen 1988).

By 1944 the conflicts for the Mennonite community in Canada were largely over

even though the war was not. The Mennonite leadership had come to terms with a

Canadian affiliation, although issues around integration and accommodation would continue

to be an area of concern for the future.63 The wartime tensions over issues of conscientious

objection had largely dissipated. Civilian public service camps were operational, and

authorities were generally responsive to Mennonite concerns about the conditions in work

camps. The extensive relief work of the Mennonite community was being publicly

recognized, which promoted more positive attitudes towards Mennonites by Anglophone

Canadians. With the above overview of the conflict context in mind, the following section

63 For overview, see Regehr (1996).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 145

examines the identity themes that emerged from the Mennonite leader’s discourse within the

Conflict Site.

“We Will be Judged:” Mennonite Identity Themes in Western Canada

During this Conflict Site Mennonite leaders consistently spoke on behalf of “the

Mennonite people” and “our people.” These phrases were used routinely and reflected their

concept of Mennonites being a cohesive group that went beyond a strictly religious

affiliation. For example, in a letter to Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie

King, David Toews writes:

I have lately received a number of letters inquiring as to the status of our people, especially those who have come in since 1923, with regard to military service, and as you know the tenets of our church and are informed about the laws with regard to nonresistant people, it would be appreciated very much by our people in general, if you would kindly let me have your opinion with regard to the position of our Mennonite people in case of a war. (Toews 1935c)

The common identity spanned the Russlander and Kanadier groups, although they were

consistently acknowledged to be distinct sub-groups. For example:

Both, our people who have come from other countries, and have found refuge here, and who have become citizens of this country with very few exceptions, and those who were born in this country and call Canada their native country were united in the desire to give proof of the fact that we love Canada with her free institutions and the liberty which we enjoy in this country. (Toews 1939b)

At one point in time, B.B. Janz even invoked the phrase “my people” when admonishing

Mennonites not to support National Socialism: “Be warned, my people, and put an end to

this propaganda from over yonder” (Janz 1938). For the dominant leaders, this Mennonite

identity was a given, binding identity that overlaid or infused other categories of Mennonite-

ness.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 146

However, within this broad sense of group belonging and identity there were points

of cohesion and tension that emerged during this conflict time period. Tensions and

dissonance emerged primarily over the concept and content of the category of a nationally

based Mennonite identity, rooted in language, culture, contemporary home or history. The

points of cohesion formed around the broad categories of citizens, a people of worth, and a

strong faith community. These categories of Mennonite identity that emerged during the

Conflict Site are explored below.

Mennonite and National? “Be Warned My People”

While there was a cohesive, overarching sense of being Mennonite, the national or

state-centered identity affiliations were disputed. The debate over a national identity was

played out in the Mennonite newspapers before the start of WWII, when many Mennonites

weighed the degree of affinity they held for Germany. Mennonites used references to

Germany, Russia, Canada and Holland for different constituent elements of their identity

and in doing so surfaced various properties that they saw as important for their group

identity.

German? During the early part of this Conflict Site there was tepid support for

Hider by some leaders in western Canada.64 As noted above, arguments for German

National Socialism were printed in the German-language Mennonite newspapers and, while

the most strident entries came from people living in Germany, there was some support

amongst those leaders writing from Canada. For example, following a trip to Europe to

64 There was some vociferous support of these arguments in 1933, before this Conflict Site. For example, in 1933, C.F. Klassen wrote “We don’t consider German people to be angels.. .but in spite of this we thank God, that at least a man has been found, who consolidated the national idea, who had courage to clean up the social democratic rottenness, the Communist insanity, and many Jewish machinations... ” (Klassen 1935, translated in E pp 1965, 126).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 147

attend a Mennonite conference in Amsterdam in 1936, Toews — the leader of the Canadian

Mennonite Board of Colonization and the Conference of Mennonites in Central Canada -

responded to a question about whether or not Hitler deserved mass adulation with the

lukewarm comment:

The general answer is: he has deserved it. If the largest majority of 87 million intelligent people and to the largest extent also Christian people, who know the man, speak favorably of him, how should someone, who has never seen Germany before or spent only a few weeks there, have an opinion different from the opinion of the many. (Toews 1936a)65

There was widespread support for maintaining a Germanic identity amongst Mennonites. A

critical part of the debate for the leaders in western Canada was to disentangle language and

culture from debates around National Socialism and politics in the mid-1930s. There was

often an unquestioned support for the German language and cultural goods. For example, a

resolution outlining the cultural work of the Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization in

1935 stated:

In relation to the cultural work, we believe that cultural goods such as our German language has such a value that we will do our best to maintain it and to pass it on to our children. For this reason, we the board decide today, to continue the work within our organization in relation to the German schools based upon the needs and abilities of the different provinces to do this in an organized manner, and we give the responsibility to the cultural committee of the board to energetically promote this work and, as necessary, to bring in others to help. (Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization 1935)

Or, one of the dominant leaders, Toews, who was particularly vocal on the subject of

retaining a strong German identity before 1939, wrote:

We Mennonites are Germans, our services in the churches are mostly German, the Sunday schools are being kept in the German language and we are trying to have our children learn German. We are in no way trying to hide the fact that we are trying to teach our children our mother tongue, and I do not believe that we do anything contrary to law if we instruct them in German in their free hours on Saturdays and Sundays. (Toews 1939c)

65 Translated by E pp (1965, 131).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148

At the same time, there were efforts to limit a close association with Nazism in Canada, and

to de-politicize German identification for Mennonites. For example:

The assembled are in agreement that the cultural work in conjunction with the German- Canadian Union is not possible for different reasons; however, within our own organization we have been able to purposefully realize this work and in every district a cultural committee was chosen, teachers for German lessons were hired, libraries were erected and different courses were held through itinerant teaching. (Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization 1935)66

The German-Canadian Union, which is referenced in the preceding quote, was quite closely

linked to the German consulate and the Nazi party. Or, in 1937:

F.C. Thiessen reported in detail about the preparations to produce a new German reading book for Canada in Winnipeg. The carefully collected historical materials from Dr. Buerzzle, a Professor of the Manitoba University, were taken to Germany and accepted there. ... F.C. Thiessen is watching over the materials and making sure that nothing offensive is brought into the book. (Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization 1937)67

After 1938, Mennonite leaders tried more deliberately and vociferously to differentiate a

German identity and German Nazi politics, and retain the former as part of Mennonite

identity in Canada. The most stinging rebuttal against Mennonite support for Nazism came

from Janz in 1938, which was reprinted in an English language newspaper in Alberta two

years later as proof that the Mennonites were not Nazi supporters:

In Germany the people are National Socialists, and they expect that I, a Canadian citizen, who does not belong to any political party, will, in spite of that, confess myself either secretly or openly a National Socialist according to the article which appeared in the “Bote” No. 49, 1938. Whoever speaks German here in Canada (in the U.S.A., Brazil, Paraguay) is to confess himself a member of the National Socialist party. That is treason.

The above-mentioned suggestions in the “Bote” did not come from here, they came from outside. It was the first open attempt at propaganda. But when we examine the numerous articles which have appeared in our papers and which came from outside, we see that it is not the first, not even the tenth, attempt to draw us into the stream of

66 Translated by Rebecca DeWinter. 67 Translated by Rebecca DeWinter.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 149

ideological viewpoints which exist on the other side of the Rhine. All this extravagant emphasis on language, which includes a certain contempt for other languages, this emphasis on German blood, Aryanism, defence, German books, book clubs, stamp collections, etc., have only one object: to tie us geographically to Germany. (Janz 1938)

Janz’s argument highlighted the political identification he wanted to eliminate from

Mennonite identity discourse; Mennonites should not be politically identified with Nazism.

Janz also very clearly maintained a support for German culture as part of Mennonite church

traditions, distinct from political influence:

It is well known that I personally have done my share in working for the preservation of the German language for church purposes, but that does not mean that I have included in the German language adherence to German politics. ... It is not to be understood from what I have said that I consider everything over here to be good and everything found in Germany to be evil. ... All those achievements in Germany in the field of Christian faith, and Christian life, in the field of culture and science, of good literature, in art, in medicine, in technical education have earned the respect of everyone, and particularly of ourselves. We are glad of all those things, and we should make as much of them our own as possible. But anything that concerns political attitude and political faith is not our business. (Janz 1938)

The notion that Mennonites were culturally German but not politically German emerged as

a clear property of Mennonite identity during this Conflict Site.

Articulations of Mennonite identity to Canadian government officials or the public

took a more careful approach and focused on Mennonite history, faith and values rather

than language or cultural practices. For example, Janz wrote an article in English detailing

the history of Mennonites from Holland to Poland and Germany to Russia, and also

discussed language and Mennonite religious beliefs. In the article he argued that Mennonites

were a mix of nationalities: “So we see that there is no pure blood of a special nationality but

a mixture of different nationalities and nobody would be able to make out a percentage of

one or the other nationalities” (Janz 1940). And Janz de-emphasized the German

background, stating, “I don’t know whether it means anything to you that no one of the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 150

newcomers has ever been a citizen of Germany, neither the immigrants, nor their fathers,

nor their grandfathers for about 150 years” (Janz 1940). Similarly, Toews carefully

historicized Mennonite identity in 1940:

This contention [that the new immigrant Mennonites were German] of the Police is disputed by our people, who contend that this cannot be proved, but that, on the contrary, the statements of historians dealing with the Mennonites, writing either as Russian or American citizens, maintain that the Mennonites whose home Russia was for the last 150 years, were of Dutch stock almost exclusively. (Toews 1940b)

The German elements of Mennonite identity were historicized with a re-emphasis of Dutch

ancestry (discussed below) - similar to Site I.

Messages by Mennonite leaders after 1939 downplayed the importance of German,

including the language, as a necessary constituent element of Mennonite identity. For

example, in a summary of a 1939 meeting, it was stated:

Various matters of interest and concern to our church were discussed. A spirit of harmony was prevalent throughout the deliberations, which of course had to be held in the German language because many of our late arrivals and some others were not sufficiently conversant with the English language. (Toews 1939b)

Yet while Germanic heritage was de-emphasized as a constituent element of Mennonite

identity, there was nevertheless continuing support for retaining the German language.

Public arguments for utilizing German focused on the need to maintain unity and

understanding within the Mennonite church and religious practices. For example:

During the years 1923 to 1929 our numbers at Drake were considerably augmented by new settlers from Poland and Russia. This fact particularly, has necessitated the conducting of short term German-English Bible schools, not only at Drake but in other Mennonite communities as well, since the German language is a common medium of intercourse among Mennonites, so that the proper relationship between the home and church may be maintained. (Gerbrandt 1941)

Or:

More than half of the congregation is unable to receive the contents of an English Bible exposition. In addition to that, it must also be stated that the present ministers are

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 151

absolutely unable to apply the English language in a Biblical discourse. This makes it self-evident that the religious body, the Mennonite church, considers it imperative to teach their children the literary book language of German in order to prevent the catastrophe of a division within the church between young and old. And remember one more point: the family at home uses a special dialect of their own ... So it is difficult again for the child to get a spiritual blessing without having some training in this direction. The children would grow up mostly like pagans. ... Only after the last of our mothers and fathers who are unable to learn the English language well enough, have been carried to their last resting place, the issue of introducing the language of the country into our religious services can be profitably considered. (Janz 1940)

As is evident in the preceding passage, the re-framing of identity included the

accommodation of the younger generation to English, and an intimation that such

accommodation would not lead to a loss of Mennonite identity. This was a radical shift

from the leadership’s statements of Mennonite identity before 1938.

Dutch or Russian? There were references to both Dutch and Russian identity

during this Conflict Site as part of Mennonite identity but both were quite circumscribed.

The Dutch reference was utilized almost exclusively as a historical referent — as in Site I. For

example, “So much, however, is certain, that the Holland Dutch language was far

predominant among them. In the list of Mennonite names it appears that most are of Dutch

and some different others, perhaps a few of Polish origin” (Janz 1940). Or, similarly:

I say again and I say it most emphatically that the ancestors of many of our people came from Holland. I have reason to believe that my own ancestors lived in Holland and I know this for the only reason that my name seems to indicate that. But as long as I can recollect and as long as any records of my ancestors are available, I know that my people have spoken the German language and they have never pretended to be Hollanders. (Toews 1939d)

And again, “Rev. P.M. Friesen, a Russian Mennonite, who completed in 1911 a 934[-]page

volume of the history of the Mennonites, and who is considered as a reliable and

outstanding authority on this subject, insists that the Russian Mennonites were of Dutch

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 152

descent. ...” (Toews 1940b). Dutch ancestry was an important property of Mennonite

identity that became more clearly articulated during this Conflict Site.

The Russian reference was utilized in two limited ways to reinforce a contemporary

identity, first as good citizens and second as a negative political foil. On the former,

Mennonites emphasized their history of being good subjects in the Russian Empire. For

example, “Let me say this however. From the time of their arrival in Russia, about 150 years

ago, the Mennonites became subjects of the Russian rulers and remained such until the day

of their settlement in Canada” (Toews 1940b). Tied to most references of Russia was a

denunciation of Communism and an implicit or explicit reference to persecution. For

example, “Communism has not had in the past, nor has it now, any more determined

opponents than the Mennonite people. That is why they left Russia, because they are

Godfearing people and rejoiced in the liberties of religion and civil life which Canada offered

them and which they are still enjoying” (Toews 1940b). Or:

Now the Mennonites had come to the attention of the Russian royal family through Peter the Great who had encountered them in a sojourn in Holland, and Catherine sent her envoys to negotiate with these people looking to their migration to this new section of her empire. ... The Mennonites consented to make the move, the trek to south Russia starting in 1789, continuing for three decades. The immigrants faced many hardships, but they finally succeeded. After the Great War bolshevism took power in Russia. The Communist party ruled. Now there came the persecutions by the Communists with their attempt to destroy and exterminate all Christian faith and every religious principle. Their slogan was: Religion is opium for the people. About one-fifth of the Mennonites succeeded in to escape from the most horrible regime of the world and were privileged to find a new home in Canada. (Janz 1940)

O r again:

I may say, however, that there is a good deal of sympathy with Germany among the German people, whether they are Mennonites or anything else. One of the main reasons for this is the fact that they have suffered the most horrible persecution under the Communist system in Russia. ... Germany stopped the spreading of Bolshevism into other countries with no bloodshed and we as a people are

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153

very thankful to Germany for having done so. That, I think, is the main reason for a great deal of sympathy with Germany among the German people of any religious denomination. (Toews 1939c)

Such references to Germany’s role in halting Bolshevism were a common hallmark of

support for the German government and before WWII broke out. Overall, Russian identity

was not a central feature of Mennonite identity in leadership discourse during this time,

although it contained references to other identity features, such as hard working

agriculturists and good citizens, willing to suffer for their beliefs, which re-enforced

Mennonite identity categories discussed below.

Canadian? Canadian identity was a fourth state-centered identity category that

emerged from this Conflict Site. This identity was very different than the German, Dutch or

even Russian references. Mennonite leaders focused on expressions of loyalty and

thankfulness to their new homeland. It was repeatedly emphasized that Mennonites had a

home in Canada, and that it was a homeland they would adapt to. For example, “Again and

again mention was made to the fact that we had found a home in this country, which we

could not possibly prize too highly and the whole meeting unanimously passed resolutions

emphasizing emphatically our loyalty to our king, our country and our government” (Toews

1939b). Or:

As regards our willingness to do service and to bear sacrifice we are prepared to keep abreast with any honest and faithful citizens of Canada, our addopted [jzV | homeland, and come to pledge our lives to the country and to render any service within our power apart from arms, as long as it does not interfere with our conscience and force us to bear arms and kill men. (Janzen 1939, 46)

And:

We have, figuratively speaking, signed a marriage contract with the Canadian government: we were destitute, homeless, ragged as to clothing but not as to character and mind. We have joined ourselves for better or worse with this state; we believed at

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 154

that time, and we still believe, that it was God’s will to bring us here; we would gladly have all our brethren here from Paraguay and Brazil as well. We live, if not in the richest and the most beautiful part of the world, at least in the most peaceful. (Janz 1938)

Identification with Canada and Canadians was discussed in terms of a marriage, adoption, or

Mennonites being taken-in by, and appreciating, the government. The terminology appeared

to be more contractual and less emotionally tied to the land itself as a part of either the

Russlander or Kanadier identity — unlike the sentimental attachment to the Steppe evident in

the previous chapter.

Mennonites routinely recognized that citizenship was tied to civic freedoms, and

praised Canada for their ability to follow their religious conscience. For example:

The statement is very often made in Mennonite society that there is hardly another country in the world that would give us the liberty that we enjoy in Canada, and we should never abuse the freedom that we enjoy in this country. And I hope that we will have the opportunity to prove that we are not abusing these privileges. (Toews 1939c)

And:

It is hard to properly evaluate the liberties which Canadian citizens enjoy, yet the Mennonite people are anxious to express their gratitude to God and their country for all the privileges which have been extended to them ever since they came here. The Canadian Government has dealt with them in a kindly manner, and by and large kept the promises made to their fathers. (Toews 1939e)

Loyalty and faithfulness were presented in a civic sense although the commitment did

resonate with an historic self-identity of Mennonites as a committed group of faithful people

over time.

In sum, during this Conflict Site there was an overarching Mennonite group identity

that had contested national identity components. Identification with a German national

identity was strong at the beginning of the Conflict Site, with its attendant properties of

history, language, culture and race. Many Mennonites saw these Germanic properties as

reinforcing, or a part of, their own collective identity. Mennonite leaders rejected full

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 155

identification with Germany, rebuffing in particular the political properties, which were tied

to the racial views. They did, however, continue to identify with the German language and

culture. Mennonite leaders emphasi 2 ed a Canadian nation-based identity that was based

upon loyalty to a new, chosen, or adopted, home. Elements of Dutch and Russian identity

were utilized for their properties as historical reference points; they were features that helped

identify Mennonites as a unique people, with a very distinct history. The Russian identity

was also utilized to show the Mennonite history as faithful subjects and give voice to

negative views of Communism.

Mennonites as Good Citizens: “Obedient Unto the Laws Except in Such Cases...”

A cohesive category that emerged from the documents was the centrality of

citizenship and more specifically that Mennonites were good citizens. Properties of the

Mennonite notion of good citizen included: being loyal, obedient, remaining non-political or

“quiet,” and contributing to the country constructively.

Loyal. Mennonite loyalty to Canada was a central property of citizenship. For

example, in a public retort to an incident at a German-English Bible school, the Mennonite

minister responded: “Justice and truth must and will prevail in the end, not only over seas

but also on the home front. We shall continue to be loyal Canadian citizens, your

contentions and insinuations to the contrary notwithstanding” (Gerbrandt 1941).

Mennonite leaders emphasized their loyalty to the British Crown as well:

The Mennonite people, therefore, cannot allow this opportunity to pass without assuring your Most Gracious Majesty and Your Canadian Government of their deepest devotion and unwavering loyalty and to express the hope that both Your Majesty and Your Royal Consort, our Most Gracious Queen, may enjoy to the full Your visit to this Dominion. (Toews 1939e)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 156

And, in a letter to Neville Chamberlain in 1938:

And whereas we are anxious to express our admiration for the effective part which His Excellency, the Right Honorable Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of Great Britain, had in bringing about a bloodless peace for our Empire and the World:- Be it therefore resolved that this assembly of Mennonite bishops and ministers record their gratitude for such achievement expressing at the same time the wish and the hope that the peace secured may be a lasting one and bring prosperity and happiness to the British Commonwealth of Nations and the nations of the world. (Ewert et al. 1938)

Similarly, . Becoming a citizen of this fatherland also has a meaning; did you not become

a citizen? It means that you are satisfied with this land as your fatherland and this excludes

any possibility of preferring any other country” (Janz 1938). For Mennonite leaders loyalty

was important, and they saw the possibility of being loyal to Canada co-existing with their

religious principles of pacifism.

Obedient and Quiet. Two closely linked properties, that were often used closely

together although they captured different dimensions of Mennonite’s relationship to the

state, were that Mennonites were obedient and quiet. Mennonites saw themselves as

obedient citizens, who would be law-abiding citizens in every way except for military service.

For example, a 1937 General Conference Mennonite statement read:

If our country becomes involved in war, we shall endeavor to continue to live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty; avoid joining in the wartime hysteria of hatred, revenge, and retaliation; manifest a meek and submissive spirit, being obedient unto the laws and regulations of the government in all things, except in such cases where obedience to the government would cause us to violate the teachings of the Scriptures so that we could not maintain a clear conscience before God. (Peace Problems Committee 1937)

Citizenship meant following the laws, except in one case — military service — where

Mennonites then emphasized another property of identity, being a quiet people. The

property of being quiet referred to being the “quiet in the land,” or a non-political group.

The joint Mennonite statement above, from the Peace Problems Committee, tied the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 157

properties of obedience and living a “quiet and peaceable” life together. Or, the same can be

seen in a statement by Janz that: “The religious basis of the Mennonites teaches us to be

submissive to existing authorities (adherence to this or that political faith is not included in

this statement), but not to play politics” (1938). Mennonites thought of themselves and their

ancestors as leading “a very quiet and simple life” (Toews 1939d). It is noteworthy that the

self-concept of obedience, or submissiveness, was held simultaneously with the belief that

certain laws around conscription should be resisted, albeit usually through orderly, legal

means. The tension that existed between resistance and obedience was mediated by the

concept of being a “quiet” people, which was intended to convey the idea that Mennonites

were politically non-threatening to the authorities.

Positive Contributors. Another important property of Mennonite identity as

citizens was: positive or constructive contributors to the country. Mennonite leaders viewed

themselves as historical contributors in settling the west, and as generous givers during a

time of war. The former point was captured in references such as:

Our Mennonite people came to Canada since about 1790 and settled in the forests of southern Ontario. They cleared the woods and cultivated the land and did their full share to make southern Ontario what it is now. The next influx of Mennonites came in 1874 from Russia. They were invited by the Canadian Government through an agent of the Canadian Government, William Hespeler by name. And it should be no secret to Mr. Fitzpatrick that the people did real pioneer work in the Red River Valley and endured hardships that fully deserve the name of “pioneering.” (Toews 1939a)

Or: The Star-Phoenix correctly reported that ‘Mennonites settled in the Drake district many years ago/ in fact they were the first settlers in this district, and came from the United States on the express invitation of the Canadian Government. They also became Canadian citizens at the earliest opportunity. (Gerbrandt 1941)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 158

Mennonites also argued that they continued to be good citizens during wartime by doing

constructive alternative civilian service work and war relief work. For example, in a letter by

some men working in a civilian service camp:

We, the boys at Seebe, being thankful toward our Government, for granting us a way to serve our Canada; for its care, protection and opportunities it offers us as citizens on this time of war, have agreed and are at present offering work, as much as we are talented, to the Government and Forestry for the betterment of all whom it may concern. (Boys at Seebe 1943)68

Being good citizens involved supporting the country by all means possible provided they did

not directly support the war effort either physically or financially. For example:

I would emphasize the fact that we are quite willing and anxious to have ou [sic] young men do some kind of work of national importance, which does not involve the bearing of arms. And we are trying to do our best to support financially and otherwise any attempt to relieve suffering caused by war. Many shipments of clothing have been sent to England and we are sending $2,500.00 monthly to England for the relief of suffering. In the case of contributions for the Red Cross we help along to the extent of our ability. (Toews 1942d)

In the name of the Mennonites, who have immigrated to Canada during the last 10-16 years, I may well state that our restrictions in the matter of war does not mean for us to sit at home and do nothing. No; where our fellow-citizens are required to go out, then also our young men can go out to serve their home country but without blood. Whether the government should place them in any civil service for the upbuilding [sic\ of the country, or Red Cross work to care for the sick and wounded, or even patients with most contagious diseases. Whatever the service may be, though it requires sacrifice, sickness, suffering or even death, we have no right to shrink back before anything. Only one request: “Don’t require of us to kill or work for destruction - and place all service, also the most dangerous under a civil command.” (Janz 1940)

Mennonites viewed their positive contributions to the state, from their historical

contributions of settling the west to civil service work as an important feature of their civic

identity.

68 B.B. Janz forwarded this letter to Senator W.A. Buchanan to highlight problems occurring at the camp in Seebe, Alberta (Janz 1943).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 159

Overall, the category of citizenship, and specifically that Mennonites were good

citizens, was prominent and became more clearly articulated by Mennonite leaders

immediately before WWII broke out and during the first several years of war. This occurred

when Mennonites were experiencing the greatest amount of pressure to clarify their position

with respect to the war. Mennonites felt they were loyal, obedient citizens who were

fortunate to live in Canada. They saw themselves as quiet and not politically threatening,

even with their pacifist beliefs. Mennonites also saw themselves as constructive members of

society who contributed critical labor to Canada during times of need.

A People of Faith and Worth: “Something within themselves worth more than all the

wealth in the world”

There were two additional categories of Mennonite identity that emerged from this

Conflict Site. The first was that Mennonites were a worthy people and the second was that

Mennonites were a strong community of faith. These two categories contained properties

that buttressed each other but which were also unique.

A People of Worth

Mennonite leaders repeatedly articulated that Mennonites were a worthy people.

This concept was touched upon in the “good citizens” category, but contained additional

elements that were not framed as citizenship qualities per se. The category of being a worthy

people included the properties of being hard workers - especially agricultural workers or

farmers — who paid their debts, were culturally progressive, and were steadfast or willing to

sacrifice for what they believed in.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 160

Hard Workers. An important defining property of being a people of worth was

hard work. Unlike in the previous Conflict Site, hard work did not emerge as a dominant

category on its own, which may be related to the depression-era context; during the

depression, hard work did not necessarily produce economic growth or even economic

stability for many farmers, and therefore the quality of hard work perhaps was not as easily

identified as a point of a Mennonite identity to be highlighted vis-a-vis the state (discussed

further in chapter seven). Hard work was presented as a historical justification for

Mennonites being worthy citizens of Canada. Leaders drew on historical narratives as

evidence of Mennonite’s hard work over time. A rendition of this historical narrative was:

They spent the first winter with the Mennonites in Ontario, then in the spring moved on westward to the Red River valley about thirty miles south of Winnipeg, where they erected simple sod houses. ... The first loan has been altogether repaid while the latter has been almost repaid. ... The settlers in this part of Canada made rapid progress and soon transformed the fruitful Red River valley into prosperous settlements whose wealth increased from year to year. School houses were built in each village, and numerous churches were erected in the settlement. (Toews 1935a)

Or, similarly, “Our Mennonite people in Canada had a reputation of being good,

hardworking farmers who had done their full share in developing Eastern as well as Western

Canada” (Toews 1939g). The settler narrative was particular relevant for the Kanadier and

the Mennonites who settled in Ontario, while the success of Kussldnder work was tied to

repayment of the transportation debt. For example:

In spite of the failure of many of our people on equipped farms, we do not think that the settling of the people on equipped farms was altogether unsuccessful. O f the $1,200,000.00 paid on transportation fully $900,000.00 have come from people who were settled on equipped farms and almost all of the $150,000.00 more that were sent by our immigrants to Russia during the years 1930 to 1934 came from settlers who had been settled on these farms. (Toews 1939g)

References to Mennonite women independently contributing financial resources emerged for

the first time here as well. For example:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 161

At one time there were about one thousand girls in a number of our larger cities in Canada, doing domestic work and in that way helping their parents to get a start on a farm and also to put them in the position to repay their transportation debts. These girls have worked up a very good reputation for themselves and for the people to whom they belong. They are working in the best homes in Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Vancouver, Calgary, and a few in other cities. (Toews 1939g)

While support for young women living in the cities was often tepid, the women were

approved of within the framework of contributing their labor to repaying debts and

contributing to the larger family good. Part of the cohesive work-related identity for the

newer and older immigrants continued to be farming, although that began to change, as

evident with women working in the city.69

Culturally Progressive. A second property of the category of Mennonites being a

worthy people was the claim that Mennonites were culturally progressive. For example:

As to the quality of the people who have come to Canada, we can only speak in the highest terms. They are a very progressive type in every respect. They have had their good schools in Russia and many of the people who have come over had a high school education and a number even university education. Even their village schools were of ahigh [stc] standard. As a whole I am safe in saying that our immigrants with their qualities of honesty, integrity and progressiveness are a direct asset to the Mennonite community in Canada. Canadian Mennonites have profitted [sic\ in many ways by the coming of the immigrants. (Toews 1939g)

Or, Janz refers to this as a historical trait of Mennonites who emigrated to Russia, “They

were appreciated because of their agricultural ability and progressiveness in culture” (Janz

1940). A commitment to education was an important part of this progressive outlook. For

example, Toews states, “Only a small minority of our Mennonites in Canada are opposed to

higher education, whereas the great majority desires good schools” (Toews 1935a, 90). The

property of being culturally progressive was part of the framing of Mennonite’s worthiness,

69 An undated, war-era article clipped from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix titled “Younger Generation Discards Yoke of Pacifism as Old Beliefs Fade Out” interestingly re-affirms this narrative of Mennonites as hardy settlers who “Always, no matter where they were, they tilled the soil” while highlighting the tension within the church amongst youth who want to serve their country.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162

particularly for an external Canadian audience during the Conflict Site. The emphasis may

have been pardy a reaction to negative publicity Mennonites had received when very

conservative groups left Canada for Mexico about a decade earlier.

Steadfast. The third property of this category of Mennonite worth was the concept

that Mennonites were a steadfast people. The commitment to being steadfast meant, in this

case, a willingness to sacrifice with respect to the state, such as through civilian service, based

upon their faith. This point was captured in statements such as:

If in the eyes of some Canadians we are “wicked”, and in the eyes of others our young men are “no good” and should be driven out of the country, we leave that to those who pretend to think so. But we on our part hope that we will have the right to serve God and serve our country as loyal citizens to the best of our knowledge and belief. If we are to suffer persecution, this will be nothing new to us, but I still have the confidence that liberty of conscience and true democracy in spirit and in fact will always prevail in Canada. (Toews 1942b)

Or, with respect to individuals who were conscientious objectors, “.. .these young men are

steadfastly professing their conscientious objection though they are suffering penalties...”

(Sherk et al. 1942). Or, again: “I trust that you will kindly look into this matter again and

that you will kindly do what is right in the sight of God and man. That he has conscientious

scruples cannot be doubted from the fact that he is willing to suffer for the sake of his

conviction” (Toews 1942c). The Mennonite leader’s representations of Mennonites drew

upon a history of suffering and steadfastly holding to beliefs (described in further detail in

the following section). The historical basis for the Mennonite religious identity undergirded

the concept of being steadfast in other interactions with the state.

Overall, the category of being a people of worth was framed around three properties

during this Conflict Site. The most dominant property was that Mennonites were hard

workers. A second property was that Mennonites were culturally progressive. The third

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 163

property was that Mennonites were steadfast and willing to sacrifice. These three properties

fleshed out the idea of worth for Mennonites that reflected both religious and civic virtues.

A People of Faith

The category of being a strong, faith community formed the core of a Mennonite

religious identity. The leaders in western Canada particularly stressed this religious category

after 1938 debate over German culture, politics and language. The category of faith identity

was defined by the properties of having a confession of faith, non-resistance, historicity,

relief of suffering, and a commitment to Mennonite institutions and intra-communal

consultations. It should be noted that the German language was seen as an important part

of Mennonite religious life, particularly prior to 1938, and while German was gradually de-

emphasized after the start of WWII it continued to be preferred by Mennonite leaders (as

discussed above).

Confession of Faith, Non-Resistant and a Historical People. Mennonite

religious identity was defined in part by the Mennonite Confession of Faith. There were

repeated reiterations of the Mennonite Confession of Faith as the founding document, with

particular references to non-resistance, which were vital to Mennonite faith community

identity. For example, as one leader stated:

We stand on the principle of our forefathers as established in the Bible and formulated in article XV of our creed, which latter was endorsed by us in Canada, namely: ‘that we must anxiously refrain from any and every strife with our fellow-men and that for us, too, the killing of men in war is inpermissible [tir], for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty through God.’ (Janzen 1939)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 164

The Mennonite leadership was very vocal and committed to non-resistance. Mennonite

leaders drew heavily upon the historical commitment and noted their willingness to suffer

for their beliefs. For example:

[We the representatives of the Mennonite Church desire to set forth the convictions of our faith] In doing so we do not establish a new doctrine among us, but rather give fresh expression to the age-old faith of the church which has been held precious by our forefathers from the time that the church was founded in Reformation times in Switzerland (1525) and in Holland (1533), at times even at the cost of despoiling of goods and exile from native land, and in some cases torture and death. (Peace Problems Committee 1937)

I know you are well informed about the tenets of our faith for which our forefathers stood four hundred years ago and for which we also stand at present. Our forefathers have always been averse to war and have been persecuted on that account in Switzerland, Holland, Germany and other countires [sic\. Non-resistance has always been one of the principal tenets of our faith. (Toews 1942d)

Or, an example of suffering for faith that focused on earlier Reformation history:

With the dawn of the reformation these Christian people hoped to be relieved from the continuous persecutions which they had to endure through the early years of their existence, but to their disappointment their sufferings were increased when also the Lutheran church turned against them on the side of Catholicism. (Janz 1940)

The historical roots of Mennonite faith, and the tenet of non-resistance were foundational

elements of Mennonite religious identity, particularly during the mid-portion of this Conflict

Site when the political and social climate was antagonistic.

Buttressing the desire to be faithful to Mennonite history and teachings was the

concomitant fear that Mennonites would be judged and found wanting. Janz forcefully

captured this sentiment, “In the Bible we read of people who were weighed in the balance

and found wanting. They perished! We all Mennonites, and the newcomers particularly are

in the balance...” (Janz 1938). Similarly, in the statement of peace principles it read,

“Therefore, if we profess the principles of peace and nevertheless engage in warfare and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 165

strife we as Christians become guilty of sin and fall under the condemnation of Christ, the

righteous Judge” (Peace Problems Committee 1937). Or, a more nuanced version:

And as for our Mennonite religion, I would not feel that I had any reason whatsoever to make an apology for that to anybody. I do wish I could live the Mennonite religion and the religion of our forefathers as I ought to. And I think you have very great reason to try to become worthy of your ancestors who, of course, led a very quiet and simple life, but who had something within themselves that is worth more than allthe[sic\ wealth in the world. (Toews 1939d).

It was important to not only follow the principles for their inherent value but Mennonites

would also be judged by God on how they live-up to these principles.

Act to Relieve Suffering. Another important property of Mennonite faith identity

at the time was that Mennonites. acted to relieve suffering. This was a more socially positive,

or constructive side of religious identity. Before the war broke out, there was a focus on the

Mennonite community through hospitals and other mutual aid mechanisms. For example:

Our congregations do their best to provide for the sick. Three or four hospitals have been established under Mennonite management, with Mennonite nurses and in part Mennonite physicians. Recently it has been proposed to establish a Mennonite institution for those mentally ill. In Manitoba there are two Mennonite homes for the aged, one in Gretna and one in Winkler. (Toews 1935a, 91)

During the war period there was considerable emphasis on providing financial or material

assistance to alleviate the suffering caused by the war. For example, “War has since been

declared and while it is our conviction that we cannot participate in war, yet we believe that

it is our duty to relieve suffering where we know of it” (Toews 1940a). Likewise:

According to the teaching and spirit of Christ and the Gospel we are to do good to all men. Flence we are willing at all times to aid in the relief of those who are in need, distress or suffering, regardless of the danger in which we may be placed in bringing such relief. In accordance with this principle and with the will of our Conference, we want it to be clearly understood that these and any further donations from Mennonite Churches are to be used exclusively for the relief of suffering, to help refugees, widows and orphans, to tend the wounded, to preserve life but not to take life, not to support army or military activities. (Unurh 1939)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 166

Mennonites were very proactive in providing relief assistance, and this constructive element

emerged as an important property of Mennonite religious identity during this Conflict Site.

Institutional Interaction. The process of being committed to Mennonite

institutions and intra-Mennonite action was another property of Mennonite identity as a

people of faith during this time. This involved Mennonites talking to each other about

controversial issues and public representation though the conferences and other institutions

they had established. For example, the commitment to working across the various

Mennonite conferences was evident in the letter to Chamberlain in 1938. The letter began

with the statement, “At a meeting of the bishops and ministers of the Mennonite Church of

Canada, assembled here in Winnipeg on the 7th day of October, 1938, the following

Resolution was unanimously passed” (Ewert et al. 1938). As the meeting contained

representatives from multiple conferences but only from Manitoba, it also contained a

handwritten note that stated:

Sanctioned also by Bishop David Toews, Rosthern, Sask. President of the Conference of Mennonites in Canada, in the name of the Mennonites in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Also sanctioned by Bishop Jacob H. Janzen, Waterloo, Ont. In the name of the Mennonites in Ontario (By letters received by Benj. Ewert). (Ewert et al. 1938)

The added notations affirmed the value of Mennonites speaking together with a common

voice, which was a somewhat new experience for many. Numerous meetings were called

and brought together representatives from east and west. The commitment to consult with

others within the faith community was captured in Toews statement to a government

official: “Kindly let us have definite word so that we can put this matter before our people

for approval” (Toews 1942a). And, again:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 167

Our Mennonite brethren in the East have formed an organisation for relief purposes and Brother Swartzentruber has been sent to England by the Mennonite Central Committee in order to organize a relief work in an effective manner. We believe that the help we can render should be given where it is most needed and all non-resistant grouls [tic] should work through one organization. The wish was expressed that we in the West should organize and co-operate with our brethren in the East and also with the Mennonite Central Committee. For this purpose meetings are being called for the different provinces. (Toews 1940a)

The conference structures proved to be particularly important in providing a communal

identity while still allowing for divergent practices and debate. For example, in his overview

of Mennonites in Canada, Toews stated, “In all important question of our confession of

faith, such as infant baptism, rejection of military service, and the oath, all agree. The

differences He more in the outward forms” (Toews 1935a, 90).70 Or,

Discussion revealed that the Western groups which are represented by the delegates present at this meeting and the Eastern groups which are represented by the Conference of Historic Peace Churches are in substantial agreement as to the principle of offering to do non-mihtary national service and as to the general types of service which might be performed, as suggested by the constitution of the Canadian Fellowship Service. (Beatinger 1940)

Mutual support and identity emerged out of repeated conversations and meetings to identify

a consistent position on conscientious objection and alternative service. The commitment to

a common, consultative process emerged as an important property for the Mennonite faith

identity over the period of the conflict, which allowed for convergence and divergence

within the faith community.

The Mennonite concept of being a faith community was an important constituent

category of identity during the second Conflict Site. The concept of being a faith

community was defined by a set of properties that involved a commitment to a process of

engaging with other Mennonites through Mennonite institutions, a unique history, a

70 The outward forms referred to practices like the method of baptism, style of dress, degree of technology used and so forth.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 168

Confession of Faith that required a commitment to non-resistance, and constructive work

through relief assistance. The concept of being a worthy people was built upon self-

concepts of hard work, progressive culture and steadfastness. Together these formed the

core of Mennonites concept as a faith community as outwardly projected by western

M ennonite leaders during the Conflict Site.

Summary

In 1934, at the start of the Conflict Site, the Mennonite leaders in western Canada

viewed Mennonites as a people, but were conscious of the divisions between the two main

waves of immigrants, Rj-isslcinder and Kanadier. As new immigrants, the Russ lander were

struggling to establish themselves in a new homeland, to overcome debt and retain or

reestablish their culture and identity. The Kanadier had arrived early in the nineteenth

century, had experienced WWI in western Canada, and were more settled although

experienced some hardship during the depression. Both groups were somewhat distant from

the Mennonites of Swiss-origin in Ontario at the outset of this Conflict Site, which changed

during the course of WWII when Mennonites interacted regularly to formulate positions

with respect to conscientious objection, the Canadian draft, and war relief efforts.

During the Conflict Site, particularly the years 1934 to 1938, the concept of a nation-

based identity was heavily debated. Many, particularly Rjisslander, were attracted to a

German national identity and the German political aspirations of National Socialism. Voices

of Mennonites who had immigrated to Germany in the 1920s were particularly strident in

their support, and expressed their opinions in Canadian, Mennonite, German-language

periodicals. Mennonite leaders in Canada differentiated between components of a larger

German identity, and gradually disentangled support for German politics from support for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 169

German language and culture; they noted that the former (German politics) was not part of

Mennonite identity, while the latter (German language and culture) were. The leaders also

began to foresee future generations of Mennonites worshiping in English.

Part of the contestation over a nation-based identity revolved around habitation.

Mennonites made a distinction about their geographic origins, which helped differentiate

Mennonites from other German-speaking populations in Canada, and distanced Mennonites

from being part of the German Volk. Careful references to Mennonite historical roots in

Holland and Russia were increasingly evident after 1938. The references to Russia also

emphasized that Mennonites were faithful citizens, and did not support communism. The

leaders also referenced Canada as their current home; the Russlander references were typically

framed in terms of a family contract — marriage or adoption — and a place to which they

would be loyal, rather than as a place they felt intimately connected to the soil. The contract

language suggested that the Russlander had not developed an attachment to place in Canada

the same way that they had in Ukraine and Russia in Site I, where they had lived for well

over a century.

After 1938, the Mennonite identity in western Canada became more deeply grounded

in the category of citizenship. Mennonite leaders identified their group as good citizens who

were: loyal, obedient, quiet, and positive contributors to the state. Mennonites considered

themselves loyal to Canada, as well as Britain, and there were many expressions of this

loyalty directly to political leaders, as well as in newspapers. The two properties of obedient

and quiet were usually presented together. They highlighted that Mennonites saw

themselves as law-abiding citizens, except with respect to military service and conscientious

objection. In situations where their faith prompted them to break laws (e.g. to not report to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 170

a military camp if drafted), they were a “quiet” people who would otherwise not trouble the

government. Mennonites also saw themselves as positive contributors to Canada, who had

made historical contributions to settling the west, were willing to make contributions

through alternative service work and war relief efforts. Mennonite leaders framed their good

citizenship in terms of loyalty and obedience to the state authorities, and being a quiet

people who contributed to the country constructively through their wartime labors and

financial donations

Mennonites viewed themselves as a worthy people and religious community. The

category of worth was built upon the properties of: a people who were steadfast, worked

hard, and were culturally progressive. These properties of worth were particularly responsive

to the external conditions in Canada the 1930s, which included the depression and war.

Hard workers referred to homesteading and paying off debts — the property did not include

financial productivity, as it had previously in Site I. Mennonite leaders spoke about being

culturally progressive when referring to Mennonites’ fit within, and potential future

contributions to, Canada; counter-posing this image of progress against a 1920s image of

conservative Mennonites who left Canada for Mexico. Mennonite leaders also reinforced

the notion that Mennonites were a faithful and steadfast group, wherever they lived.

Together these properties comprised a category of worth; Mennonites were a people who

were of worth and would benefit the larger community around them.

Finally, Mennonites were grounded in their identity as a faith community.

Mennonites were defined by their history and Confession of Faith, their commitment to

non-resistance during war, as well as to constructive relief assistance, and on-going mutual

discussion and action. The institutional engagement, which provided the structure for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ongoing intra-communal discussion became more regulari 2ed during WWII. The

engagement over the issues of military service, and developing acceptable options for civilian

alternative service, proved unifying for the Mennonite community. Working together for

war relief further cemented relationships, amongst the various sub-groups of Mennonites in

western Canada and Ontario.

The conflict context of WWII in Canada was markedly different from the WWI and

revolutionary context of the dissolving Russian empire, captured in Site I. Within the

conditions of relative order in Canada, Mennonite leaders upheld the tenet of non-resistance,

and were able to effectively pursue satisfactory alternatives for young Mennonite men.

Debates on ethnic-national identity, which occurred both outside and within the Mennonite

community, clarified a distinction for Mennonite identity and separated language from a

political and land-based movement. Seeds were also planted to distance religious practices

from the German language. The conflict context crystalli 2 ed debate around these issues of

identity, and brought some pressure to bear on the Mennonite community but without

physical or legal threats. The milder pressures in Site II appeared to facilitate debates and

shifts in the content of the properties and categories of Mennonite identity. Mennonite

leaders themselves drove the shifts and changes. This is some contrast to Site I, where the

dramatic pressures produced conditions that countered Mennonite identity claims,

undermined those identity claims, and which leaders then worked at reconstructing after

antithesis. In this Conflict Site, Mennonite identity also drew upon old themes and history

to engender the response to the conflict and solidified an altered identity in western Canada

of a cohesive faith community, rooted in history and contemporary action.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 172

The content of Mennonite identity that emerged within the Canadian WWII context,

and the dynamics of change and continuity, are returned to in chapter six, where they are

explored in a close comparative format with insights from the other two Conflict Sites. The

next chapter explores a localized conflict context, which enables a detailed look at

Mennonite identity in a contemporary conflict situation that raises important issues of

identification around land issues as well as religious identity at a time and place when

Mennonites have become quite integrated, culturally and economically, into western Canada.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER V

CONFLICT SITE III, 1977-1987: DISPUTED

LAND CLAIMS AND COMMUNITY IN SASKATCHEWAN

The third Conflict Site that this dissertation examines is geographically centered in

the Laird area of Saskatchewan. It involves a disputed First Nations land claim in an area

where Mennonites were allocated a block of land for group settlement at the turn of the

twentieth century; the land claim is for a thirty-mile square area that was previously

established as reserve land for the Young Chipeewayan band. The conflict is much more

physically confined than those explored in the previous two chapters. It nevertheless

provides a site rich for study by providing an opportunity to examine Mennonite identity in a

localized conflict. It also affords the opportunity to examine identity and conflict issues in a

more recent situation, and in so doing provides a contemporary point to compare themes

that emerged from the previous two historical Conflict Sites and further explore the change

and continuity in identity. The land is the focal point of the dispute, which elevates land-

based dimensions of Mennonite identity, as well as other concepts of Mennonite-ness that

are brought to bear in discussions about the land claim. Conflict Site III combines elements

of Conflict Site I, where the personal landholdings of many Mennonites were directly

affected, with elements of Conflict Site II, where new pressures in western Canada and an

identity struggle affected Mennonite identity. There is little direct physical violence in this

173

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 174

The period 1977 to 1987 marks the decade in which the conflict first entered into

the larger Mennonite communities’ collective awareness in Saskatchewan, when reactions

were most polarized and the issue was given sustained attention. The period begins shortly

after a direct confrontation in the rural farming area of Laird, Saskatchewan. The Site

concludes after the first direct contact between farmers from Laird and members of the

Young Chipeewayan. The period of analysis for this third Conflict Site stops in 1987 when

there is a lull in public correspondence and activity on the issue. In this chapter, background

information is provided to give the conflict context and a sense of Mennonite identity

formation in Saskatchewan, the decade of conflict is summarized and a short postscript that

updates the status of the claim is provided, followed by an examination of the concepts of

Mennonite identity that emerged from this Conflict Site.

Background: Locating Laird Geographically and Historically

The conflict that serves as the focal point for this chapter occurred in an area in the

lower-mid section of the province of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan, the middle prairie

province (see Fig. 5.1), joined the Dominion of Canada in 1905. It was, and is, Canada’s

breadbasket. For example, approximately 54 percent of Canada’s total wheat is grown in

Saskatchewan (Government of Saskatchewan 2002a). The province itself covers an area of

651,900 km2 or 251,700 square miles (which makes it slightly smaller than Texas). The

majority of the just-over one million population live in the southern third of the province

(Government of Saskatchewan 2002a). Forests and lakes cover the northern half of the

province.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 175

r~ A'omi T^HJTa|k;,s m, K0J,1W|UKS1- NCHAVt't w tfso / / ew e ' } •/ ------Fond-du-Lat cC Wurfson : "i ,\I>A w* B ra c b e 't / a ? " * ** StOflY Rapids Churchill 55:: tafre S3* f Ta T— t R-Ch','"') n k/ ’" ' ' 7 £pn sautW" 1 -’ J&''' , c (Ffe-ac* c w :7 . peS? KM■navi Ft.. • SQUttiendl las •uSw-* uk«f' R e ln d e * r . TfYtKhlK^ * / £ /f \ V«Cjfni * $CJU r'/ . _ Qu' Appelle 1 •River -, \ vik % /i“ 5 Moose ‘ ____ Provincial boundary( ^b«r N . * * Ift fo- jfl5a Q —■ 3''\ Liniite provincial* Ctwreta t GraveHMU<9 MoogomiffK j ^ Lfir^ " * Mtple •Carctoa,., C*16®1* I d » » « , a* isourt! i " ’* T ? i 4 . . ^ E5te«n*w _^ ‘ Scale l Edietle 2DOQ. Her Majesty the- queen in RlgNrorCar.ada, Natural Resaurces Canada. VSA / F.-U d ’A m0 1f0 20 310 So Majenbe !o Remedy chet du Canada, teso u ro es nstojreln Canada. bn l—i. —J km

Fig. 5.1: The Province of Saskatchewan. From Natural Resources Canada, Atlas of Canada, 4th Edition (Ottawa: Government of Canada, 2000) [cited 25 September 2002]. Available from http://atlas.gc.ea/site/english/maps/reference/provincestcrritories/prairie provinces.

Laird and the Stoney Knoll

The Conflict Site centers on land owned in the Laird area of Saskatchewan. The name Laird

refers to both a Rural Municipality (RM), RM 404 (see Fig. 5.2), as well as a smaller village

that borders the Laird RM. When the term Laird is used here, it refers to the larger

municipality unless otherwise noted. The Laird RM lies about one third of the way up the

province from the southern border (identified on Fig. 5.1 by the box overlay with an arrow

pointing to it). In 2002, about 235 people lived in the village of Laird and about 1,080

resided in the larger RM.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 176

Laird sits in the

».LdUfa Saskatchewan Valley, a region 431 rpptw between the North and South

Saskatchewan Rivers.1 It is a

productive farming region with rich, Ctiffive

black chernomic soils (Government Pturfhei vnn« of Saskatchewan 2002b). The 372 N Saskatchewan Valley region was

significant in western Canada’s Fig. 5.2: Rural Municipality of Laird, No. 404. From the Saskatchewan Association of modern history of nation building Rural Municipalities, Division Dive (Saskatchewan, n.d.) [cited 23 October 2002]. Available from (Lalonde and LaClare 1998). The http: / / www.quantumlynx.com/sarm/Members/ graphics / div5.gif. Valley provided a home for western

expansion of European-led fur trade in the eighteenth century, a location for treaty talks

between the British-Canadian government representatives and First Nations leaders in the

nineteenth century, as well as an armed rebellion led by Louis Riel in 1885 (Friesen 1984;

Friesen 2001).

Within Laird, there was once a thirty-square mile area designated as the Young

Chipeewayan (alternately spelled Chippewayan and Chipewyan) Stoney Knoll Reserve in

1876.2 It was situated just north and west of the village of Laird, lying in Township 44

Range five west and Township 43 Ranges five and six, west of the third meridian (Doell

1977a; Nelson 1889). The Stoney Knoll marks the center of this area, which is the high

1 The Saskatchewan Rivers and province were named from the Plains Aboriginal term “Kisiskatchewan”, which meant ‘the river that flows rapidly’ (Lalonde and LaClare 1998, 82). 2 The spelling of “Chipeewayan” used here is the same as that used in the 1994 federal Claims Commission hearing, and is based on the band’s preferred spelling of their name (Corcoran, Bellegarde, and Prentice 1994).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 177

point in the region. It was a camping site for First Nations groups and located on the

Carlton Trail. The Carlton Trail was a trading route between Fort Garry and Edmonton

House and later became a travel route for homesteaders (Lalonde and LaClare 1998).

Settling Saskatchewan

For the purposes of this dissertation the history of Laird will begin with the settling

of the Canadian west by the British. Europeans came to the prairies originally as fur traders

in the mid-seventeenth century and interacted with an indigenous population that had lived

there for thousands of years - the estimates of when groups crossed the Bering Strait into

North America range from 12,000 to 40,000 years ago (Friesen 2001; Miller 1989).3 Over a

two hundred year period, the relationship between the indigenous peoples and traders

gradually altered the social, economic and political conditions across what became Canada.

There was competition between trading companies, new types of goods introduced and

exchanged for animal pelts, and the traders heralded the political aspirations of the French

and British empires. By the 1840s there were signs of change: the bison were disappearing,

the labor market was shifting to skilled labor and agrarian lifestyles, there was also a steady

influx of Europeans who brought along their self-perceptions of superior race, class and

religion (Friesen 1984). The relationship between the Europeans and indigenous peoples

went from one of relative equality to dominance-subordination in the nineteenth century

(Washburn 1975, xvi).

The Dominion of Canada, which was part of the British Empire, purchased the land

that included contemporary Saskatchewan from the Hudson’s Bay Trading Company in

1868. It was part of a wider swath of land called the Northwest Territory (Canadian

3 For more detailed history of First Nations peoples in Canada see Dickason (1992) and Miller (1989).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 178

Confederation: Provinces and Territories 2002).4 As noted in the previous chapter, the new

government looked to setde and populate the new lands west of Manitoba. In order to do

so it had to first prepare the land for private ownership and setdement. The government

therefore supported an immense geological survey and mapping expedition, which neady

divided the land into a grid system of six mile-square (9.6 km square) townships. Each

township was comprised of 36 sections, each one-square mile (640 acres) in size. Sections

were further subdivided into quarter sections. Even numbered sections were allocated as

free homesteads and odd numbered sections were reserved for the railways and schools but

could be sold.

To further prepare for settlement, the Canadian government signed a series of

treaties, called the Numbered Treaties, with the indigenous populations in the 1870s. The

treaty-making process was partly a response to minimize resistance and partly a continuation

of a British policy, in which representatives of the crown had “the right to treat for access

and tide” (Miller 1989, 161-162). Six of these Numbered Treaties — Two, Four, Five, Six,

Eight and Ten — included lands in what became the Province of Saskatchewan (Barron 1984;

Morris 1971). The government negotiated the treaties to restrict the bands to particular

areas of land, and pave the way for unimpeded large-scale agricultural development and

setdement.

Chiefs were interested in “making treaty” for a number of reasons. They were

concerned about dwindling resources, encroaching settlers, they were also aware of events in

the U.S., and were interested in gaining “agricultural implements,” tools, cattle and assistance

to support setdement (Morris 1971, 170-171). However, not all chiefs were in favor of the

4 The Hudson’s Bay Company, after years of fierce competition, had established a monopoly on trade in the region. This purchase combined the North-Western territory and Rupert’s Land.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 179

treaties; for example, the Cree chief Big Bear was highly suspicious of the government

representatives (Miller 1989; Morris 1971). The treaties gave bands particular areas of land,

called reserves, for their exclusive use although the government retained title. The size of

the reserve was based on the size of the band, so a census was to be taken before boundaries

were set {Contact: Making the Canadian West). Some contentious tactics marked the treaty

process and there were problems with under-counting band size, although it has been

suggested that the Queen’s representatives viewed themselves generally as “benevolent

protectors” of the native population. There was an armed conflict following the treaty

making and expansion process, with Metis and First Nations groups, in what was called the

North West Rebellion in the spring of 1885 (Friesen 1984; Miller 1989; Ray, Miller, and

Tough 2000). The climax of the Rebellion was a three-day battle at Batoche, Saskatchewan,

located about twenty miles (32 km) east of Laird. One of the most problematic elements of

the treaty making process, which continues to impact negotiations today, was the divergent

understanding that the parties had of land and the purpose of the negotiations (Miller 1989).

The government representatives were looking for land surrender in return for gifts and

annual payments. The First Nations leaders were looking for pacts of friendship, peace,

mutual support, and agreed to permit entry and settlement in various regions — they also did

not hold the same legalistic understanding of land ownership that the Europeans possessed.

For First Nations groups who signed treaties, they were people-to-peoples agreements,

which stand today as the basis for contemporary relationships and negotiations in Canada.

The lands for the Stoney Knoll reserve were included in Treaty Six. Chief

Chipeewayan and four headmen signed the treaty on behalf of the Chipeewayan band at Fort

Carlton on 23 August 1876 (Corcoran, Bellegarde, and Prentice 1994). At the time the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 180

Chipeewayan band consisted of eight-four people in nineteen families.5 Chief Chipeewayan

passed away the following year and his son Young Chipeewayan became hereditary Chief.

The thirty-square mile Stoney Knoll Reserve was surveyed three years later in 1879 for the

band.6 It had to be re-surveyed in 1888, after it was omitted from the township maps. In

1888, the surveyor described the reserve as follows:

The surface of this reserve is level to undulating and slopes slightly towards the Saskatchewan [River]. The portion near the river is watered by several small creeks; but in the southern part, water is found only in a few ponds. The soil is of first class quality. There are no large hay meadows, but on the uplands, the herbage is rich. The principal topographical feature is Stony Knoll, a prairie elevation, wooded on the northern slopes, and situated in the centre of the reserve. Along the river-front the banks are well wooded with poplar, and a few hummocks of spruce occur in the ravines. (Nelson 1889)

The Young Chipeewayan band apparently visited the area but did not setde on the reserve.

An oral history by Albert Snake, grandson of the chief, was recorded in 1955 when he was

about eighty years old (Epp 1986). In it, Snake states that his grandfather advised the band

to leave the Stony Knoll reserve for winter “because he was afraid they would have a hard

winter with nothing to eat. They were not getting provisions as promised by the treaty and

the same to be given by the Indian agent” (Snake 1955).7 They went south in search of

bison and their traditional way of life. Late that winter, Snake reported they were affected by

serious illness, and a number of deaths, including the Chief. Snake and his grandmother

went to the reserve but could not survive there, and he reports that others “didn’t want to go

back to the reserve because they had no more a leader [sic\” (Snake 1955). Snake visited the

5 The treaty included provisions for each man, woman and child to receive $12 as well as a variety of measures to help ease the transition to an agriculturally based economy (Morris 1971). 6 The Stoney Knoll Reserve was placed on the right bank of the Saskatchewan River, in Townships 43 and 44, Range 5 west o f the 3rd Meridian (1897). 7 Originally captured in minutes of a meeting with other Young Chipeewayan descendants, sections of Albert Snake’s oral history were reprinted in a letter by Edgar Epp (1986) and in the Indian Claims Commission Report (Corcoran, Bellegarde, and Prentice 1994).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 181

reserve area once more before the twentieth century and found “white people working and

farming his reserve.”8

In 1882 Canada passed the Dominion Lands Act and established the private land

ownership system in western Canada, which included specific provisions for homesteaders.

With the lands in the west surveyed, homestead plots identified, and the First Nations and

Metis largely marginalized, the government was ready to setde the west (Contact: Making the

Canadian West)? An adult male could homestead a free quarter section of land (160 acres)

for a ten-dollar fee provided he “improved” the land.10 The Colonization and Immigration

Act was enacted shordy thereafter to attract new immigrants and setdements were sped

along by the completion of a national railway. By 1896, there were 17,000 new immigrants

in Canada (Contact: Making the Canadian West, Burnet and Palmer 1988). Three years later,

after the Canadian government embarked on a large-scale advertising campaign, 45,000 had

arrived. Between 1896 and 1914 approximately two million people arrived in Canada.

As immigrants arrived, demands increased for good quality agricultural land. The

Stoney Knoll Reserve contained excellent farming land and so the government moved to

make it available for setders since it was not occupied. In October 1895 a letter from the

8 Snake’s father, Espin-hick-cacki-toot, left ahead of Snake and his grandmother, and settled on the Thunderchild Reserve (Snake 1955). Snake and his grandmother lived with a sister for a number of years. An Anglican minister taught him religion, English, and gave Albert his Anglophone name. When Albert was 21- years old, he rode by horseback to the Stony Knoll reserve and found the farmers. Albert and his mother were advised that they could stay on the Attakacoop Reserve, but Snake (1955) points out that: “I have never been admitted by the Attakacoop Indians to join them in their Band membership. Many remarks have been made by them that I don’t belong in their membership and I don’t blame them. Indian agents forced me and my grandmother to live on the Attakacoop reserve.” It should be noted that a lack of direct evidence to support Snake and other claimant’s ancestry in “unbroken descent” proved to be a problem for a land claim appeal, which is briefly discussed in the update to the claim (included below). 9 In the early years the government put restrictions on First Nations farmers because incoming setders were worried about the competition. From 1889 to 1897 there were restrictions on acreage and catde ownership, and markets off-reserve could only be accessed with a permit and special permission from the Indian agent (Klaassen 1992). 1(1 This involved the applicant residing on the land for at least six months a year for three years, building a residence, breaking from fifteen to fifty acres of land, and planting ten to thirty acres of crops (Contact: Making the Canadian West).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 182

Dominion Lands Office to the Minister of Interior stated: . .1 have the honour to draw

your attention to the desirability of taking immediate steps towards opening out for

settlement the very fine tracts of land covered by these Reserves, as they have never been

occupied by the Indians for whom they were set apart” (McTaggart 1895). The government

sought to restore the property to the Department of the Interior from the Department of

Indian Affairs.11 Under treaty law it was required that the band members themselves release

or surrender reserve land to the government. The Minister of the Interior and Indian

Commissioner A.E. Forget argued the surrender was not required under the circumstances

because the band members were dispersed, living on other reserves, and were purportedly

part of the 1885 rebellion — a claim which proved false.12 An opinion was solicited from the

Department of Justice on 14 April 1897. However, before the legal opinion was rendered

an Order in Council was passed on 11 May 1897 transferring the lands as requested (Canada

1897). Three days later the Department of Justice’s Deputy Minister of Justice gave the legal

opinion that:

As at present advised I do not think that the land in question can, in view of the provisions of the sections referred to, be sold or otherwise alienated until the same has been released or surrendered in the manner provided by the Act. The section positively forbids, subject to certain exceptions, which have no application to the present case, the sale, alienation or lease of any reserve or portion of a reserve without such release or surrender. (Newcombe 1897)

The legal opinion came too late and the land was transferred and opened for setdement.

More recent research into the case, which supports Snake’s oral history, found that

by 1889 surviving members of the Young Chipeewayan band were spread across a number

of reserves. They had dispersed due to a number of intersecting factors, including the

11 Sir Clifford Sifton was Superintendent General of Indian Affairs and became Minister of the Interior in 1897 (Friesen 1984). 12 Apparently there were “some Chipewyan Indians with the Cree at the Battle of the Frenchman’s Butte” but not at Batoche (Hildebrandt 1985).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 183

disappearance of bison, diseases such as measles, climatic hardship, which led to death and

migration of surviving individuals and families to larger established bands elsewhere

(Corcoran, Bellegarde, and Prentice 1994; Snake 1955). On these reserves the newcomers

were not particularly welcome, and were considered squatters and a burden on the Reserve

because they were not counted as band members for the purpose of government payment of

Treaty obligations (Corcoran, Bellegarde, and Prentice 1994; Doell 1984b; Snake 1955).

Starting Anew: Mennonite Homesteaders in Saskatchewan

As noted in chapter four, Mennonites were part of the early settlers in Saskatchewan

just as they were in Manitoba, and had been previously in Russia. The first Mennonite

homestead claim was just north of the Rosthern railroad landing in the Saskatchewan Valley,

which is about 11 miles (18km) east of Laird, and 39 miles (63 km) north of Saskatoon. The

initial homestead claim was taken over by Gerhard Ens in 1892, a young Mennonite

immigrant who became a land agent, businessman and politician (Epp 1974). Mennonites

had petitioned for lands for block settlement and were allocated several reserve areas in

Saskatchewan. In 1895 an area south of Rosthern was set aside and called the “Hague-Osier

Reserve” (see chapter four). In 1898 additional lands around Rosthern were also reserved

for Mennonite settlers (Townships 40, 41, 42, 43, 44). This additional reserved land included

the former Stoney Knoll Reserve.13 The 1898 reserve lands remained exclusive for only four

years, and others also homesteaded in the reserve areas. For example, a list of homesteaders

on the former Stoney Knoll Reserve lands in the Laird area put together by Leonard Doell

(n.d.) indicated that 62 were Mennonite (66 percent), 27 were German Lutheran (29 percent)

13 The areas set aside were: Township 40, Ranges 4 and 5; Township 41, Ranges 3 and 4; Townships 42, 43, 43a Ranges 3, 4, 5, and 6; Township 44, Ranges 4 and 5 (Speers 1899).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 184

and five were English (5 percent). Mennonites did not necessarily restrict their

homesteading to these reserve areas and setded across the Saskatchewan Valley.

Mennonite setders started homesteading in the Laird area shordy after the early

arrivals in Rosthern. Peter Regier, who became a well-known Mennonite leader in the

region, emigrated from Prussia to Manitoba and arrived at an area adjacent to Laird in 1894

(Epp 1974; Rempel 1980). Regier named the district where he homesteaded Tiefengrund

and founded the first Mennonite church, the Rosenorter Church, in 1896 (Rieger 1980).

Mennonites arrived in the Rosthern, Tiefengrund and Laird areas from Russia, Prussia,

Eastern Canada, Manitoba and the United States. The Rosenorter Church gathered many of

the various progressive Mennonite groups together in one community. The church grew

and several congregations developed under common leadership (Epp 1974). Together with

a sister church in Manitoba, they organized one of the significant conference bodies, the

Conference of Mennonites in Central Canada, and provided early leadership for Mennonites

in western Canada at the turn of the twentieth century.14 This leadership was evident in the

previous chapter when David Toews led the Conference during WWII, and it became the

foundation for a Canada-wide Conference.

The Laird Mennonite Church and the Teifengrund Rosenort Mennonite Church

were both part of the Rosenort church, founded by Peter Regier, and organized around

1894. The homesteads on the former Stoney Knoll Reserve were generally settled after

1898. It has been suggested that at least one homesteader knew a reserve had once existed

where his homestead was, although it was unlikely that he new the particulars of its status

14 The new arrivals were also concerned about education and a school was built in 1898 (Friesen 1993).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 185

change, or expected there might any controversy since the homesteads were approved by the

government (Doell 1977a).

In a retrospective article a resident summarized the start of the community as: . .a

story of a people who made a home out of a frontier, and thereby contributed to the

development of a province” (Friesen 1993). Homesteading was labor intensive and the early

years strained resources and people. Land had to be cleared, broken, and then seeded.

Crops were poor the first years and aid was solicited from Manitoba.15 The Mennonite

community grew substantially in the Rosthern-Laird-Tiefengrund area. Mennonites even

established a school that they hoped would be a teacher’s college in Rosthern. As a

contemporary Saskatchewan history reports:

Beginning in the 1890s, German-speaking Mennonites from Europe, Russia, and the United States settled near the bustling community of Rosthern. The self-sufficient Protestant group lived in relative isolation, allowing for the preservation of their distinct way of life for decades. Determined to remain a “people apart,” they constructed the German-English Academy in Rosthern, an educational institute dedicated to language, Bible, and music instruction. (Lalonde and LaClare 1998, 91)

By 1905 Rosthern had turned into an economic hub and all the homesteads were taken up

(Epp 1974).

Over the years the composition of the community changed as new farmers arrived

and others passed on. Mennonites from the second wave of immigration, the R ussliinder,

joined the existing Mennonite communities.16 Any active knowledge of the Stoney Knoll

Reserve amongst the local farming community was forgotten over time. The Mennonite

15 Three train-carloads of food and grain from Manitoba, with transportation paid for by the government, arrived in Rosthern to help ease the needs (Doell 1977a, 12). 16 Doell summarizes the differences in 1977: “There are Prussian Mennonites, early Russian Mennonites (1895) and ones who came in the 1920’s, as well as Mennonites from the United States (Oklahoma, Minnesota). They have come from many different routes and yet are quite similar in their understanding of the faith, custom and languages” (Doell 1977a, 18).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 186

community remained in the area and a second Mennonite church was established in the

town of Laird. Farms and farmers in the area generally prospered over time.

The town of Rosthern had boomed and then had pardy gone bust with the

depression years. By the 1970s the Mennonite community in Laird and Rosthern had setded

into a farming community. The Mennonite residential school was re-named the Rosthern

Junior College and provided high-school education rather than college-level instruction. The

Mennonite churches in Laird and TRMC continued to be quite well attended, although there

was some decline particularly for the Laird Mennonite Church (LMC). LMC membership

was reported at 102 in 1965, 70 in 1975 and 82 in 1985 {LairdMennonite Church 2005).

TRMC had a larger attendance, with 146 members in 1965, 142 in 1975 and 147 in 1985

(Tiefengrund Rosenort 2005). By the 1970s, both churches had transitioned from worshiping in

German to English. The children of the original homesteaders tended to take over the

family farms, and continued on as members in the local Mennonite churches. There was

some increase in children moving to urban centers, particularly as farms increased in

operating size with the development of more advanced and expensive farm machinery.

However, the rural communities continued to be vibrant even as they dealt with periodic

drought and farming crises.

Relationships between Mennonite farmers and the nearby Cree band on the Beardy’s

Reserve tended to be limited. Mennonites in the Rosthern and Tiefengrund area rented land

from the Reserve. There were sometimes joint hockey games or other sporting events.

While some individuals had very good relationships, others were more distant or tense. For

example, Doell notes in 1977 that there were sometimes social tensions around leasing land

particularly around issues of advancing money and alcohol consumption, both of which

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 187

Mennonite farmers were very uncomfortable with. The formative experiences of

Mennonites and the Reserve populations were very different. There were, on the whole,

limited social and cultural bridges and interactions between the two communities at the

beginning o f this Conflict Site.

First Nations peoples were just beginning to get full recognition in Canada and a

cultural revival had just begun to get underway after decades of patronizing government

policies (Miller 1989).17 In 1961, a Canada-wide National Indian Council (NIC) was formed.

In 1966 and 1967, an influential study, called the Hawthorne Report, clearly documented

dismal conditions amongst aboriginal communities and the need for economic, political and

educational policy changes in Canada (Hawthorne 1966). A year-long consultative process

under then-Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and then-Indian Affairs Minister, Jean

Chretien, produced a policy paper at the end of the 1960s, which was soundly rejected as

government-centric by aboriginal groups (Cardinal 1969). The consultation process and

policy document did spur a powerful and effective response amongst treaty and non-treaty

aboriginal groups, led in part by the National Indian Brotherhood — one of two groups that

emerged from the NIC.18 The National Indian Brotherhood secured federal funding, and

was able to advocate successfully for policy changes in the 1970s (Miller 1989). For

example, in 1973 native leaders reclaimed their right to educate their children, after which

church-operated residential schools began to close. Together, these events built momentum

in the quest for self-government and recognition in the 1970s, when the Young

Chipeewayan land claim in Laird re-surfaced.

17 For example, the government policy of assimilation was re-entrenched in the updated Indian Act of 1951, although some of the more egregious elements were deleted, such as the prohibitions on alcohol, and banning of the potlatch. 18 The NIC split into two groups in 1968, one was the National Indian Brotherhood and the other the Canadian Metis Society (Miller 1989, 233).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 188

A Decade of Low-Intensity Conflict in Laird: 1977 -1987

This section provides an overview of the conflict that occurred in Laird when the

Young Chipeewayan land claim was revived in the 1970s. It provides details about the

community’s reaction, and the struggle within the Mennonite community to deal with the

issue. This struggle centered on Laird but involved Mennonites from elsewhere in

Saskatchewan and Manitoba who were worried that the issue would not be resolved

constructively without pro-active intervention. The two bodies involved most significantly

were the Canadian Mennonite Conference Native Ministries office and various offices of

Mennonite Central Committee Canada (MCC-C), particularly the Native Concerns office in

Winnipeg and the Mennonite Central Committee Saskatchewan (MCC-S) office. Mennonite

Central Committee Canada was formed in 1963 by merging a number of separate institutions

such as the Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization and the various relief committees

referred to in chapter four (Mennonite Central Committee Canada 2005). The Native Ministries

and Native Concerns offices as well as particular individuals played critical roles in raising

land claims issue within local Mennonite churches and elsewhere. Following the description

of the conflict context, a brief update on the land claim is provided, before turning to the

analysis of the Mennonite identity categories that emerged.

Ferment and Fumbling

In the mid-1970s, Canada’s federal government moved to deal with outstanding land

claims and land entitlements based on the signed treaties. There was considerable tension as

issues of social and economic injustice were highlighted. The process was highly charged.

The political movement in the United States, the American Indian Movement (A.I.M.), was

also active during the same time period and affected events in Canada. It was a time of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 189

ferment and pushing for radical and sometimes violent social change.19 This section

provides an overview of the conflict that emerged in the Mennonite community after the

issue of the Stoney Knoll Reserve re-surfaced, which provided the source material for the

analysis of Mennonite identity in this third conflict site.

In 1976, a car full of men drove to some of the farms located on the former Stoney

Knoll Reserve and confronted the farmers with a claim to own the land.20 The events were

not recorded but apparently several farms were visited and farmers were told that they’d

better take good care of the land and buildings because it was Indian land and would belong

to them again soon. One of the farmers, a well-respected member of a local Mennonite

church reportedly retorted, “over my dead body.”21 Other farmers were less confrontational

but perturbed and unsettled by the claims. The visitors startled the community and began a

process of raising awareness about the former reserve. The confrontational dynamic of the

visits sparked a strong negative reaction among many in the community, who assumed the

claim was invalid since they had legal title to the land.

The first written record of the confrontation in Laird appeared in a memo in

February 1977 from the Director of the Native Concerns Office for MCC-C, in Winnipeg.

The Director wrote a colleague at the Native Ministries office of the Conference of

Mennonites in Canada (CMC), that some people from the nearby Cree Indian reserves made

overtures that “ .. .the farms now held by Mennonite owners really belonged to the Indian

19 Although in Canada the more radical events occurred in the 1990s, with the Kanesatake stand-off and crisis. 20 Apparendy none of the men involved were descendents of the Young Chipeewayan, and it was suggested later that they were AIM members from the U.S. (Doell 1979b). 21 From informational interviews conducted in 2002. This parallel’s Doell’s earlier interview data. Doell wrote of the incident: “Some Mennonites suggested to other Mennonites that they would be willing to protect their land and property with guns if necessary. Such comments as ‘They will get my land over my dead body.’ were heard. Another Mennonite asked, How many of those who advocated violence were conscientious objectors in the last war?”’ (Doell 1977a, 32).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 190

people” (Wiebe 1977c). The Director thought the situation tense enough to warrant

watching and a week later wrote:

.. .on several occasions [two people] indicated present or potential skirmishes over lands now held by Mennonite farmers in Laird-Tiefengrund areas. Apparently there have been rumors or explicit indications that lands now held by Mennonite farmers originally belonged to the neighbouring Cree reserve. This information has also been confirmed by at least one student.. .whose parents became restless over such an indication. (Wiebe 1977b)

A local resident was asked to casually monitor the situation and notify the MCC-C Native

Concerns office if there were any worrisome trends or requests for assistance from any of

the parties (Wiebe 1977b). The Native Concerns office was concerned there might be

further confrontations.

Later in 1977, the CMC Native Ministries office decided to research land entitlement

agreements in Saskatchewan in order to be proactive on the larger social issues. The

contract included researching early Reserve selections in the province and background on

Mennonite settlement in the area of Rosthern (Froese 1977) — Laird itself was not

mentioned explicitly in the first research project. The researcher, Leonard Doell, was a

Mennonite from a town about 25 miles (40 km) south of Laird. Doell conducted interviews,

gathered historical materials and produced a forty-six page report that reviewed the history

of the Treaties, Mennonite immigration to Saskatchewan, Mennonite-First Nations

interactions, contemporary political issues, and a short one-and-a-half page overview of the

Laird conflict (Doell 1977a). Doell also followed-up on items of personal interest, including

gathering more specifics on the Laird reserve after the report was concluded (Doell 1977b;

Langille 1977).

The following year, 1978, the Peace and Social Concerns Committee of MCC-S

discussed Doell’s paper and looked to hold a Native Concerns Seminar with the support of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 191

the CMC Native Ministries office to further explore the issues (Minutes of Peace and Social

Concerns Committee 1978). The organizers hoped to address some of the broad tensions

and racism in the province related to Native land claim issues.22 There was concern that

Mennonites would be affected in the process given the provincial formula for settling those

disputes involved almost a million acres of land, and Mennonites owned many farms in areas

near Reserves (Froese 1978). It was also hoped that the land issues in Laird would be raised

in the talks informally rather than as a structured part of the seminar itself.23

The seminar organizers asked the TRMC to host the event and they agreed (Minutes

of the Tiefengrund Rosenort 13 November 1978; Minutes of the Tiefengrund Rosenort 8

January 1979). Mennonites who owned land on the former Stoney Knoll reserve attended

one of the two churches in Laird, the TRMC or LMC. TRMC was located just outside of

the former Stoney Knoll reserve area while LMC was located in the town of Laird. The

seminar was widely advertised in churches across the province, including in the neighboring

LMC, as well as the local Saskatchewan Valley newspaper (Native/Mennonite peace talk

1979).24 The two-day seminar was titled “Peace Talks” and took place in February 1979.

The event combined inputs from various Native and Mennonite leaders to reflect on biblical

perspectives of Mennonite-Native relations, examine land entitlement issues and generally

“increase awareness of the two cultures, two histories and one vision — peace”

22 In 1978, Chief David Ahenakew, president of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians, advocated confrontational tactics for unresolved issues, and reportedly told representatives they should select the land they wanted and dwell on it. He reportedly said, ‘“Don’t worry about the backlash. We live with backlash day- in and day-out;”’and further, “Referring to an Indian band that in the past apparently lost all its land, he said he would camp on the land if he were the chief.” (Doyle 1978) 23 This was particularly the case after Doell met with a representative of the Young Chipeewayan claim shortly before the conference began (Doell 1979a, 1979b). 24 Announcements appear in the Laird Mennonite Church bulletins 14, 28 January, 4, 11 and 18 February (Laird Mennonite Church Bulletins 1979).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 192

(Native/Mennonite peace talk 1979).25 Just before the meeting began, Doell met with a

representative of the Young Chipeewayan named Sydney Fineday, and there was some

thought of adding Fineday and the Stoney Knoll Reserve claim to the agenda. Neither

occurred although the Young Chipeewayan claim was raised during discussions. An article

on the conference suggested:

The people of Tiefengrund took risks when they hosted this conference. Some of their Indian neighbors had told them blundy that there were prior claims to the land the Mennonites had been living on for two or three generations. ... Perhaps half of the people of the Tiefengrund church live on the former reserve. There were some who thought there was little to talk about, but somehow dropping it did not seem to all to be the Christian way. Representatives of the claimants had not come to the meeting. (Wenger 1979b)

The Laird land claim issue was obviously on the minds of the larger Mennonite conference

body even if it was not directly put on the agenda — which became the cause of some

concern for local farmers. Doell’s research paper was incorporated into the proceedings as a

dramatic presentation that provided an overview of the 100-year history (Graves 1979). In

total, some 125 to 200 people attended the “Peace Talks” (General Conference News

Service 1979; Wenger 1979b).

In an effort to follow-up more carefully on the Young Chipeewayan claim, the CMC

Native Ministries office offered to support research into the land claim in Laird if the

Mennonite community at LMC and TRMC was interested (Froese 1979e). The letter also

indicated that part of the purpose of the peace talks was to open space for “Christian people

to talk it over”(Froese 1979a). This offer triggered a strong and divisive reaction in the local

Mennonite community in the Laird area (Froese 1979b). One part of the community in

particular was extremely angry at the CMC Native Ministries office for raising an issue they

25 A Cheyanne Mennonite Minister studying peace issues was invited but unable to attend at the last minute.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 193

felt the church should not be involved in. A heated letter, signed by 18 people, was sent to

the CMC office indicating that: “We are not in agreement with Native Ministries in engaging

and financing the services of researchers in Land Claims for this area. Furthermore, we will

oppose any Land Claim action brought forth by the Indians” (Mennonite Farmer Associates

of the Tiefengrund Area 1979). The group of Mennonite farmers felt the issue was a serious

threat to their livelihood and was better dealt with in the courts than by the church (Neufeldt

1979).26 Given this strong negative reaction, the CMC Native Ministries office decided

against any further action unless requested by the two local Mennonite churches, or by the

MCC-S Peace and Social Concerns Committee (Froese 1979c, 1979d). There was an uneasy

silence on the issue.

TRMC minutes indicated that the community was tense over the Stoney Knoll land

claim — there were no minutes for LMC meetings.27 After the Peace Talks, the Young

Chipeewayan issue was brought up for discussion at several TRMC Church Council

meetings between 20 August 1979 and 9 January 1980. Although the minute entries do not

capture the full discussion they do indicate the congregation was struggling with whether and

how to respond.28 At the annual TRMC meeting in January 1980, a member of the

congregation presented the land claim history and an overview of contact between MCC-S

with the Young Chipeewayan representative, Fineday. The matter was temporarily laid to

26 In informational interviews in 2002, it was clear that the Stoney Knoll claim still raised strong emotions amongst farmers and landowners in the area. The emotions ranged from a sense of guilt, to anger over guilt since the land was legally acquired and owned on their part. The land is not just a commodity but families have now been farming for generations and feel a great attachment to the place. 27 Doell characterizes the situation: “.. .some local people were very much concerned about how they could help to resolve this issue, some were apathetic and others were defensive and threatened that their land ownership may be in jeopardy” (Doell 1984b, 2). 28 The topic is mentioned in minutes for three Church council meetings (29 August, 8 October, 10 December) and one meeting of the Trustee and Finance committee (9 January). Interestingly, in June 1979 the women’s groups of Eigenheim and Tiefengrund Mennonite churches hosted the Saskatchewan Women in Mission meetings in which the guest speakers focused on Native Ministries work (Janzen Lamp 1979).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 194

rest when “After discussion the consensus of the meeting was that we, as a church, should

not become involved in Indian land claims at this time” (Tiefengrund Rosenort Mennonite

Church 1980). The church was not prepared to explore and respond to the Young

Chipeewayan land claim as a whole, particularly since some members were stridently

opposed to such action.

Individuals in the larger Mennonite institutional bodies remained concerned that the

claim issue needed to be dealt with and avert possible violence but were not sure how to

approach the issue given the position of the local farmers. MCC-S representatives therefore

attempted to keep some low-key communication channels open with Fineday and made

periodic contact with the Mennonite churches in the Laird area, although visits to the

churches were not specifically about the Stoney Knoll claim. For example, in 1981 MCC-S

hired an Education Coordinator for Native Ministries, who visited TRMC while pursuing a

larger mandate of awareness-raising and education (Reports and Financial Statements 1982;

Driedger 1981a, 1981b). The Coordinator was aware of the issue, did not raise it for public

discussion but likely discussed it privately.

Members of the Band were frustrated living on other reserves, and felt the

government continued to fail to live up to its treaty obligations. They also believed that

members of the Young Chipeewayan band had lived on the Reserve area between 1877 and

1879, and were curious as to the legal status of Mennonites on the reserve lands (Minutes of

Meeting with Sidney Fineday 1979). Some members of the Young Chipeewayan band were

interested in meeting with Mennonites. Fineday suggested forming a common coalition with

Mennonites to create two sides instead of three; he thought it would be difficult for the fifty-

odd scattered members of the Band to raise the issue, “But if Mennonites who now reside

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 195

on this land were to stand with them to correct the injustice then the government would take

notice and act. Mennonites and Indians need to work together and not be threatened by

each other” (Minutes of Meeting with Sidney Fineday 1979).

In 1982 and 1983 the land claim issue generally stayed in the background for

Mennonites in Laird, as well as for individuals working in the CMC, MCC-C and MCC-S

offices. The Young Chipeewayan Band was active, however, and submitted a legal claim to

the federal Minister of Indian Affairs in 1982, petitioning that the initial surrender was

unlawful (Snake 1982). In those same years there were some changes in the larger political

situation for aboriginal groups in Canada. The 1982 Constitution Act recognized and

affirmed the existing aboriginal and treaty rights in Canada. In 1983 a Special Committee of

the House of Commons, also known as the Penner committee, supported an expansive

notion of Indian self-government (House of Commons Special Committee on Indian Self-

Government 1983). Aboriginal groups had gradually organized more effective political

bodies at the provincial and federal level, and were increasingly able to affect policy and

other types of decisions, such as hydro development projects (Miller 1989).

Growing Awareness and Action

In 1984 and 1985 there was more concentrated focus on the history of the land claim

and purposeful action within the Mennonite community. On his own initiative, Doell

completed a second report that detailed the history of the Stoney Knoll Reserve (#107) and

the Young Chipeewayan claim in 1984 (Doell 1984b). With some encouragement from

others working in the Mennonite institutions, he turned his report into a short article that

appeared in the local Rosthern and Laird newspaper, The Saskatchewan Valley News, and in

a cross-Canada Mennonite periodical, the Mennonite Reporter (Doell 1984c, 1985a). The

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 196

article concluded with a plea: “If Mennonites will stand with the Young Chippewayan

people, it will give the Indian people hope in seeing that justice will be done; this will in turn

also free Mennonites from the weight of an unwanted burden.. (Doell 1985a). A TRMC

church member — the same one who had raised the issue for discussion at the annual

meeting in 1980 — made Doell’s full report available to other TRMC members at the church

(Tiefengrund Rosenort 1984). These independent efforts by Doell generated further action

within the Mennonite community.

The Young Chipeewayan land claim received considerable attention within the

provincial Mennonite community in 1985. There were some independent activities by a

small group of concerned Mennonites, which included Doell. For example, in March of

1985 this small group requested that a particular piece of land called the Mennonite Youth

Farm, which was owned by the Conference of Mennonites of Saskatchewan (CoMoS), be

donated to the Young Chipeewayan as a gesture of reconciliation (Boldt, Boldt, and Doell

1985). The proposal generated further discussion but ultimately did not proceed.

Interestingly, TRMC had put forward a proposal for the Youth Farm lands almost two years

prior, which focused on utilizing the lands for good environmental stewardship practices.

Action was taken to raise awareness about the issue and to advocate on behalf of the

Young Chipeewayan. The MCC-S Executive Director Edgar Epp, who had grown up in the

Laird area, led the advocacy work in 1985.29 Epp looked for updates from the federal

government on the claim, supported the MCC-S relationship with members of the Young

Chipeewayan and looked to formalize MCC-S support for restorative action on the issue

(Doell 1984 - 1992; Epp 1985). At the annual MCC-S delegate meeting in November 1985 a

29 Epp notes this linkage in a letter to the Federal Minister of Indian Affairs David Crombie dated 3 January 1986.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 197

resolution was passed that supported the Young Chipeewayan claim. The resolution also

insisted the current land titles be honored (quoted below). Only two delegates of the 240

gathered at the meeting voted against the resolution, and they were from the affected area

(Neufeld 1986a). The claim was given further publicity in Mennonite circles in 1985 when a

second article appeared in the “Mennonite Reporter” that updated the status of the claim

(Derksen 1985).

While this larger, Mennonite institutionally-led activity was going on there was little

formal action on the claim issue in the two local Mennonite churches, where the farmers

who owned the land attended. One TRMC newsletter briefly reported on the MCC-S

annual meeting where the resolution was passed. It stated vaguely:

In the Native Ministries and Concerns Comm. Peter Neufeldt reported that our natives want justice, want their own program, fight their own fights for justice; but that they need and want help in this. The land issue between the young Chipewayan Band and the present owners of the land in the Laird area received some attention. (Balzar 1985)

There were no discussions captured in the TRMC Church Council minutes that year,

neither on the land claim nor on the MCC-S resolution to support the Young Chipeewayan

claim.

As 1985 drew to a close the MCC-S Director received a letter from the federal

Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs in Ottawa that stated the Young Chipeewayan claim

was rejected. It was turned down upon the Department of Justice’s legal opinion that:

.. .based on the evidence submitted, there is no evidence of a legal claim. The Young Chipewyan Band was informed of this opinion and subsequently filed an action in the federal court. I have asked Justice Canada to proceed with the litigation, and to obtain at the same time, any additional information that would enable the government to better determine the merits of this claim. (Crombie 1985)

Epp immediately wrote a letter in response to the federal Minister and highlighted the

resolution that had just passed:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 198

Please note that the matter was dealt with at our Annual Delegate Meeting, resulting in the following resolution which was passed with only two dissenting votes (240 delegates registered, representing 106 member congregations): ‘That MCC Saskatchewan hereby go on record as urging an early resolution, by the respective governments, of the land entitlement and compensation claim now in process on behalf of the descendants of the Young Chippewayan Band members. Any resolution of the Young Chippewayan claim shall honour the ownership of Reserve #107 land by those who now hold title to that land.’

Epp circulated the letter broadly, copying it to Members of Parliament, various Mennonite

organizational point persons, and the Young Chipeewayan legal counsel. This letter sparked

a series of communications with government members and legal counsel. The coordinator

of the land claim wrote to state the Young Chipeewayan appreciated the MCC-S support,

and was interested in viewing any information Epp had on file as, “The only official records

were those kept by the Department of Indian Affairs and, as would be expected, the events

recorded were those which reflected upon their policy considerations of the time” (Griffin

1986).

The Young Chipeewayan Band immediately pursued their claim in the Federal Court

of Canada, Trial Division. A statement of claim was filed 15 March 1985, seeking: an order

declaring that the government of Canada had breached fiduciary duty and damages, or

alternatively, a declaration that the original Order In Council, that surrendered the land to

the government, be declared null and void (Corcoran, Bellegarde, and Prentice 1994, 3).

Direct Dialogue

In 1986 a representative of the MCC-S office directly approached the Mennonite

community in Laird in hopes of helping to mediate the issue between the Mennonites in

Laird and the Young Chipeewayan. The MCC-S Assistant Director for Service programs,

David Neufeld, was concerned that the issue was heating up again for the Young

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 199

Chipeewayan. He had received information that, “some of the more militant leaders had

been advocating that the descendents of the Young Chip should begin squatting on the land

of their claim at Laird” (Neufeld 1986b). Neufeld therefore contacted the Mennonites in

Laird via the two Mennonite churches, presented background on the claim, updated them on

recent developments, and invited the church leaders to meet together to discuss further

(Minutes of the Tiefengrund Rosenort 8 June 1986; Neufeld 1986d). Neufeld also included

the minister of the St. John’s Lutheran Church at the urging of the LMC and TRMC leaders.

Neufeld suggested there might be a possibility of meeting Young Chipeewayan council

members, and repeated assurances that the land would not be taken from the present owners

even if the Young Chipeewayan’s federal claim was successful (Neufeld 1986d).30 The

church representatives agreed to meet with Neufeld and held some exploratory

conversations.31

In 1987 the Laird community discussions moved forward again. An invitation to

meet with the Young Chipeewayan Land Claim group was sent from the Young

Chipeewayan’s legal counsel to the MCC-S office, which led Neufeld to again approach the

community (Ahenakew 1987b; Barkman 1987).32 The initial letter from legal counsel read:

The Young Chippewan Band [A'] was unlawfully confiscated by the Federal Government, in 1897, without the consent of the Band Members of the Young Chippewan (Stoney Knoll). The Chief and Council would like to know the status of the local residences in the area and the town of Laird. The Chief and Council would like to set up a communication system with the Mennonite settlement and possibly invite some representation to the next Land Claim Meeting ... (Ahenakew 1987b)

30 The letter contains a series of points made by a lawyer for the Young Chipeewayan, including one that notes “Because the Government is stalling, not recognizing the wrong that been done in the past [sic], the more militant of the descendants have gotten frustrated and have vented their anger with the landowners at Laird. The landowners have become upset and the conflict has escalated between these two parties”(Neufeld 1986d). 31 The TRMC Church Council discussion is captured in the minutes (Minutes of the Tiefengrund Rosenort 5 August 1986). 32 The invitation caused a small stir at MCC-S because it referred to “trying to legally recover this land,” which they had been assured was not legally possible.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 200

Neufeld, accompanied by Doell, met with each of the three church leaders in Laird as well

as with church council members to discuss the invitation (Neufeld 1987c). The three

ministers and some members of the LMC and TRMC congregations agreed to attend a

meeting with Young Chipeewayan representatives to gather information but would not

formally represent their congregations, as the congregations were divided on the issue

(Ahenakew 1987a; Neufeld 1987b). The LMC members did not make the meeting due to a

miscommunication on location (Neufeld 1987a). A group of three members from TRMC,

the minister from the Lutheran church, Neufeld and Doell did meet directly with about ten

Young Chipeewayan representatives (Neufeld 1987a). The meeting allowed some

differences of opinion to be aired. One of the TRMC members stated very clearly that if the

Young Chipeewayan wanted the original Stony Knoll Reserve land back they would face

very strong opposition. The Young Chipeewayan representatives appealed to the visitors to

understand their claim; they were taking action in order to get the government to the

negotiating table, at which point they would be willing to walk away with a compromise

(Neufeld 1987a).

A follow-up meeting between MCC-S and church representatives in Laird occurred

without Young Chipeewayan participation, and indicated there were still tensions and points

of disagreement within the farming community. Doell and Neufeld met with the

representatives of all three church councils in the Laird area together to debrief the meeting

between the Laird church council members and the Young Chipeewayan representatives

(Neufeld 1987a).33 There remained concerns over losing their land, and a lack of trust

between the Laird area farmers and the Young Chipeewayan (Minutes of the Tiefengrund

33 Responses included that they were already involved, people were afraid of losing their land, and that the tensions and anxieties created by the visits in 1976 needed to be dealt with (Neufeld 1987a).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 201

Rosenort 7 July 1987). Subsequently, the St. John’s Lutheran church council decided to

withdraw from further engagement as a collective body (St. John's Lutheran Church 1987).

The TRMC and LMC councils both agreed to stay engaged in dialogue with MCC-S on the

issue, and potentially with the Young Chipeewayan band members. More specifically, the

TRMC minister agreed to meet individually with each of the affected landowners in the

congregation (Highlights 6 October 1987; Minutes of the Tiefengrund Rosenort 7 July

1987). The LMC minister agreed to keep in touch with the Young Chipeewayan and to

continue to pass information about the claim onto his congregation (Neufeld 1987a).

Shordy after this spate of dialogue activity there were personnel changes at MCC-S.

Neufeld left his position, and the former director Epp had passed away unexpectedly. The

issue receded into the background for a number of years as MCC-S was in transition.34 The

congregations remained in dialogue with MCC-S but there was little concrete action (Reports

and Financial Statements 1987; Regier 1988). For the purpose of this dissertation analysis

stops here in 1987 when the majority of early action around the conflict comes to a close.

Post Script. While the Conflict Site focus stops at 1987 the conflict issues

remained. MCC-S continued to maintain connections with Young Chipeewayan

representatives and Doell was hired as MCC-S staff.35 Doell continues to write and speak on

the issue in various Mennonite circles.36 In 1992, a former Laird-area Mennonite and

34 Neufeld moved away and there was no one hired to take immediate responsibility for the work. Epp had passed away and the new MCC-S Executive Director was less invested in the issue. 35 1987 was also the year that the Meech Lake Accord, which was to bring special recognition to Quebec as a “distinct society” failed, memorably, at the hands of Elijah Harper, a Cree-Ojibwa member of the Manitoba legislature, with the support of Manitoba’s native leaders. For an account of these events see Miller (1989, 289-304). 36 A survey in 1991 indicated good support from Mennonites for engaging with Native communities. In the survey 71 percent thought it was an important to engage, although they felt they were not very knowledgeable, and 1/3 indicated they did not interact with Native People regularly. Advocacy activities

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 202

Member of Parliament, Ray Funk, inherited land in the former reserve area. He added a

note to the deed stating there was an outstanding land claim on the property and agreed not

to profit from its ownership until the issue was resolved (Funk 1992). The TRMC has been

involved in First Nations issues more generally, and continued to meet with Doell (Kaufman

1997).

In 1992 the Government of Canada filed a statement of defense against the Young

Chipeewayan, which denied that the claimants were descendants of Band members of the

Young Chipeewayan Band. The action was held in abeyance when the matter was brought

before the Federal Indian Claims Commission in 1993. The Indian Claims Commission was

established in 1992 to investigate land claims. The Young Chipeewayan case was brought to

the Commission; it conducted hearings in Saskatchewan, received oral submissions and

examined some 1200 pages of historical documents. The Commission concluded in 1994:

When one considers the customs and traditions of the Plains Cree people and the particular facts of this claim, it would appear that Young Chipeewayan ceased to constitute a band in any real sense of the word by 1889. The facts seem to suggest that by 1889 everyone from Young Chipeewayan had either transferred to other bands in the area (and were paid treaty on the paylists of those bands) or had moved to the United States. ... Had the majority of the Young Chipeewayan Band transferred to another band and continued to maintain their identity as a community under the leadership of their chief, we might have reached a different conclusion. (Corcoran, Bellegarde, and Prentice 1994, 35)

The Commission suggested that Bands that absorbed Young Chipeewayan Band members

might have valid claims for additional land to support these members. They also

recommended that issues surrounding the transfer of Young Chipeewayan Band members to

the Treaty paylists of other First Nations be examined on a case-by-case basis in order to

ensure the provisions of Treaty Six were upheld (Commission Releases Report 1994).

received less support than other types of exchange activities, and support for researching land claims was mixed - 29 percent supported strongly, 8 percent were strongly against (Bartel 1991).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 203

The claim continued to get periodic attention in Mennonite circles. In 2000, Doell,

Funk and a representative for the Young Chipeewayan presented an overview of the case at

an academic Symposium on the “History of Aboriginal-Mennonite Relations” at the

University of Winnipeg.37 MCC-S representatives continued to meet with members of the

Young Chipeewayan Band and support their claim.

In 2000 and 2001, the Young Chipeewayan matter was brought before the Federal

Court of Canada — Trial Division. The court dismissed the action on the basis that none of

the six plaintiffs established an unbroken line of descent to a member of the Young

Chipeewayan Band. The court, however, upheld the finding that the 1897 Order-in-Council

was not valid, and if any of the plaintiffs were found to be descendents, in an unbroken line,

they could bring the matter forward. An application for permission to appeal the decision

on unbroken-descent was submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada on 16 December

2002. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal on 13 February 2003, finding the

decision supported by evidence, and no “palpable and overriding errors” (Kingfisher v. Canada

2003).

Shifts, Contestation and Community: Mennonite Identity in Western Canada

The events in Saskatchewan between 1977 and 1987 brought a narrower range of

Mennonite identity categories into focus than the previous two Conflict Sites. While the

conflict over the Young Chipeewayan land claim raised significant fear and discomfort for

those who owned land in the affected area, it did not produce revolutionary outcomes. The

case instead captured Mennonites in a series of confrontations and deliberations, which were

primarily internal but were catalyzed by the external land claim. It raised categories of

37 Summaries of these presentations appeared in the 2000 edition of the Journal of Mennonite Studies.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 204

Mennonite identity that focused on Mennonites as a distinct historical group, who were also

part of the larger social milieu, who worked hard and were productive farmers, and who

were above all a faith group, held together in a process of internal engagement. The

following section explores these emergent categories and their properties.

Mennonites in Western Canada: “We are No Longer Outside the Fabric of Society”

Within this Conflict Site there was both a unique Mennonite group identity and a

sense that Mennonites were an integrated part of a much larger social and political fabric in

western Canada. The former category relied on properties of a common history and

overcoming adversity. The latter involved a separation of church and state and

understanding how Mennonites fit into that larger community. These two categories

contained tensions and contradictions, which were heightened by the land claim.

A Unique People. In this Conflict Site, as in the previous two Sites, there were

expressions that Mennonites were a unique people. Mennonites used the phrase “our

people,” “a people,” or “my people” in different contexts, particularly when calling for

community action. Examples of these uses included: “In October of 1898 the land that was

reserved for the Young Chippewayan Band was now added to the reserve for my people, the

Mennonites” (Doell 1984a). Or, “As I see it this is an opportunity for Mennonite people to

take some creative action in cooperation with native people on a touchy problem and I

would certainly hope that we could find a way to do this” (Wenger 1979a). And similarly,

“The increasing migration of our Mennonite people from rural to urban centers does not in

any way diminish our responsibilities to be stewards of the earth...” (Tiefengrund

Mennonite Church 1983). Mennonites retained a sense of common people-hood in the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 205

1970s and 1980s in western Canada.

The most prominent constituent property of the category that Mennonites were a

unique people was a common historical background. This background typically centered on

perseverance and overcoming adversity as well as achieving agricultural success. There were

repeated references to Mennonite ancestors having endured suffering for their beliefs. For

example, in Doell’s history of Mennonites in Saskatchewan he presented a series of obstacles

Mennonites overcame:

Going was rough the first years as homesteads were built, and land was cleared and broken. Crops were not all that good and poverty was real. Some Mennonites who came from Manitoba saw this and wrote to William Hespeler asking if food and grain could be sent to Rosthern by rail. ... (1977, 12)

Or, for those emigrating from Russia and Ukraine:

Not only was the Czar refusing to recognize the privileges which had been established when the Mennonites came to Russia, but Russia was also in the midst of a Revolution. Mennonite people were being tortured and killed; their women raped; and their goods stolen. A famine came in 1920-21. Relief came to Russia from Canada saving many people. About 25,000 people left Russia in the decade of 1923-31 of which 4,000 went to Uruguay, Paraguay, and Mexico. ... (1977, 12-13)

Mennonite history of suffering and perseverance was also used as a parallel to understanding

First Nations’ experiences in Canada: “Mennonites and native people have both experienced

persecution and displacement for religious and economic reasons” (Wenger 1979b).

Another format for the narrative of perseverance appeared with respect to achieving

agricultural success after hard homesteading work. For example, “In the early 1920’s

Mennonites were welcomed with open arms because they were such good agriculturalists”

(Doell 1977a, 13). A more personalized version of this narrative was captured in a farmer

from Laird’s reported response to a question of whether or not he would give up his

farmland to the Young Chipeewayan; he reportedly responded by stating: “.. .how his

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 206

grandfather and father had worked that land and built up the farm and that he would not

leave that land voluntarily” (Neufeld 1987a). Part of the Mennonite identity group narrative

was based on successfully overcoming historical struggles with the state, homesteading and

farming. It was a narrative of perseverance and continuing in the paths of those who had

gone before.

Western Canadians...? Throughout this Conflict Site Mennonites also consistendy

recogni 2 ed themselves as part of a larger community in western Canada. Mennonites were a

unique group but also integrated into a larger social, economic and political milieu. For

example, Mennonites in Laird noted they were part of a farming community that consisted

of more than more than just one church of Mennonites:

I ask you to remember in the future that he [the TRMC minister] does not speak for all the people whose land is concerned in this issue. As my previous letter showed, there are many Tiefengrund church members, whose land is involved, that are strongly opposed to the churches \sic\ involvement in this issue. I also mentioned the Laird Mennonite, Lutheran and other land owners who weren’t consulted. (Neufeldt 1979)

The MCC-S office therefore also worked with the larger community and felt it was

appropriate to involve the local Lutheran church. For example:

In May of this year Mr. Alex Ahenekew, the assistant co-ordinator of the Young Chippeweyan Land Claim, wrote to myself indicating that the Band Council would like to open discussions with the Community of Laird. I felt compelled to pass this information on to people in the Laird Community in some way because I and the Mennonite Central Committee could in no way speak for the Laird community. My most logical entry point into the community was through the Mennonite churches in Laird and Tiefengrund. I spoke with the Pastors there and was encouraged to also speak with the Pastor of St. John’s Lutheran Church of Laird. (Neufeld 1987a)

Mennonites working for MCC-S or CMC focused on Mennonites being part of a larger

western-Canadian-European culture and society and reflecting some of the same social

values and schisms. For example, “Mennonites have basically been like any other

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 207

immigrants in their mentality towards the Indian. They have not understood the Indian way

of life but have taken on the attitude of the dominant white society” (Doell 1977a, 19). Or,

as captured in the list of tasks that the MCC-S Education Coordinator for Native Ministries

pursued in 1981:

4. Explore with Mennonites, the Mennonite basic beliefs and consider what they mean in cross-cultural relationships and the current situation of natives and Mennonites in Canada today. Concepts of love, community, brotherhood, discipleship, peace and reconciliation have been key in the dialogue.

6. Help Mennonites recognize that we are no longer outside the fabric of society, that while we feel we may be poor and uninfluential, we are in fact wealthy, in many places of influence, and what we do affects many. A false sense of humility may be a way of shirking our responsibility. (Driedger 1981a)

The Native Concerns and Ministries groups of MCC-S, MCC-C and CMC very pointedly

focused on increasing the contacts and improving attitudes between Mennonites and various

First Nations and Metis groups as part of the larger social milieu. For Mennonites in Laird

as well as elsewhere in Saskatchewan, there was an understanding that Mennonites were part

of a larger social system.

However, the implications of being full participants in the larger political, social and

economic community were contested within Mennonite circles during this Conflict Site. In

particular, there were differing interpretations of the role of Mennonites and church-related

institutions with respect to action on the Young Chipeewayan land claim. Some argued that

the church should not be involved in matters that involved financial livelihoods but should

leave the matter to the state. For example:

The land claims issue is of vital concern to our livelihood and should not be discussed in a setting where sympathy’s and emotions play a part. If the Indian people have a land claim, let them take it to the government and let it be decided in a court of law where justice will be served. (Neufeldt 1979)

Others thought it was an issue Mennonite church institutions should be involved in because

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 208

Mennonites as a group had profited from the former reserve land. This opinion was

illustrated in passages such as:

The area in question had been set aside as a reserve, but from 1897 it was allowed to be homesteaded and setded by Euro-Canadians, most of whom were of the Mennonite faith. There is much concern among Mennonites who have become aware of this historic event, especially since it appears that our people may have benefited from an illegal act. We anticipate this issue being raised at our Annual Delegate Meeting, scheduled for November 8 and 9 next. (Epp 1985)

Both views were captured together in a debate in 1987:

The question was then raised: Why should the community be involved in this issue at all? Why not just let the government and the Band sort this out? Some people responded by explaining how the community already was involved. People are fearful of loosing [sic\ their land. Some hold negative stereotypes of Native People pardy due to their fears. Band members have come to Laird indicating that they intend to live there someday. These fears, threats and attitudes are creating tensions that need to be dealt with. One member suggested that the issue should be dealt with for the good of the community as well as the good of the Young Chippewayan descendants. At the end of this meeting it was clear that unity had not been achieved. (Neufeld 1987a)

The debate amongst Mennonites centered on differing interpretations of justice, economic

livelihood, and the church’s role therein. The concept of justice and its relationship to

Mennonite religious identity is explored further below in the section on Mennonite religious

identity. This debate highlighted the points around which Mennonites were unclear of the

link between their Mennonite identity and their more civic Canadian identity. These were

issues that involved economic livelihood, broad social trends, and involvement with

structures of the state, like the legal justice system.

Mennonite Work-Based Identity: “Hardy and Industrious”

In this case it was again evident that Mennonites thought of themselves as a

hardworking people, and it was a defining characteristic similar to the first Conflict Site. The

main properties for this category were that Mennonites had an agricultural calling, were

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 209

productive farmers that were conscientious about making good business decisions, and quite

strongly individualistic.

Agricultural Calling and Productivity. Two related properties within the hard-

worker category were an agricultural calling and productivity. As in the earlier two Conflict

Sites, Mennonites saw themselves as having an agricultural calling. For example,

“Mennonites have for centuries had a strong attachment to the land and have been at the

forefront in the development of progressive agricultural techniques in several countries from

Holland to Prussia to Russia and to North and South America” (Tiefengrund Mennonite

Church 1983). Or:

Thus it is apparent to me that there is a wide diversity of opinion as to the significance of the property. Whereas many people have attached to it the same value as Mennonites have traditionally had for land, others see it more in terms of Real-Estate with its use or value gauged in terms of economic or other benefits which can be derived from it. (Janzen 1986)

Mennonites were not only called to agricultural work but also to be productive.38 This

productive hard work was viewed as adding to their worth as citizens. For example a

historical reference:

William Hespeler (Emigration Agent) extended a special invitation to the Mennonites, and under his guidance they came to Canada. Hespeler took a chance at angering Russian officials when he extended the invitation, for there was a severe penalty for extending emigration invitations. But this was the type of people the government was looking for. The Mennonites were hardy and industrious. The government therefore was willing to give privileges to them such as they did, if only the Mennonites would come. (Doell 1977a, 11)

Or, this sentiment was also captured in a comment that was intended as a critical review of

how Mennonites viewed their origins as hard working setders in western Canada:

38 It should be noted that there were also shifts to more urban living. This was captured in the quote utilized above, which stated, “The increasing migration of our Mennonite people from rural to urban centres...” (Tiefengm n d Mennonite Church 1983).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 210

Somewhere down the line we need to get the historic data straight, namely that Mennonites came very close to making treaties with privileged status accorded them. John Funk has discovered that this is also the case in the Red River Valley of Manitoba. The idea then, that Indians received free lands while Mennonites had to work for theirs is highly erroneous and certainly thoroughly misleading. (Wiebe 1977a)

Mennonites were concerned about being productive farmers and business owners.39 For

example, in a discussion over what to do a piece of land owned by the Conference of

Mennonites in Saskatchewan, called the Youth Farm, it was noted that the “The land base is

too small to be profitably farmed on its own” (Summary 1984). Or, a comment captured in

an interview by Doell with reference to a Mennonite farmer’s relationship with the Cree

Beardy reserve (near Rosthern): “One Mennonite fellow explained to me that ‘natives also

recognize the value of land. For often rather than renting to a fellow Indian who may get a

good crop, they rent to Mennonites who are known to do well with the land.’ This is true,

for Mennonites are efficient farmers” (1977, 24-25). Mennonites viewed themselves as hard

workers, with two attendant properties of work being both a calling and productive.

Individualistic. There was often also an implicit property of Mennonite farmers

being quite individualistic in their pursuits. In a play written for the 1979 “Peace Talk”

conference, the Mennonite notion of work was tied to survival, group identity as well as this

strong individualism. The following passage from the play, which was a short, 3-party

dialogue between individuals who represented farmers, the government and First Nations

peoples, captured the individualism explicitly:

39 An external view of Mennonite farmers in 1977 was: .. .Some have been very hungry for land not caring about the native or the land except for his own use. Some Mennonites have refused to become part of the land leasing though, because of the hard feelings it has created or could create. Neighbors of Mennonites have referred to them as being land greedy and work crazy. They are the people who pray three times a day but would do anything to get your land. One person observed that when they are poor they help each other but when they are rich they forget about each other. (Doell, 1977, 25-26)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 211

FARMER: The society in which I live has certain concepts about itself and its members that we try to follow, and farming is an important foundation on which it can be based. (TO GOVERNMENT) I agree with you that land and farming are the basis on which a population can grow, and it is also the basis on which a population can keep its independence. If you provide your own food, shelter and clothing, your basic needs are met, and people who can provide their own basic needs are a long way down the road to personal independence. Farming does this. (Graves 1979, 5)

The sense of individualism was also captured in the note from the angry Mennonite farmers

who noted that the Mennonite pastor did not speak for all of the Mennonites or farmers in

the area: “I ask you to remember in the future that he does not speak for all the people

whose land is concerned in this issue” (Neufeldt 1979). Hard work was an important

category of Mennonite identity with its attendant properties of agricultural calling,

productive farmers, and individualism. Mennonite identity in western Canada was no longer

solely farm-based, but it was still very important as highlighted in this Conflict Site. There

were spiritual linkages to the work- and farm-based component of Mennonite identity,

which are explored further in the next section on religious identity with the issue of

stewardship.

Mennonite Religious Identity: “We Need to Covenant and Discern Together”

Within this third Conflict Site, the most significant identity category for Mennonite

identity was as a religious community. The Mennonite leaders within this Conflict Site

framed Mennonites as a religious community committed to morally correct action based on

their religious beliefs. Taking constructive action was a key property that emerged

throughout the Site. Three central concepts were utilized to weigh choices of action within

Mennonite discourse and were therefore important as properties for defining Mennonite

identity. First was the concept of justice and a commitment to doing justice. Second was

the concept of stewardship, particularly used with respect to being good stewards of the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 212

land. Third, was the concept of reconciliation, and a commitment to bringing about restored

relationships. Together these three concepts guided decision-making and responses to the

issues that arose for the Mennonite community with respect to the Young Chipeewayan land

claim. Mennonite identity was also defined by the process of making decisions about the

course of action, which is discussed at the end of this section.

Do Justice

The concept of justice and promoting justice or correcting injustice was central to

Mennonite discourse in this Conflict Site and weighing actions. There were repeated

references to justice by all of the leaders of the various Mennonite sub-communities.

However, the concept of justice was utilized in different ways. For those who worked for

CMC and MCC-S the term justice was utilized particularly with reference to correcting a

historical injustice for the Young Chipeewayan descendants. For example, in a letter from

the Director of the MCC-S office:

... I would reiterate my concern about an illegal act having taken place in history. In order for it to be understood by all concerned, descendants of both Indian and Mennonite, that justice is done, it would seem a worthwhile function of government to step beyond the strict legal requirements and make a declaration regarding past wrongs committed by persons acting in their capacity as agents of government. ... Anything can be decreed legal; not everything legal is just. (Epp 1986)

Similarly:

As the enclosed resolution passed by the Mennonite Central Committee Saskatchewan delegates at our 1985 Annual Meeting would indicate there is a strong desire on the part of the Mennonite people to see justice done in the negotiations between the Young Chippeweyan Band and the Federal Government. (Barkman 1987)

As the above two quotes also indicate, the issue of justice was raised in the context of

questioning the government. Two additional examples of this discourse that reflect a

concern over justice: “We have both made contacts and treaties with governments and had

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 213

them broken” (Wenger 1979b); and, “The government has erred and created this injustice”

(Doell 1985a). For the Mennonite farmers who lived in the Laird area and owned land,

justice was also a concern. They were concerned about justice for both the farmers of Laird,

who held legal title, and the Young Chipeewayan’s claim of historical injustice, and were

conflicted over the weighting of these claims and the meaning of justice for their situation.

For example, a passage from the minutes of a meeting in August 1986 at TRMC read:

... - We need to have concern for the land owner in this area - It was suggest that we should perhaps meet with the Indian lawyer Mr. Griffith in order to receive more information. - We should definitely find out if the Indians have a claim and if their claim is legitimate then we should press Government for settlement. (Minutes of the Tiefengrund Rosenort 5 August 1986)

Similar issues were raised at the meeting between MCC-S representatives with TRMC, LMC

and Lutheran representatives. The group identified the same tension over achieving justice

for the landowners and the band following the meeting with the representatives from the

Young Chipeewayan:

Another suggested that it was a justice issue and churches should be involved in correcting the injustices. Some countered that for the farmers in Laird to loose \sic\ their land would also be an injustice. It is also the work of the church to make sure that the land stay in the hands of its present owners. (Neufeld 1987a)

Justice clearly resonated as an important religious ideal and guiding concept that all

Mennonite leaders in this Conflict Site worked towards implementing. The particulars of

what justice constituted and for whom remained debated.

Good Stewards

The concept of stewardship arose around issues of integrating faith and lifestyle as

farmers. It was particularly evident in the discussion of the future of the Mennonite Youth

Farm, which was located not far from the Laird area and owned by CoMoS. One proposal

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 214

that was discussed in 1985 was that the land should be given to the Young Chipeewayan.

Two years earlier there was a proposal submitted by members from TRMC. This

submission from TRMC very clearly articulated the linkages TRMC members made between

faith and farming by way of the concept of good stewardship:

... In our view, proposals of this kind [to sell the Youth Farm] reflect our basic unwillingness as a Conference, as congregations and as individual members to squarely face our stewardship obligations. To sell the Farm land would be to take the easy way out, because in doing so we would not be addressing ourselves to the real issue of our own inadequate stewardship practices. (Agenda of the Mini-Conference 1983)

And continued later in the document:

We want to affirm the position taken by the Christian Service Committee in November 1971, in its Brief With Recommendations on the Farm Operations at the Mennonite Youth Farm (p.5) where it states: “We have... the occasion to express our stewardship of the soil and natural resources. God gave us the Farm as a means of worship. We have been given a small part of God’s earth to care about, to use as a demonstration of Christian responsibility. If we did not deplete or exhaust the soil, if we prevented erosion by wind or water, if we kept our soil fertile and rich, then we have seriously believed the Bible. The Bible teaches that land is a sacred trust, and using it involves responsibilities and obligations to God since God is the real owner of the land, and is letting man use it.” (Agenda of the Mini-Conference 1983)

While farming was a critical resource for livelihoods, it was also a place where Mennonite

faith was to be lived out. The same concerns were voiced at conference-wide meetings to

discuss use of the Youth Farm land. For example:

Ed Cornelson opened the seminar by drawing our attention to the fact that “the earth is the Lord’s” and by suggesting that too often we confess this and then do with it as we please. Fie further suggested that man’s responsibility on earth is to further God’s purposes; beautiful purposes of truth and good. From Jesus we can learn about simplicity, freedom and the ability to live outside the “system”. “We don’t need to own as much as possible” he said. His challenge can be summarized by the following quote: “Will we do what is right or what is profitable?” (Summary 1984)

Or, the mandate of a task force established to further examine the future of the Youth Farm

included consideration of stewardship:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 215

The four fold assignment given to the Task Force by the executive of the Conference of Mennonites of Saskatchewan is as follows: 1. to study the Biblical mandate of land stewardship. 2. to receive visions, submissions and proposals from the COMOS constituency, for future use of farm lands. 3. to consider and evaluate the proposals and submissions and test their feasibility. 4. to come to the 1986 annual conference with a report of the study and with recommendations for future use of the lands. (Driedger et al. 1985)

As the above passage suggests, the concept of stewardship was important, but so was the

practical concern of feasibility noted in the third point. The call for Mennonites to be good

stewards of the land was put forward by members of TRMC and resonated with many

Mennonites across the province. However, as with the concept of justice, there were

differences of opinion around what stewardship meant in practice, and its implications for

daily life.

Reconcilers

The third central concept that arose as important for Mennonites in determining

collective action in this Conflict Site was reconciliation, and a call to restore relationships and

work for peace. One way this concept was framed was as achieving an in-depth

understanding or redemptive understanding of the issues. For example, in response to the

irate farmers from the Laird area after the Peace Talk conference in 1979 an organizer wrote:

It appears that there has been an unfortunate misrepresentation of intent of both the Peace Talk event and the Native Ministries offer. Both were honest efforts to interpret the peace-making message of the Gospel in an area where conflict could arise. Most of those who attended Peace Talk would likely agree that it was not a forum to discuss land claims but rather an occasion to develop a redemptive understanding [emphasis added] between two peoples. (Froese 1979d)

Or, as one MCC worker wrote to Doell: “I for one, would like to support you attempting to

expose the story in such a way that it leads both sides to reconciliation” (Wiebe 1984), the

suggestion here being that understanding was the first step towards reconciliation. Similarly,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 216

an MCC-S worker stated six years later: “Our primary interest is to bring the parties involved

together in the common pursuit of justice, peace and mutual understanding” (Neufeld

1986c). A second way this general concept of working towards peace and reconciliation was

framed was in terms of taking active steps to improve relations between peoples. For

example, it was suggested that a verbal gesture of apology preceding a gift of the Youth

Farm land to the Young Chipeewayan would be fitting to atone for past wrongs:

In order for an apology to be credible it has to go beyond this lip service. If we as Christians are really concerned about injustice, we need to find concrete ways of mending these broken relationships. ... A precedent was set recently by Mennonite Central Committee to Japanese people who were displaced by the Canadian government in WWII. The Japanese were considered to be our enemy at war and were taken from their land into a form of concentration camp. Mennonites were then allowed to settle on this land previously owned by the Japanese. MCC recently issued an apology to these people and their descendents and hoped that there could be reconciliation happening between these two peoples. Many walls were broken down by this gesture. Now MCC has struggled with how to make this more than words and in concrete ways show that we are sincerely sorry for this past. One MCC leader indicated that this reconciliation process may also have to cost us something so that we truly share the agony of the Japanese people. (Boldt, Boldt, and Doell 1985)

In 1977 an advisor from Manitoba counseled his MCC colleagues “ To be alert to the

situation could be one step in peaceful bridgebuilding, or conflict resolution” (Wiebe 1977c).

The inference here was that the wider Mennonite community needed to be ready to step-in

and assist with building positive relationships in the Young Chipeewayan situation in the

initial years. Similarly, at an MCC Saskatchewan meeting of people interested in the issues of

First Nations’ land entitlements, it was suggested: “This is a golden opportunity to do some

peacemaking [emphasis added] in advance of what seems to be almost inevitable violence”

(Minutes of the 29 August 1987 Meeting 1987). Here again there was a call to taking

constructive action to address conflict issues proactively in an effort at peacemaking.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 217

Mennonites as a religious group saw themselves as called to be reconcilers or peaceful

bridge-builders.

Mennonite religious identity in this third Conflict Site was characteri 2ed by the desire

to be a group that lived out their religious faith in daily action. Decisions on what actions to

take were guided by debate around three central concepts or properties for religious identity:

justice, stewardship and reconciliation. The debate was not a one-time event however.

Often the decision-making process occurred over years and involved on-going engagement

with others in the Mennonite community. In order to weigh the issues and identify a course

of action, Mennonites engaged in a communal, institutional process of engagement and

discernment. This process of decision-making also defined Mennonite identity in this third

Conflict Site.

A Community Engaged

Consultation and discernment were an evident category of Mennonite identity. This

commitment to continue dialogue to identify a course of action was presented in explicit

terms as well as implicit terms through the framing of position statements with an opening

for ongoing dialogue. The explicit commitment to work through issues as a community was

captured in a variety of references to ongoing dialogue within Mennonite circles. It was

most clearly summed up by one presenter at a 1983 conference on the Youth Farm who

stated:

.. .we are a community of believers.. .we need to covenant and discern together.. .The true church is marked by discipline and dialogue and membership assumes that commitment ... In mutual sharing, accountability, and responsibility we discern, alter and up-date programs as required under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.” (Mennonite Youth Farm Task Force 1983)

Or, in the process of deciding how to deal with the Youth Farm land:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 218

Accordingly, the Task Force is submitting the attached material to the congregations in the hope that some individual or group of individuals will take time to develop and submit an acceptable use proposal for our consideration, keeping in mind the conclusions listed in the summary. ... In addition all Task Force members are willing to enter into dialogue and discussion with any groups who wish to invite us for this purpose. The Task Force members and their phone numbers are listed below. ... Waiting to hear how the Lord leads your congregation to respond... (Driedger et al. 1985)

Or, representatives of the Mennonite institutions were concerned that the process to achieve

a just solution in Laird must involve the local, affected community:

Your suggestion that Mennonites become involved in this justice issue is in order. While we would be prepared and even anxious to become involved in some way as an organization we would only do so if invited by the affected parties. The most effective support however would come from the local Mennonite community. I believe there is a group in Laird who are interested in having this situation resolved and justice done. (Funk 1984)

There were other, less precise references to this dynamic of a commitment to ongoing

dialogue over contentious issues. For example, notes from a meeting of various MCC

personnel and local Mennonites interested in the Young Chipeewayan claim in 1985 read,

“We need to encourage more dialogue on the issue. The people at Laird need to indicate

though that they are willing to discuss this issue. We cannot come and say, you have a

problem. We are all in this together” (Doell 1985b). The commitment to dialogue was also

evident in the TRMC response to MCC-S overtures. For example, after one meeting the

TRMC Pastor’s Report to the congregation summarized:

Sunday, July 5, the Councils of Tiefengrund, Laird and Laird Lutheran Churches met with David Neufeld regarding Indian Land Claims. Response was: Important we help to the best of our ability, that we be informed and inform others. Suggested David Neufeld attend a meeting with all the involved farmers. Recommended the ministers of the 3 churches speak in person to each involved farmer from their own church. (Highlights 7 July 1987, 2)

In a carefully worded farewell letter to the Laird community Neufeld wrote:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 219

I am pleased that we have come as far as we have in discussing this issue. I agree with members of your community who say that the Land Claim issue is yours to deal with. It will not go away. Either you or your children will need to address it. I have been encouraged by how individuals have taken ownership of the issue. I trust that you will continue to search for ways to respond and that you will be assisted by the Band Council and the church councils to form creative community responses. May I make some suggestions 1) That [the lawyers] send future information to all 3 church Pastors and to Mennonite Central Committee Saskatchewan. ... 2) That the Pastors consult with each other and with their councils if any information or invitations from the Band Council are received. 3) That the Pastors and Church Councils continue to invite Mr. Leonard Doell ... to help clarify questions that may arise.4) That the new Mennonite Central Committee Native Concerns person be welcomed into your churches and into the community as a learner. I have appreciated learning with you. (Neufeld 1987a)

In this letter, Neufeld very carefully spelled out a process for ongoing dialogue on the issue.

Individual commitments to this communal process were evident even over the very thorny

issues of justice and reconciliation. The most heated exchange captured on paper in this

Conflict Site occurred between angry farmers from Laird and the organizers of the Peace

Talks conference in 1979. Even in these angry letters the sign-off lines indicated, albeit with

some underlying facetiousness, a commitment to ongoing dialogue. For example, the first

letter stating opposition to any future research ended with “Please reply to Box 11...” and

mailing instructions (Mennonite Farmer Associates of the Tiefengrund Area 1979). The

next CMC letter was signed off with the statement: “May the Spirit of the Prince of Peace

continue to pervade our mind and being” (Froese 1979d). The respondent then replied and

signed-off his letter with: “May God guide your heart and mind in this issue” (Neufeldt

1979). The dueling phrases indicated that while the positions were antagonistic, there was

still a process of communication and engagement occurring and even expected.

The process of engagement and discernment appeared to be a critical dimension of

Mennonite community functioning and an integrated part of their identity as they responded

to conflict issues. During this Conflict Site, the Mennonites in each of the organizations

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 220

repeatedly presented their concerns and positions on the Young Chipeewayan claim. For

example, MCC-S pursued engagement with the TRMC and LMC even after their initial

rebuff. Doell continued to pursue engagement with other Mennonites on the Young

Chipeewayan issue over the Conflict Site. The Mennonites who attended LMC and TRMC

both pledged to continue to stay engaged in the dialogue with the Young Chipeewayan, and

while not a driving force for dialogue they were open to an ongoing relationship - in

contrast to the decision made by the members of the Lutheran church. The dialogue

process on the Young Chipeewayan claim occurred in this Conflict Site over a ten-year

period, and was on-going in 2002.

Summary

This chapter explored a low-grade conflict that centered on the Young Chipeewayan

land claim in Laird, Saskatchewan. The chapter briefly reviewed the history of the Reserve,

Mennonite’s arrival and setdement in the area, as well as the decade of low-level conflict

between 1977 and 1987. The land-claim catalyzed a debate in the Mennonite community

over their identity with respect to the issue of land, their relationship to other groups in

western Canada, and their own view of themselves as a religious group. Mennonites who

lived in the Laird area, as well as Mennonites who lived elsewhere in Saskatchewan and

neighboring Manitoba, engaged in a gradual process of confrontation and engagement to

identify ways to diffuse potential conflict and address the issues. The response to the

conflict raised a particular set of categories for Mennonites around religion and livelihood in

this Conflict Site — some of which echoed Mennonite identity categories and properties in

the previous two Sites, and some of which presented new content or framing.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 221

As in the previous two Conflict Sites, there was a working assumption that

Mennonites were a unique, religious group. This unique identity was in large part defined by

a common historical background. However, unlike the previous two Sites there was also an

acknowledgement that Mennonites were part of a larger, western Canadian farming

community. Mennonites viewed themselves as reflecting those larger dynamics and tensions

between Euro-Canadian farmers and indigenous groups in the Canadian West. The

Mennonites were also constrained from fully identifying themselves as regular citizens by

elements within their own faith and representatives of various Mennonite institutions (local,

provincial and national), who repeatedly brought issues of religious consideration into a

debate that some Mennonites preferred would be strictly economic. The role of the church

raised a contested element of Mennonite identity. The religious narrative also reinforced the

concept of Mennonites as a unique, minority group that persevered through history - a point

that was sometimes used for identification with the Young Chipeewayan, and reinforced a

notion of Mennonite worth.

Mennonites in this Site also identified with the category of hard work. As in Site I,

the category of hard work was accompanied by a property of productivity. The productive

element of work was also seen as contributing to Mennonite’s worth. Mennonites in the

Laird area, and other Mennonites in western Canada, still viewed themselves as possessing

an agricultural calling, although farming practices were changing. There was also a strongly

individualistic sense of Mennonite’s approach to farming and economic life, which can be

seen to stand in some contrast to the more group-oriented approach to religious community.

The third category of Mennonite identity captured a slightly altered way of looking at

Mennonite religious identity. In the previous Sites, Mennonites defined themselves, in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 222

significant part, by their pacifist principals; this feature of Mennonite religious identity was

heightened because of the wartime contexts and conscription. In this conflict context, other

features of Mennonite religious identity were brought to the fore. Mennonites continued to

see themselves as a religious group that sought to live out their principles in action. The

principles that were debated revolved around: justice, stewardship and reconciliation. The

concept of justice was debated within the context of the Laird claim — there were differing

opinions of what justice meant and for whom. Those whose land was direcdy affected,

tended to see the in-justice of their own situation, and feared losing their land - although

this was not a uniform response. Those less affected, tended to see the issues of justice in a

larger frame of a history of poor government-aboriginal relations. The property of good

stewardship practices around land use also emerged as a feature of Mennonite self-identity,

although not vital to the debate about the Young Chipeewayan claim. A third, more central

property, was the concept of Mennonites as bridge-builders or reconcilers in conflict

situations. This presented a more active face of Mennonite theology than was evident in

either of the two previous Conflict Sites, and was a feature of Mennonites developing a more

proactive response to conflict — one that moved beyond the more traditional concept of

non-resistance, which was featured in WWI and WWII. All three of these concepts were

debated over the course of the conflict.

Finally, a process of engagement and dialogue, which was termed discernment, also

defined Mennonites in this Conflict Site. Mennonites were committed to engaging with each

other, even as they debated the issues before them. The various institutions and agencies

facilitated this intra-communal exchange. The ongoing dialogue within the Mennonite

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 223

community served as the vehicle to limit Mennonites’ full identification as European-

descent, western Canadian farmers, as pointed out above.

The slow pace of the Laird land-claim conflict permitted a detailed exploration of the

conflict, identity and change for Mennonites in this dissertation. The nature of the low-level

conflict meant that there was only periodic external pressure applied to Mennonites — even

those living in Laird - which stood in contrast to the events in chapters three and four.

Within this context, members of the Mennonite community then served as catalysts for

Mennonites to confront the problematic issues. The land claim juxtaposed particular

elements of Mennonite’s identity, such as viewing themselves as a justice-oriented religious

group, but also productive and individualistic farmers, and produced a debate about who

Mennonites were and what they were concerned about as a people. As such, it sharpened

features of Mennonite identity that both resonated with categories that emerged in the

previous Conflict Sites, and added new properties and insights. The next chapter brings the

emergent identity themes from all three Conflict Sites together, and develops a substantive

theory of Mennonite identity, as well as further exploring the dynamics of identity change

and continuity.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER VI

MENNONITES: A SUBSTANTIVE

THEORY OF IDENTITY, CHANGE AND CONTINUITY

This chapter places the categories and properties of Mennonite identity that emerged

in the previous three chapters into a substantive theory. In doing so it looks at changes and

continuity in Mennonite identity over time across the three Conflict Sites, and relates these

changes to the micro, internal Mennonite community structure and dynamics as well as the

macro, context, structure and dynamics. Examining the internal and external context

provides a more integrated understanding of Mennonite identity as it develops over time, in

an ongoing set of interactions during periods of conflict.

The chapter begins with a short section discussing theory from a grounded theory

perspective. It then moves to examining the various categories of Mennonite identity that

were raised across the Conflict Sites. These identity categories provided the basic content

for the substantive theory of Mennonite identity. The properties that emerged within each

of the categories are explored in a comparative fashion, investigating the continuities and

changes within and between the categories and properties over the three Conflict Sites. A

section that further explores the dynamic of identity change follows this, focusing on the

points of discontinuity, to further understand how Mennonite identity changed over time. A

more general preliminary, mid-range theory of identity change is then discussed.

224

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 225

Developing a Substantive, Grounded Theory

Theory building involves identifying categories and concepts and relating them to

each other. As noted in the methodology chapter, this dissertation sought to develop an

initial substantive theory of Mennonite identity, or more specifically, to identify and

understand the concepts that underpinned Mennonite identity, and to discern how those

concepts changed over time in periods of conflict. Substantive theory is used here to refer

to a focus on understanding the central conceptual meanings or substance of categories that

emerged from data, and proposing initial relationships between the categories of Mennonite

identity — this contrasts with formal theory, which is utilized to not only explain but also

predict relationships between and among concepts (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Glaser 1992;

Strauss and Corbin 1990). This chapter therefore refines the categories of Mennonite

identity and places them in relationship to each other based on the grounded analysis in the

previous three chapters. After the initial substantive theory is presented, it explores identity

change one step further in an initial mid-range theory.

Glaser and Strauss (1967) argued that substantive theory needs to achieve four basic

properties: 1) fit the data; 2) be readily understandable by a lay reader; 3) be general enough

to be applied to multiple situations; and 4) allow for partial control over the structures and

processes of daily situations (237-250). Fit referred to the concepts and hypotheses

matching or being grounded in the data, and being carefully induced from the data, rather

than deduced based on the researchers ideals, values, and so forth. Understandability was

tied to application, in that people would use the theory if they understood it and it sharpened

their sensitivity to particular problems and/or suggested possible ways to respond to the

problems they face. The point on generality referred to establishing categories that “should

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 226

not be so abstract as to lose their sensitizing aspect, but yet must be abstract enough to make

his theory a general guide to multi-conditional, ever-changing daily situations” (Glaser and

Strauss 1967, 242). Finally, Glaser and Strauss referred to control in terms of providing

theory users with access points or points of control that allow them to change particular

responses or behaviors - for example, providing nurses and doctors with points of access

for changing their interactions with dying patients.

The first three points Glaser and Strauss raised were important for the substantive

theory developed in this dissertation. This fourth point, while relevant for more traditional

applications of grounded theory, was less applicable to the theory developed in this

dissertation, as it was not intended to predict behavior in daily interactions. Therefore this

dissertation sought to develop a substantive theory that fit the data, was readily

understandable and was abstract enough to be applicable to multiple situations that

Mennonites faced, with an additional level of generality that might suggest insights beyond

the Mennonite experience.

A Theory of Mennonite Identity: Central Categories and Properties

Across each of the Sites, Mennonites perceived themselves as a unique people. The

repeated references to “the Mennonite people,” “our people,” or “my people” occurred in

English and German, in the 1910s, ‘20s, AOs, AOs, ‘70s and ‘80s. The content of what

comprised Mennonite-ness was elaborated in the categories of identity that emerged from

the Conflict Sites. Five central categories emerged from the Conflict Sites in chapters three,

four and five. These were: a religious group, a desired or worthy people, hard workers, a

nation-based identity group and good citizens. This section draws together these five

categories and examines their attendant properties from each of the Conflict Sites for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 227

continuities and changes over time. In doing so it highlights properties and categories that

were relatively fixed or consistent over time and context, properties that experienced

considerable flux or change, and properties that were discontinued. The first three

categories of identity explored below - a religious group, worthy people, and hard workers -

were present in all three Sites and therefore emerged as resilient components of Mennonite

identity. The latter two categories of nation-based identity and citizenship were related

categories that involved framing Mennonite identity to deal with the state. This framing

changed over time, with nation-based identity being strong in the first Site, and the first half

of the second Site, but transitioning during the second Site to a focus on being citizens

within the state.

A Religious Group

In each of the three cases, an important category for Mennonite identity was that

they were a strong, religious group. This category was evident in all three Conflict Sites,

although it faced an antithetical moment in the first Conflict Site, during and immediately

after the revolution and famine period when religious services were irregular.1 While the

religious group category of identification was present across all three Sites, some of the

properties that defined it changed over time and context. The full range of properties that

emerged from all three Sites — including properties that changed over time — were: a

common confessional bond, a commitment to non-resistance, a common historical

narrative, a commitment to morally upright behavior, a commitment to constructive action,

a sense of being part of a larger Mennonite community, a separate community, the presence

of religious institutions, German as the language of worship, and a commitment to an intra-

1 This was particularly the case in Chortitza, which sustained the greatest damage.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 228

communal consultation or dialogue process. These ten properties provided the broad

dimensions for the category of Mennonite religious identity across time and space.

However, within the full set of properties there was a subset that remained relatively

consistent over time and a subset that changed across the Sites. These are explored in detail

below.

Religious Identity Properties with Continuity Over Time

The properties that continued to be evident over time, across the three Conflict

Sites, were: a common confessional bond, a common historical narrative, a sense of being

part of a larger Mennonite community, the presence of religious institutions, a commitment

to constructive action, and some degree of commitment to an intra-communal consultation

process. Each of these properties is looked at in more detail below.

Confessional Bond. A common confessional bond was a property that provided

part of the glue that held the Mennonite community together in all three Conflict Sites. The

confessional bond was central to bringing the Mennonites together in Russia, prior to the

breakdown of order in Site I. It was a bond that threaded through the discussion of non-

resistance during the revolution, as leaders weighed courses of action. The commitment to a

common Confession of Faith was clearly and soundly articulated in Conflict Site II, as the

foundational point around which the Mennonite conferences gathered. The confessional

bond brought Mennonites together to identify a common platform on the issues of

nonresistance and alternative service during WWII. In Site III, the confessional bond

between Mennonites in Laird and those in the various Mennonite institutions provided a

common reference point for discussions on the Young Chipeewayan claim, although the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 229

Confession of Faith was not taised itself as a point of discussion. The Mennonite

community was bonded by a general commitment to a shared confession of their faith and

beliefs.

Historic Narrative. The property of maintaining a common historical narrative was

evident in all three Sites although the emphasis of the narrative often reflected the actual

circumstances being faced. The historical narratives that emerged were therefore variations

on a theme. One variation of the historical narrative was that the Mennonite faith was

inherited or handed down over generations, particularly the concept of nonresistance. This

narrative gave the faith a historical weight and seriousness as Mennonites were expected to

follow those who had gone before — often through trying experiences — and was evidenced

during the debate over nonresistance in Site I, and echoed in Site II. Another variation of

the historical theme was that Mennonites were willing to suffer for their beliefs over time.

For example, during W W II, the concept o f contemporary suffering (e.g. serving jail time)

was interpreted within the framework of an historical commitment to non-resistance.

References spoke to the historical commitment to Mennonite faith “even at times at the cost

of despoiling of goods, exile from native land, and in some cases torture and death” (Peace

Problems Committee 1937). Those who looked to emigrate at the end of Conflict Site I

interpreted their suffering within the historical narrative of the need to move in order to

preserve the Mennonite faith, just as early ancestors had during the Reformation. In the

third Site the historical narrative of faith was embedded within another variation, the

historical narrative emphasized the early immigrant’s struggles in settling the west. There

was also mention that Mennonite experiences of persecution and displacement provided a

parallel for understanding First Nations experiences. The struggle and perseverance of the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 230

settlers was also evident in Site II. In each of the narratives the struggle was overcome, and

Mennonites ultimately saw themselves as blessed. Overall, the religious historical narrative

spoke of perseverance and commitment to the faith, even in times of struggle, which gave

the faith gravity and attested to its worth.

Part of a Larger Community. The sense of being part of a larger Mennonite

community was evident in all three Sites, although again there were variations within the

property with respect to content in particular Conflict Sites. Here, the parameters of the

larger Mennonite community varied with the different Sites. In the first Conflict Site, the

larger Mennonite community referred to Mennonites in North America and Holland, who

provided emotional support and physical resources for the Mennonite colonies in Ukraine

and Russia during the 1920s, and in doing so helped the community to recover. In the

second Conflict Site, the larger Mennonite community referred to Mennonites in the Soviet

Union, Mennonites in Germany, Mennonites in the United States and Mennonites from

other conferences in eastern Canada. These groups provided a variety of inputs and points

of interaction for the Mennonites in western Canada, who were the focus of Site II. In the

third Conflict Site, the larger Mennonite community generally meant the Conference of

Mennonites in Saskatchewan, the Canadian Conference of Mennonites, as well as the

Mennonite Central Committee bodies (MCC-C and MCC-S). There were some interactions

with individuals from other conferences in Canada, and the U.S., but these interactions were

fairly infrequent and not routinely mentioned. The repeated references to Mennonites at a

geographic distance retained the sense of being part of a larger community.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 231

Institutions. The fourth religious identity property that was continuous over time

was the presence of Mennonite religious institutions. The religious institutions in Site I were

perhaps the most extensive, with civic and religious central organizing bodies, schools,

theological training institutes, hospitals, a center for the deaf and mute, a home for orphans,

the Verband and so forth. The religious institutions in Site II included the conference bodies,

some schools, urban homes for girls, relief assistance organizations, and organizations to

facilitate the settlement of immigrants. In the third Site, the institutions included the

provincial (CoMoS) and national conference bodies (CMC), conference-run operations like

the Youth Farm, as well as the relief and development organization MCC-C and MCC-S and

their many sub-committees. The types of institutions remained similar across the Sites, with

the exception of the civic-political hybrid institutions that existed in Site I. The institutions

grounded and connected Mennonites with a structure.

Constructive Action. A fifth property that persisted over time was the

commitment to constructive action as part of Mennonite faith. However, over time the

types of actions that were engaged in changed substantially. In Sites I and II, constructive

actions primarily involved giving to charity institutions before the war, engaging in

alternative service work, such as the forestry service or medical orderly work during the war,

and relief assistance during and after the wars. These actions were reactive to the context

and problems. In Site I, there was also the rupture in charitable giving during the period

after the violence, and as supplies dwindled and the community began to starve. However,

the charity and relief aid from the Mennonite communities in North American and Holland

re-invigorated the community and this property. In Site III, constructive action was much

more proactive and sought to address the roots of problems. For example, the actions taken

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 232

by the representatives from MCCC, MCC-S and CMC were very deliberately meant to

address issues of injustice and prevent potential violent conflict in Laird. It was a proactive

approach that was rooted in a reinterpretation of the mandate to do justice, and be

reconcilers, as discussed in chapter five. Intriguingly, there was one point in Site I when the

notion of proactively engaging in and addressing the causes of WWI was discussed. A

young man, who represented the mobilized service workers, argued at an All-Mennonite

Conference in 1917, that Mennonites needed to not only individually reject war but also

collectively “participate actively in the struggle for peace, propagandize against war and

against capitalism as the cause of war” (All-Mennonite Congress 1917). The elders did not

agree and no action was taken. The reinterpretation of constructive action to more active

bridge-building did not occur until years later.

Intra-Communal Consultation. The final property of religious identity that was

continuous across the Sites was a commitment to an intra-communal consultation process.

The commitment to internal engagement was simultaneously accompanied by the presence

of ongoing points of conflict within the Mennonite community, which were also constant

across the Sites.2 In the first Site, the annual Conferences and meetings provided venues for

dialogue and debate in the Mennonite community. The meetings provided critical

opportunities to work through collective problems or challenges, such as non-resistance,

farming practices, and pending land reform. In the second Site, the Mennonite groups

engaged together to formulate a common statement on war, non-participation in war, and

2 In the three Conflict Sites examined in this dissertation the internal differences did not produce major internal rifts or schisms. There is, however, a lengthy history of Mennonite conferences and congregations dividing over particular religious practices or doctrinal issues. In the first two Sites, the adverse external circumstances provided significant common cause to react against and acted as a catalyst to reinforce joint participation. This point is explored further in the theoretical modeling section.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 233

acceptable alternative, civilian work options. In the third Site, the local Mennonite churches

were committed to an ongoing dialogue process with MCC-S and CMC, with MCC-S also

acting as an intermediary between the Mennonites in Laird and the Young Chipeewayan

representatives. The term discernment was utilized in the third Site to capture the process of

ongoing dialogue and decision-making in the Mennonite community.

The six properties of the category of religious group identity appeared to fall into

three major groupings. The first properties related to the content of Mennonite beliefs

(confessional bond, historical narrative). The second two properties (part of a larger

Mennonite community, religious institutions) related to the structures of the Mennonite

community. The final two properties were related to Mennonite action or behavior

(constructive action, intra-communal consultation). It was also evident, that while these

properties continued over time, they were not static or frozen in time — which was repeated

across the categories.

Religious Group Identity Properties that Changed Over Time

There were two properties that changed quite substantially in emphasis across the

Sites, as well as two properties that were discontinued entirely by the third Conflict Site. The

two related properties that changed substantially in emphasis were a commitment to morally

upright behavior and the level of commitment to non-resistance. The two properties that

were discontinued over time were utilizing German as the language of worship and being a

physically separate community. These are explored below.

Morally Upright. The properties of a commitment to morally upright behavior and

the commitment to constructive action were distinct in the first two Sites but merged

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 234

together under the latter in the third Site. In the first Site, Mennonites had thought they

were morally upright, but confronted a loss of their moral compass during the revolution,

and struggled to regain it by the end of the Conflict Site, in 1924. Leaders were gravely

worried with the loss of morality and hoped that emigration would resolve the situation. In

the second Conflict Site, there was some debate within the Mennonite community on the

parameters of morally correct behavior, and how to respond to the war context. The fear of

being judged and found wanting was an added threat articulated in the second Site, as the

leaders cautioned others to behave in ways that matched their beliefs when chastising

Mennonites for being attracted to National Socialism.3 The debates over choosing the

morally correct course of action in the third Site melded the properties of morally upright

behavior and constructive action. The three dimensions of justice, reconciliation and

stewardship became central for determining the type of action demanded by the situation.

Non-Resistant. The commitment to non-resistance was the second property that

fluctuated significantly over time and context, the framing of non-resistance also changed

over time. While a commitment to non-resistance was voiced in all three Sites, actions

varied considerably. This was particularly evident in the first Site. Mennonites in Ukraine

decided to leave the matter of armed self-defense up to individual’s conscience in first

Conflict Site, which was a significant departure from the confession of faith position on

non-resistance. Armed self-defense was accepted given the marauding and uncertain

conditions. The conference returned to a stronger position on non-resistance after the

revolutionary violence had ended, when B.B. Janz insisted upon a reaffirmation as a pre

condition for his leadership of the Verband. However, the position on self-defense had been

3 There had been similar concerns over judgment in the first Conflict Site as well, particularly before the war with respect to Mennonite wealth.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 235

taken, and was remembered in the second Conflict Site by some of the Se/bstcbut%ve terans or

youth looking to join the Canadian war effort. The leaders in the second Site maintained a

very strong commitment to non-resistance, but many young Mennonite men enlisted, which

suggested the commitment did not run as deep as the leadership hoped. The issue was not

central to the conflict in the third Site, although there were remarks that suggested farmers

would go to considerable length to protect their farms if required. What emerged in the

third Site was a reframed, more pro-active approach to peace — which was captured within

the notion of constructive action — rather than the withdrawn approach to peace that was

typically understood as non-resistance in Sites I and II. However, even the inwardly focused

property of non-resistance was difficult for many Mennonites to maintain in action when

there were immediate risks and costs to the home and family.

Separate and German-Speaking. The two religious identity properties of being a

separate community and utilizing the German language were discontinued over time. The

demise of these two properties was coterminous as Mennonites in western Canada

accommodated themselves to Canadian society during Conflict Site II (discussed below).

These two properties were undermined in Site I, with the ban on German and land

expropriation laws, but was still strongly emphasized, and the possibility of no longer

conducting meetings and worship in German did not emerge until Site II, when Mennonites

were integrating into western Canada. By the third Conflict Site Mennonites in western

Canada fully acknowledged that they were part of a wider social and cultural milieu. Critical

shifts on language and the move to integrate into Canadian society rather than remain

separate, occurred in Site II, became part of practice over time, and by Site III were no

longer defining features of Mennonite religious identity. The dynamic shifts in Mennonite

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 236

identity, and the relationship between those shifts and the internal and external context are

explored further below.

Overall, Mennonites viewed themselves as a strong religious group, which was

defined by a series of properties, six of which remained relatively constant over time, two

others that fluctuated dramatically over time, and two more that became obsolete as they

were discontinued from use.

A Worthy People

The category of being a worthy people emerged from Mennonites conceptualizations

of themselves in all three Sites. The terminology varied slightly across the analysis in each

chapter but the central concept of being a people of value to those around them remained

consistent. In the first Site this category was referred to as being a desired or appreciated

people, in the second Site as a people of worth, and in the third Site as a unique identity

group. The properties that emerged were: invited settlers, model agriculturalists, positive

contributors, progressive, and a people willing to sacrifice.

Properties of ‘A Worthy People’ with Continuity Over Time

The three properties that proved durable over the three Conflict Sites were that

Mennonites were: model agriculturalists, positive contributors, and progressive.

Model Agriculturalists. The property of being model agriculturalists was firmly

embedded in the narratives across the three Sites. Mennonites in all three Sites referred to

their abilities to farm as the foundation for their invitation to be settlers, whether by

Katherine the Great in Russia or the Canadian government. In the first Site, the status of

being model colonists produced privileges, which were still remembered in 1914. The

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 237

property of being model farmers also proved to be an important building block for those

who looked to reconstruct special model farms in Ukraine in the 1920s. In the second

Conflict Site Mennonites again drew upon the narrative of being invited and desired setders

who helped develop Canada. The same historical account was present in the third Site and

reflected in the views of Mennonites about their own farming abilities in the present, which

was also captured in references to the productivity of Mennonites’ hard work.

Positive Contributors. The second property of being a worthy people, which was

present over time, was that Mennonites were positive contributors to society. The content

of this contribution ranged from economic growth, to labor, to relief assistance. In Conflict

Site I, Mennonites were proud of making all three types of contributions to Russia and the

war effort. This arose again in Conflict Site II, with labor and financial growth helping to

build the nation, and civilian service labor during the war. Mennonites were also proud of

their contributions for war relief and reconstruction assistance. In Conflict Site III,

Mennonites continued to view their historical contributions to the development of the west

as significant, in addition to their labors to produce food for the nation in the 1970s and

1980s.

Progressive. A third property that continued over time was that Mennonites were

progressive. This property emerged most clearly in Site II, with references to the new

Russlander immigrants to Canada being progressive in “every respect” (Toews 1939c). The

property built upon the historical reputation of Mennonites as progressive farmers in Russia.

The Mennonites in Imperial Russia viewed themselves as progressive agricultural and

industrialists at the start of the Conflict Site, although these qualities were largely overrun by

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 238

the events of the decade. The quality was partially resurfaced with the hopes of the

Mennonites who hoped to establish model farms on the cutting edge of agricultural

developments for the communist state. The same point was referenced in the third Conflict

Site with respect to agricultural practices and the Youth Farm. It was suggested that

Mennonites “have been at the forefront in the development of progressive agricultural

techniques in several countries from Holland to Prussia to Russia and to North and South

America” (Agenda of the Mini-Conference 1983).

Together, the three properties of being model agriculturalists, positive contributors

and progressive, provided continuity to the content of the category of worth with which

Mennonites identified.

Properties of ‘A Worthy People’ that Changed Over Time

Two properties of the category of being a worthy people also varied over time and

the Conflict Sites. These were that Mennonites were invited settlers and were a people

willing to sacrifice for significant values.

Invited Settlers. The first point, that Mennonites were invited settlers, also

included the notion of being desired setders. There were consistent references across Sites I,

II and III that Mennonites were desired settlers, which accompanied the property of being a

model agricultural people. However, there was also a significant disruption in the property

in Sites I and II. The antagonism and anti-Germanic sentiment of much of the rural,

peasant population that began to inhabit Mennonite houses and lands, during the Russian

revolution, fueled awareness amongst Mennonites that they were no longer invited or

desired setders in the region. During the second Conflict Site, the Kusslander did not view

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 239

themselves as desired or invited setders but rather as a homeless group that had been

fortunate enough to be given a home in Canada. The circumstances around the Russlander

arrival in Canada were dramatically different than the earlier Kanadier setders. The Russ lander

had been desperate to leave, and the Canadian laws needed to be changed in order to permit

immigration in the 1920s. Both of these instances provided experiences that reframed the

property of being invited settlers for periods of time.

Willing to Sacrifice. The second property contributing to Mennonite worth, which

changed over time, was that Mennonites were a steadfast people who were willing to

sacrifice for important values. There was some continuity in that Mennonites saw

themselves as a historical people who sacrificed for their values over time, which was part of

a general history of Mennonites in all three Sites. However, there were significant points of

flux, especially within the first Conflict Site, on the particulars of what it meant for the

people during the conflict. In Conflict Site I, the threat of property loss and direct violence

to wives and daughters during the revolution caused many men to turn to self-defense and

join the selbstschut^ units in hope of gaining protection. The circumstances were dire and

many argued that the need for defense overrode the need to sacrifice for the principal of

nonresistance. The same dilemma did not emerge as strongly in Site II, where the

Mennonite leadership remained consistent on the point of non-resistance and were not

threatened with the same level of direct violence. Leaders in Site II emphasized that

Mennonites were willing to sacrifice for their beliefs, as well as to sacrifice and work hard for

the state through alternative civilian public service. In the third Conflict Site, the debate that

emerged around issues of justice, stewardship and reconciliation highlighted differences of

opinion within Mennonite circles over how to live out one’s faith, which contained

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 240

suggestions of sacrifice for beliefs. For example, in one debate, it was argued that good land

stewardship practices meant utilizing farming techniques which were more time intensive, or

in another debate, it was suggested that justice required Mennonites to give farmland to the

Young Chipeewayan as a gesture of reconciliation. These actions suggested sacrifice, which

was not necessarily embraced for a variety of reasons. Across all three Sites there was some

expressed commitment to the concept of sacrificing, or suffering, for beliefs yet the content

and implications for practice were often unclear and there were gray areas of debate within

Mennonite communities.

Mennonites identified themselves as a worthy people. Three properties that

supported this category over time persisted with some minor adaptations in content in each

of the Conflict Sites (model agriculturalists, positive contributors, progressive). Two

properties (invited settlers, willing to sacrifice) fluctuated markedly over the three Sites.

A Hard Working People

A third category that repeatedly surfaced across the three Sites was that Mennonites

were a hard working people. The category emerged as a dominant category in Sites I and

III. In Site II it was subsumed under the category of worth, likely due to the depression and

WWII context (which is explored further below). The properties that defined this category

were productivity, agricultural calling, intrinsic satisfaction and individualism.

Properties of ‘A Hard Working People’ with Continuity Over Time

The two properties that exhibited continuity across the Sites were agricultural work

as a calling and individualism.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 241

Agricultural Calling. The first property, that Mennonites had an agricultural

railing, reflected an integrated religious dimension of identity. In the first Site, Mennonites

engaged in a variety of occupations - from teaching to owning mills and farm implement

factories — but farming was still predominant and the assumed occupation, as was evident in

the reports on the status of the colonies to the relief agencies in the 1920s. In the second

Site, farming remained the assumed occupation for Mennonites, although again there were

Mennonites who worked in cities — including the young women. The Russlanderw&te settled

almost exclusively on farms, per the immigration agreement, although a segment of the

population migrated to the city. In the third Site, the dimension of being called to tend the

earth and farm was carefully articulated in the discussion over the use of the Youth Farm

lands. There was an acknowledgment that younger Mennonites were migrating to the city,

but the sentiment remained that there was a religious calling in farm work.

Individualism. The second property with continuity across the Sites was

individualism. Individualism was a somewhat curious property in that it stood in tension

with a strong communal orientation evidenced in the religious and nation-based categories.

In Conflict Site I, individualism came to the fore as a property of Mennonite’s style of work,

when Mennonites debated and confronted a future without individual land ownership under

the communism. Mennonites stalwartly resisted the pressure to collectivize farms as long as

they possibly could. Collective farms were seen, as one observer put it, as “foreign to the

Mennonite character” (Sawatsky 1922). Individualism was also evident in the second

Conflict Site, when it became clear that Mennonite immigrants would not remain settled on

a type of collective farm — called an ‘equipped farm’ in chapter four, which was formed to

assist settlement in western Canada. As Toews’ noted:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 242

It soon became evident that our setders were not of the type who would work on a community basis and it soon became necessary to divide these large farms into individual farms, where every family tried to work out the terms of the contract on their individual farms. ... At the present time there is to my knowledge no farm that is worked on a community basis. (Toews 1939c)

The same individualism in farming styles was present in the third Conflict Site. The farmers

in Laird farmed individually and were concerned about the Mennonite institutional push to

raise the Young Chipeewayan land claim, which they worried threatened their individual

livelihoods. Further, the individualistic orientation was captured in references to the process

of settling the west, and farmer’s interest in achieving personal independence.4

Properties of ‘A Hard Working People’ that Changed Over Time

Two properties — productivity and intrinsic satisfaction — were at times part of the

hard work identity category and at other times not.

Productivity. The property of productivity was ruptured in Site I and unvoiced in

Site II. In Site I, there was initially a very forceful narrative of Mennonites’ hard work being

blessed, which led to great productivity and generated significant wealth. However, in the

revolution the great stores of goods that had amassed were despoiled and depleted. Farmers

and leaders painted very depressing pictures of the condition of villages and farms after the

revolution. Drought conditions ensued and prevented a return to productivity, as well as

apathy and a stoppage in work. With the stimulus of outside support, Mennonites hoped

again to regain their productivity. In Site II, many Mennonites struggled to be productive.

The devastating drought produced dustbowl conditions and most farms did not produce

much. When conditions began to improve during the War years, Mennonite leaders were

4 This sentiment was articulated in the 1979 play based on Doell’s historical work, quoted in chapter five.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 243

conscious that they should not gain wealth from production while the country was at war.5

Productivity was therefore not touted as an outcome of hard work. In Site III, the historical

references to Mennonite contributions to settling the west included references to farms

becoming productive over time, after the initial homesteading period. The Mennonite farms

in the Laird area were also generally acknowledged as productive and profitable, although

there were challenging years with problematic growing conditions. Productivity returned as

a defining feature of Mennonites’ hard work.

Intrinsic Satisfaction. A second property that fluctuated over time was the

intrinsic satisfaction associated with work. As observed above, the revolution and drought

produced general apathy and depression amongst the Mennonite colonies. Chortitza was

acutely affected. Letters describing the conditions pleaded for conditions that would enable

a return to satisfying work, which was tied to productivity: ‘There is no zest for work, no

rousing of oneself to joyful, productive activity” (Classen 1923). The intrinsic satisfaction of

work was gone for the duration of the Site. Conflict Site II contained references to the

intrinsic satisfaction of work in the discussions of Mennonite life in Canada and alternative

service work. The references were not regularly made, but did appear periodically/’ The

5 The General Conference statement on Peace explicitly stated: We ought not to seek to make a profit out of war and wartime inflation, which would mean profiting from the shedding of the blood of our fellow men. If, however, during wartime, excess profits do come into our hands, such profits should be conscientiously devoted to charitable purposes, such as the bringing of relief to the needy, or the spreading of the Gospel of peace and love, and should not be applied to our own material benefit. (Peace Problems Committee 1937) 6 For example, men who worked at one labor camp were concerned about the conditions and wrote: As every laborer knows it is almost impossible to keep an interest in our work, if those in authority, namely our Superintendent cannot be pleased, and gives us the feeling that we accomplish as though it were nothing of benefit. We understand that such harsh treatment is not authorized by our Government. Therefore we would ask our situation be remedied. Hoping that our case can be considered and an agreement made, whereby we can serve with a willing mind and put our interest in our work. The Boys at Seebe. (1943)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 244

intrinsic value of work was also not raised as a central point in the third Conflict Site.

However, there too was an occasional reference, such as a note by a non-Mennonite

neighbor in Doell’s 1977 study who saw Mennonites as “land greedy and work crazy” (1977,

25). There was an unstated inference that work was intrinsically satisfying, although it was

most clearly articulated in Sites I and II.

Mennonites identified themselves as hard workers, which routinely was defined by

an agricultural calling and individualism over time, and periodically by productivity and the

intrinsic satisfaction of work.

A Nation-Based Identity for Mennonites

The conflicts in the first two Sites raised important debates amongst Mennonites

over a nation-based identity or identification. The two Sites uncovered these debates due to

the nature of the conflicts and because the state was at war — Russia during WWI and

Canada during WWII. Within these contexts, Mennonite identity and national identity fit

together in various ways, with some continuity between the two Sites and a gradual transition

to a citizen-centered model of interacting with the state. The third Conflict Site did not

center on war, and therefore did not reveal the same tension or articulated debate. However,

references to nation and fit were nevertheless negotiated within this final Conflict Site as

Mennonites dealt with issues that related to the historical founding of Canada’s west as well

as their contemporary placement within western Canadian society. The properties that

emerged across the three Sites, and provided the broad dimensions for understanding this

category, were: a history of contribution to the state, an attachment to place or homeland,

place of origin, the German language, national culture, loyalty, political independence, and

Or, Toews referred to Mennonites enjoying the fruits of their labors in Canada in a letter to King George (1939b).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 245

engagement with the state over citizenship rights or privileges. The points of continuity in a

nation-based identity are examined first, followed by an examination of points of flux and

change.

Nation-Based Identity Properties with Continuity Over Time

Three properties evidenced continuity over time. These were: a history of

contribution to the state, place of origin, and engagement with state representatives over

citizenship rights or privileges.

Contributors to the State. In Conflict Sites I, II and III there was a strong

historical narrative of Mennonites contributing to a state, particularly contributing to the

agricultural and economic development of the state in specific geographic locations.

Mennonites in the Russian empire were very proud of cultivating the steppes, and the

resultant agricultural and economic transformation at the outset of Site I. The pride

remained although the products were largely lost, either due to requisitions, banditry or state

expropriation, over the course of the revolution. The petition to emigrate included reference

to having successfully completed their historical work, while those who looked to stay drew

upon the historical narrative as a basis for their future recovery. In the second Conflict Site,

the Kanadier immigrants drew on a very similar narrative of homesteading the Canadian west

at the behest of the state, based on Mennonite’s reputation as good farmers. The new

Russlander immigrants did not have the same history to draw upon in western Canada and

were therefore more silent on the matter, although at times they referenced their historical

contributions in Russia as part of their background and as contributing to their worth as new

citizens. The history of Mennonites initial settlement in the Laird area in the third Conflict

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 246

Site reproduced the homesteading narratives articulated by the Kanadier in the second Site.

Mennonites in the Laird area also came from R usslander stock and therefore also held a

historical narrative of farming the steppes as part of their background.

Place of Origin. The property of place of origin provided a unique historical

touchstone for Mennonites during the two periods of war in Sites I and II. References to

Mennonite’s Dutch origins were utilized to illustrate differences between Mennonites and

Germans, even though Mennonites spoke the German language. In both Sites, the social

and political context was largely unfriendly to Germans, although significantly more

pronounced in Russia during Site I. The Dutch reference point also became important in

demonstrating how Mennonites had moved over time (discussed below in the section on

detachment from place). In Site III, the historical focal point was Laird and the Stoney

Knoll Reserve lands, although there were periodic references to a Mennonite history of

persecution and displacement, which implicitly included the Netherlands.7

Leaders Engage with Government. In each of the Sites, Mennonite leaders

consistently engaged with government representatives to secure citizenship rights or

privileges, depending on the nature of their agreement with the state. In Site I, Mennonite

representatives negotiated with leaders of the Russian state in pursuit of an exemption from

the land expropriation laws. After the revolution, Mennonites hoped to procure citizenship

rights for themselves as a unique ethnic group. Janz then tenaciously represented

Mennonites on a variety of citizenship issues; he pursued government approval for the

Verband, an exemption from military service, permission for mass emigration, and so forth.

7 See for example Wenger (1979) and Doell (1977, 34).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 247

Mennonite leaders in Canada during the second Site also doggedly pursued issues with

government officials around Mennonite exemption from military service and alternative

work options. This engagement consisted primarily of letters and direct visits to numerous

government employees, including the Prime Minister, Members of Parliament, and

provincial judges. In the first two Conflict Sites the engagement with state officials revolved

around securing Mennonite’s citizenship rights or privileges. In contrast, the engagement

with government officials in the third Conflict Site focused on securing citizenship rights for

the Young Chipeewayan, although not to the detriment of Mennonite ownership rights.

Nation-Based Identity Properties that Changed Over Time

The properties of a nation-based identity that emerged and varied over time were

attachment to place, Germanic language, national culture, loyalty to the state, and political

independence. O f these, three properties were discontinued (German language, Germanic

culture and independence) and two were radically re-shaped (attachment to place, loyalty to

the state).

Attachment to Place. The first property, attachment to place, was very similar in

Sites I and III but markedly muted in Site II. The place to which Mennonites were attached

also shifted from Site I to III. Mennonites living in the former colonies of Chortitza and

Molotschna were very strongly attached to the place they lived before the revolution. There

were loving references to the “immense South Russian steppe [that] has enveloped us in her

arms and implanted much more in our souls” (Unruh 1914). The connotations of

affectionate attachment were also voiced in the references to fatherland and homeland.

When Janz spoke of those who were prepared to emigrate he noted that they had “released

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 248

their grip on the native soil” (Janz 1924). Leaving the steppe was one of the few points of

regret that emerged from documents by Mennonite leaders supporting the move to

emigrate.8 There was an interesting point of transition for the Russ/cinder in Site II, where the

transfer of loyalty to the nation of Canada was expected although the love of the place was

not yet fully shaped. The references to the new homeland were notably less affectionate,

such as when Janz’ stated “We live, if not in the richest and the most beautiful part of the

world, at least in the most peaceful” (Janz 1938). .Kmrr&r references to place during Site II

tended to reflect on the hard pioneering work of breaking the land. There were expressions

of thanks and appreciation to Canada, particularly for “her free institutions and the liberty

we enjoy” (Toews 1939a). There were also references to Canada as a chosen homeland that

Mennonites had learned to love. However, the depth of sentimental attachment to the

physical place or space that was found in Site I was absent in Site II. Over the course of

time, the attachment to place in western Canada becomes stronger and by Site III there was

again evidence of affectionate attachment to place. Farmers who had grown up on the land,

and whose parents had homesteaded there and tilled the fields stated they would not

willingly leave their land for the Young Chipeewayan claim. The affection for space was also

evident in the TRMC proposal for the Youth Farm, which numerous times referred to the

land as a sacred trust.9

8 Reflections back on the richness and beauty of the steppe continue to pervade contemporary Mennonite reflections on life in Imperial South Russia. It is not uncommon to see Mennonites, who are visiting their parents or grandparent’s former farms as part of a historical-tourist visit, lean down and scoop up soil into a small plastic bag to take back to North America; they are taking a keepsake of the fabled, rich, black soil home. 9 The local Mennonite farmers’ love of the land was also evident in the informational interviews conducted in 2002. One farmer noted that if it came to giving up his land he could begin to understand the dynamics of Israel and Palestine.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 249

Loyal. The second property that changed dramatically but was not discontinued was

loyalty to the state. Expressions of loyalty or faithfulness in Sites I and II were very similar.

There were very strong statements of loyalty, appreciation and love for the state during both

Sites. During the first Conflict Site this was framed as loyalty to the Tsar, homeland, and

then to the provisional government during the revolution. The declarations of loyalty were

genuine but they largely stopped after the revolution, when many Mennonites

understandably felt abandoned and rejected by the Russian and Ukrainian state. Their focus

turned to an internal Mennonite communal recovery. The Mennonites who left Russia and

Ukraine in Site I for Canada and were subsequently part of Site II, were vehemently anti-

Bolshevik. Mennonite declarations of loyalty to the British Crown and Canadian

government were again prominent in the second Conflict Site. Declarations of loyalty

occurred principally after 1938 once the internal struggle with Mennonites who supported

National Socialism was over — at least publicly. One of the most powerful statements of

caution against disloyalty was Janz’s threat: “To the best of my knowledge, our reputation as

Mennonites has never been tarnished, and we have never been guilty of unfaithfulness to the

state. It must not happen now” (Janz 1938). Political loyalty did not emerge as property in

the third Conflict Site. There was, however, a questioning of government by the MCC-S

Executive Director, which perhaps could be taken to indicate there would not be a blind

loyalty to the government in Site III, although the contextual conditions were very different

from the war contexts presented in the first and second Conflict Sites.

German-Speaking. A third property that discontinued over time was the view that

the German language was a defining characteristic of Mennonite nation-based identity. The

change that occurred centered on the German language. In Site I, Mennonites viewed

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 250

German as their mother tongue and Russian as the national language. The mother tongue

had two forms: High German, which was viewed as the more correct form, and Low

German, which was viewed more dimly and utilized in homes. Mennonites were offended

when German was banned from public use during WWI. The use of the German language

continued to carry negative political and social repercussions in Site II in Canada, although

without the same overt punishments. During this second Conflict Site, the German

language was still the preferred language for many Mennonites. There was significant debate

and a concentrated effort to de-link the German language from German politics - and to de

link German politics from Mennonite identity. Ultimately the distinction was made. While

leaders continued to think that German was an important part of Mennonite religious

practices, the position was noticeably modified in Site II with public acknowledgements that

the younger generation would be more proficient in English. Language did not emerge as an

issue in the third Conflict Site. However, an interesting side-note for Site III was that LMC

switched from German to English worship services in the 1940s, and TRMC in the 1960s.

National Culture. A fourth property that varied over time, to the point of

extinction, was identification with a national culture. This national culture had an ethnic

emphasis.10 Mennonites viewed their own culture as distinct in Site I, which reinforced the

view of themselves as a small, separate ethnic-national group. This identity embraced

Russian, Ukrainian and German elements, but also included additional daily practices and a

self-concept that were unique. These included the use of Low German at home, the

historical religious narrative, confessional bond, as well as organizational structure.11 The

10 The concept of ethnicity is explored further in chapter seven. 11 Interestingly, there were many adaptations to Russian and Ukrainian culture in Site I, which were part of daily practices but more readily identifiable in retrospect, such as the foods that Mennonites called their

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 251

view that Mennonites wete a unique ethnic-national group faintly reverberated in Site II, but

was not developed further. The pattern of identifying with German culture emerged in the

first two Sites, and was similar to the above pattern of change that occurred around

language. German culture was highly valued by many Mennonite leaders in Sites I and II.

The cultural element that appeared to be most salient — in addition to language — was

German literature. Mennonites in Sites I and II read books and periodicals that were

imported from Germany. Also in Site II, appreciation was expressed for German music,

religious and scientific developments, while Mennonite leaders worked to distinguish

German culture — alongside language — from politics. In Site III, Mennonite cultural identity

was integrated into a western Euro-Canadian culture. Some viewed this identification as

contributing to a barrier between Mennonites and First Nations people. The adaptation to

Canadian culture was an outgrowth of the decision to no longer be an entirely separate

people.

Independent. A final property of a nation-based identity was political

independence, which was quite a unique aspiration for Mennonites in Site I. The aspiration

to become a semi-autonomous commonwealth was fully expressed in 1918. It emerged

from within the context of post-imperial Russia, where Mennonites had developed civic and

religious institutions and were looking to pursue a new arrangement in the ferment of the

early revolution period. The All-Mennonite Congress looked to the day when a poll could

be taken by Mennonite residents in particular geographic areas to form an autonomous

union (All-Russian Mennonite Congress 1918). As noted above, the pursuit of an

independent political arrangement was bolstered by the view that Mennonites were a unique

own (e.g. cabbage borscht and an Easter bread called Paskd). For more details on the origins of various Mennonite foods from South Russia see Norma Jost Voth (1994).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 252

people. This obviously did not come to pass as the cost of the revolution took its heavy toll

in the more established Mennonite colonies. There were some reverberations in the minor

effort to establish an independent Mennonite state just prior to the start of Site II in Canada,

but that effort garnered little support from Mennonite leaders. The interest in an

independent Mennonite society was discontinued and Mennonite leaders approved of at

least some degree of integration and accommodation within Canada.12

The nation-based identity was quite evident, with properties that continued and

changed during the first two Conflict Sites. However, as noted above, the nation-based

identity gradually transitioned increasingly to a relationship to the state that relied upon a

concept of citizenship.

Good Citizens

‘Good citizens’ was the second category that dealt with the relationship between

Mennonites and the state. The category emerged most strongly in Conflict Site II where

citizenship, and the enjoyment of citizenship rights and freedoms, was plainly articulated.

Citizenship was discussed in Site I, although it was embedded within the larger debate

around nation-based identity and citizenship rights, and applied the lens of Mennonites as a

unique ethno-religious group with independent political aspirations. In contrast, citizenship

language in Site II helped to re-frame Mennonites’ relationship to the state and moved

Mennonites from a status of privileged colonists or a quasi-independent group to being

equal citizens within the state. The four properties that came to the fore in Site II were

loyalty, obedience, being “quiet,” and contributing constructively to the country. The

property of loyalty was discussed above in the category of Nation-based identity, while the

12 There remained an unresolved tension here between the degrees of integration that Mennonites should seek, and the degrees of separateness they should retain as a unique religious group.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 253

category of being constructive contributors was discussed in the category of being a worthy

people. These two properties are therefore not discussed in detail here. However, they did

present an example of how properties were moved from one identity category to another, a

process in which specific properties relevant to the conflict context were underscored. The

two remaining properties of obedience and being politically quiet are briefly explored below,

to identify points of continuity or change across the Sites.

Obedient and Quiet. Obedience and being politically “quiet” were linked

properties in Site II. Mennonites were to be obedient to state authority, except in cases

where such behavior clashed with their beliefs. Mennonites were also not to engage in

politics and therefore be a quiet presence — a position linked to the Mennonite “dual

kingdom” theology.13 The two together reinforced the notion that Mennonites were good

citizens who would generally submit to authority and not make trouble for the state. Or,

more specifically, Mennonites would not be the N a^i front in Canada, and their non-

resistant beliefs should not be interpreted as a political stance against Canadian leaders.

There were a few references to Mennonites being a quiet people in Site I. For example, it

was noted that Mennonites were a quiet and unassuming people, who liked to work and

spend in 1914. The conflict in the third Site did not raise references to Mennonites being

obedient and quiet. There was active engagement with, and a critique of, the Canadian

government on the Young Chipeewayan land claim. The MCC-S representatives hoped to

“encourage our governments to actively and sincerely negotiate fair settlements to past

injustices suffered by the Native people of Saskatchewan” (Neufeld 1986). They did not link

“quiet” and “obedient” with being good citizens. Rather, they viewed constructive action as

13 Discussed in chapter one.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 254

part of a good citizen’s role. Therefore the general category of being good citizens remained

in Mennonite self-identity in Site III as an integrated part of their civic identity in western

Canada, but without the same emphasis on these two properties.

The Content of Mennonite Identity Maintained Over Time

Grounded theory analysis illuminated the content of Mennonite identity — the

features that Mennonites identified as part of their group identity — in the three Conflict

Sites. These were features of Mennonite identity that were brought into sharp focus due to

the contestations occurring within the Conflict Sites. Overall, five central categories

emerged and formed the core of Mennonite identity. Three of these categories were robust

over time: 1) a religious group, 2) a worthy people, and 3) hard workers — although hard

workers was temporarily de-emphasized during the second Conflict Site. The forth and fifth

categories captured Mennonite identity in transition with respect to Mennonites’ relationship

to the state. A nation-based identity was prominent during the first Conflict Site, and it

transitioned from a nation-based identity to a citizen-based identity during the second

Conflict Site.

The religious group category was the largest and was defined by ten properties. Six

properties were constant over time (common confessional bond, common historical

narrative, part of larger Mennonite community, intra-communal consultation, constructive

action, institutions), two properties fluctuated over time with various levels of commitment

in practice (commitment to morally upright behavior, commitment to nonresistance) and

two properties were discontinued during the second Site (German language of worship,

separate community).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 255

The category of being a worthy people was a narrower category that appeared

regularly across the three Sites. It consisted of three relatively stable properties (model

agriculturalists, positive contributors, progressive) and two fluctuating properties (invited

setders, willing to sacrifice). The property of positive contributors shifted to the good

citizens category during the second Conflict Site, which elevated it within a state-centric

public discourse.

The category of being hard workers emerged clearly in Sites I and III but was

temporarily subsumed under the category of worth in Site II. This category was comprised

of two regular properties (agricultural calling, individualism), and two categories that were

modified over time (productivity, intrinsic satisfaction). The shifts in the latter two

properties were largely related to external circumstances that inhibited their achievement.

The category of hard work was de-emphasized in Conflict Site II when it was placed under

the category of being a worthy people, in response to the negative depression conditions,

and subsequent desire to be “quiet” and not profit during wartime.

The nation-based identity category was strongest in the first two Sites, with their

respective debates over war, but nevertheless softly reverberated in the third Site. It was

defined by eight properties. Three properties were consistent over time (historical

contribution, point of origin, engagement on rights and privileges), and five properties

changed over time (attachment to language, place, national culture, loyalty, independence) -

of which three were discontinued (language, national culture, independent).

The final category of being good citizens emerged clearly in the second Conflict Site.

Its articulation brought four properties of Mennonite identity to the foreground in the

context of WWII. Two of the constituent properties were shifted from the nation-based

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 256

and worthy people categories (loyal, positive contributors). The two additional properties

resonated with Mennonite history but were not very durable over time (obedient, quiet).

The category represented a re-articulation of particular qualities of Mennonites in the

Canadian wartime context. The category also captured the transitional point in Mennonite

identity and its relationship to the state, becoming equal citizens rather than a separate and

privileged group. In the third Site there was a working assumption that Mennonites are

citizens, and part of western Canada.

The content of the five central categories that emerged from the data, across the

three Conflict Sites, presented a relatively stable identity core, even as the group responded

to issues that contested elements of their identity. In sum, Mennonite identity centered on

being: a religious people, who were hard workers, a worthy people, and a national-based

group or good citizens. The categories were applicable across multiple situations for

Mennonites, although there were fluctuations in the content of properties that helped define

the category, and sometimes in the category (hard work). The flex and fluctuations were

important features in maintaining continuity in the categories across time, and in response to

a variety of circumstances. Categories also contained properties that reinforced other

categories, but with meanings tailored for each category. For example, a dimension of

religious identity influenced Mennonites’ concept of work (farming as a calling). This feature

helped enable movement in the central defining features of categories to remain relevant

during times when external circumstances warranted, such as when the concept of being

hard workers reinforced the category of Mennonite worth during WWII. Again, some

degree of change enabled continuity. The next section turns to analyze change in Mennonite

identity, and the dynamics of change within the Conflict Sites.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 257

Mennonite Identity Change Over Time

The above analysis highlighted a core set of categories and properties for Mennonite

identity during conflict, over time; there were points of contestation, subtle shifts, dramatic

flux as well as cessation in properties. Within each Conflict Site, particular sets of

circumstances interacted with Mennonite self-perceptions and stimulated these changes and

continuities. The circumstances included the larger and more external social, political and

economic dynamics within which Mennonites were embedded, as well as the more internal,

localized institutions and dynamics within the Mennonite communities. The specifics of

changes in Mennonite identity were detailed in each Conflict Site and explored in the

preceding chapters. A more general exploration of the changes that occurred is presented

here. A mid-range theory of how Mennonite identity changed during periods of conflict is

then developed.

There were three types, or levels, of change that occurred within the identity

categories and properties over time: minor adaptations, major fluctuations and elements that

were discontinued over time. At the most basic level, there were minor adjustments and re-

framings of the identity properties to match the context. These changes occurred without

changing the basic nature of the property or the category. As noted above, the contextual

adaptations allowed the property to continue to be useful as a constituent characteristic of a

category over time and place. For example, the concept of constructive action, within the

religious group category, changed from being reactive charity and relief assistance in Site I,

to pro-active justice and reconciliation work in Site III. The properties and categories that

experienced minor fluctuations but endured over time and formed the core of Mennonite

identity.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 258

The second level of change occurred when particular properties, or categories, were

temporarily suspended from use during a Site. These categories and properties then re-

emerged and were used by leaders in a subsequent Conflict Site. This occurred most

frequently for properties that relied on external conditions to be achieved and were difficult

to maintain under unfavorable conditions. For example, during the Russian revolution in

Site I, and the 1930s drought in Site II, it was difficult to maintain productivity as a defining

property of “hard workers.” The external circumstances prevented achievement of the

property, and it was therefore temporarily suspended from use during the Site, and re

employed later - the property emerged again in Site III. Properties that were not in use by

Mennonite leaders at one time but resurfaced again at a later time remained within the

narrative repertoire, and their use depended upon the circumstances.

The third level of change occurred when properties were discontinued from use and

ceased to be a part of Mennonite identity. Properties were discontinued when there were

external circumstances or pressures for change as well as internal Mennonite community

support for the change. The properties that were discontinued as dimensions of Mennonite

identification were significant. Language, attachment to place, religious separateness and

political independence were important properties of Mennonite identity in Site I, and

appeared to be part of the core identity. The properties were moved out from the core,

within an inter-play of internal and external circumstances, and eventually ceased to be part

of Mennonite identity — or in the case of “attachment to place” reformed in a new way. The

following two sub-sections explore these larger, more dramatic identity shifts to gain further

insight into the change process during periods of conflict. The analysis focuses on the

detachment from place and language, which occurred in Sites I and II respectively, to gain

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 259

greater understanding of the interaction between external circumstances and internal identity

factors in the change process.

Detachment from Place

Attachment to place is often significant for identity groups; identifying a particular

territory as a homeland is one of the features of ethnic nationalism. The Mennonite

attachment to place at the start of Site I was firm and secure. The steppes were a beloved

home. Several generations of Mennonites had lived upon the steppes and worked the land

into productive farms and villages. Parents and other family members were buried there.

Yet by the end of the Conflict Site, many — although not all — Mennonites had “released

their grip on the native soil.” The release was not automatic and did not occur just because

Mennonite ancestry was rooted in northern Europe. There appeared to be a complex mix of

external and internal factors that produced this “release.”

There were several important conditions present within the external circumstances.

There was a rejection of Mennonites as a welcome and loyal minority identity group by the

majority population. This rejection occurred within a much larger context of political and

economic disorder, and violence. Within the Mennonite community, there was a sense of

vulnerability, and tremendous physical and personal loss. Together, these internal and

external conditions precipitated an antithetical moment for Mennonite identity. During the

antithetical moment, central categories of Mennonite identity appeared to be opposite to

their previous content — not desired or found worthy, not interested in work, not strong as a

religious group. The terrible circumstances of suffering, loss, identity antithesis and social

rejection still did not immediately produce the detachment.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 260

There were two additional elements. Those who detached themselves from the

Steppe also viewed the future as hopeless. The Mennonites who looked to emigrate did not

think economic, moral or religious recovery was possible in Ukraine. Finally, Mennonites

also saw themselves as having the capacity to regenerate their society. They had properties

within their identity narrative that could be amplified and re-framed for rebuilding in another

place. The specific properties, which were part of core categories of identification (religious

group, worthy people and hard workers), were: a historical religious narrative that provided

precedent, a capacity to be productive (particularly agriculturally), individualism, and

progressiveness, which could also be understood as an entrepreneurial spirit. The

detachment from place therefore involved: inhospitable social, political and economic

external circumstances, internal community loss, identity antithesis, lack of hope for the

future and an identity narrative that spoke to the capacity to regenerate.

It was interesting to note that the attachment or re-attachment to place also occurred

over time. Mennonites were emotionally attached to place in Site I. In Site II, the new

immigrants were tepid in their views of the land. In Site III, there was a much stronger

emotional attachment to the farmland in Saskatchewan. When conflict arose over land in

both Site I and Site III, Mennonites found themselves challenged with responding in a way

that reflected their religious beliefs, validated their emotional attachment to the land, and did

not jeopardize their ability to survive (for example, the debate over whether or not to defend

house and home in Russia, or the farmers debate over whether or not to engage on the land

claim in Laird). Mennonites relied upon land for more than its emotional value. However,

the emotional attachment was important, and was tied to the concept of a religious calling to

agricultural work. The process of developing an attachment to land in both locales appeared

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 261

to have two things in common. One was a historical narrative of settling the land, and the

second was a presence over at least fifty years, and/or two generations. These two

characteristics appeared to be preliminarily important for becoming emotionally attached to

land and place for Mennonites.

Integration and Disengagement from Language

The language shift for Mennonites occurred in Conflict Site II, but the change in

practice extended over a much longer period. Mennonites used the German language for

public meetings throughout their residence in Imperial South Russia, until its public use was

banned in 1914. Mennonites continued to use German during the ban in private, and began

to republish periodicals in German in 1917, during the revolution. German continued to be

the language associated with Mennonite religion and practice into the late 1930s and early

1940s in Canada. Disengagement from German as the only or even primary language for

Mennonite worship and daily life occurred during the second Conflict Site, explored in

chapter four. This disengagement was related to adaptations made to the larger, majority

population in Canada and again involved a combination of external and internal

circumstances and dynamics. The shift also only manifested itself over several decades.

The internal Mennonite communal dynamic in Conflict Site II was affected by the

events of Site I, which Mennonite leaders did not want repeated in Canada.14 Mennonite

leaders were affected by memories of being subject to attack in Ukraine and Russia.

Mennonites were also operating within a very different context in Site II. There were

pressures within the external context for change, as German identification became negatively

valenced in the WWII context. Negative social sanctions for being perceived as German,

14 This included the rejection of Mennonite loyalty and presence, as well as vulnerability and loss in a context o f disorder in Site I.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 262

and therefore suspected of being N a ^ i supporters, were threatened. In a few instances,

Mennonites and their loyalty were questioned or rejected by members of the majority

population. However, the majority of government officials were committed to protecting

the legal rights and privileges of Mennonites, which included non-resistance. Therefore,

Mennonites were therefore not rejected in a wholesale way by the majority Anglophone

population, and Mennonite communities were not subjected to the painful level of disorder,

violence or loss that occurred in Site I. To re-state in positive terms, Mennonites were

accepted as citizens and guaranteed their rights and privileges, including religious freedoms,

within a context of social, political and economic order.

Based on their previous experiences, the level of acceptance and protection by

government authorities and a desire to recover without provoking a backlash, Mennonite

leaders moved away from aspirations to become an independent and religiously separate

group. Mennonite leaders were interested in being integrated citizens of Canada. For

example, religious institutions enveloped civic structures that Russlander immigrants

established in Canada in the 1920s, such as ZMIK; Mennonite leaders were interested in

supporting explicidy religious institutions rather than civic ones, which might vie for political

loyalty. Mennonites no longer lived in geographically separate communities, nor did the

leadership pursue an agenda of separate schools for the youth beyond Sunday or Saturday

school for religious and German language instruction. There were also Mennonites in the

larger community in Canada and the United States, whom had already begun to speak

English and provided a contemporary precedent for the shift.

Mennonite leaders led the internal change, utilizing other features of Mennonite

identification. Two properties from the categories of religious group as well as the good

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 263

citizens category were used: the historical narrative and loyalty. The historical narrative was

used with an emphasis on Mennonites being resilient and surviving change (from the

Netherlands to Germany to Russia). The concept of loyalty suggested that Mennonites were

loyal to the state powers that gave them protection. Together, these properties helped to

disconnect the German language (as well as politics), from Mennonite faith and validated

integration into Canadian society.

Overall, the detachment from the German language involved a secure political and

economic context that included respect for citizenship rights and privileges, religious

freedom, and some negative, external social pressures. Internally, Mennonite leaders, who

had recent memory of targeted violence, led the change process; there was precedent for

change, and validation within the historical narrative.

The Mennonite experience of identity change, evident in the two examples of

detachment from place and language, highlighted a dynamic interaction between the conflict

context and Mennonite identity. The conflict contexts affected Mennonite identity by

bringing particular features into focus. The Mennonite community wrestled with their

identity at the points of contestation. External opposition was not sufficient to generate

identity change although did act as catalysts for change. Harsher conflict conditions, such as

during the Russian revolution, appeared to precipitate a more rapid pace of change than the

less intense conflict situations in western Canada (Sites II and III). Changes were made and

took root when they were directed internally by Mennonites, and drew upon other properties

and categories with which Mennonites identified. For example, Mennonite leaders utilized

the historical narrative of adapting to new countries when moving for their faith to support a

move away from the German language. Or, a concept of citizenship drew upon properties

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 264

(loyal, positive contributors) that were previously affiliated with other categories. Change in

identity emerged from this internal interaction, which was catalyzed by the external context

but propelled by features internal to the Mennonite community. Continuity, then,

constrained the degree of change that occurred.

Mennonite Identity Change and Continuity in Conflict

The exploration of identity categories and properties, as well as the points of

dramatic identity change, pointed to a more general theory of identity change and continuity

for Mennonites. There was a core set of identity categories, and constituent properties, that

were relatively stable over time. These categories provided the internal structure for

Mennonite identity over time. Continuity did not mean stasis. There was some degree of

fluctuation within the properties, in terms of application to the context as well as usage over

time. Fluctuations tended to be greater for properties that relied on external inputs (such as

productivity, or invited settlers) and more stable for properties that relied on internal group

structures or actions (such as common confessional bond or positive contributors to

society). The malleability of the content of properties was important because the categories

were then adapted to fit the external context as well as internal group dynamics, and thus

maintained continuity over time.

External conflict situations affected change in identity. The situations of conflict

elevated particular dimensions of identity and brought certain categories and properties into

focus. The properties that were discontinued, were initially rejected within particular

contexts and periods of time but became manifest over a much longer period. There

appeared to be transitional periods that marked the process of discontinuing particular

identity properties. For example, the detachment from place in Site I, while relatively rapid,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 265

occurred over the course of the revolution and ensuing recovery period, at which time it

appeared that there was no hope for the future.15 The external-internal interaction was also a

critical part of change. Adding a new category (good citizens) similarly involved re-aligning

pre-established properties that were used in other identity categories previously. The new

category then persisted over time with repeated use.

Summary

This chapter provided an examination of the identity categories and the properties

that gave them shape and dimension. The chapter began with an overview of substantive

grounded theory and suggested that a good substantive theory should fit the data, be readily

understandable to the reader and be general enough to be applicable to multiple situations.

The theory of the content of Mennonite identity that emerged was constructed around three

central categories and two related categories that both centered on the Mennonite

relationship to the state. The three central categories were: a religious people, a people of

worth and hard workers. The two other categories, which transitioned over time, were:

nation-based and good citizens. Each category of Mennonite identification was comprised

of a set of properties, which outlined the attributes or characteristics of the category.

The chapter then explored identity change in greater depth. Three levels of change

were identified: minor adjustments, major fluctuations and discontinued properties or

categories. Minor adjustments and more major fluctuations supported the continuity of

identity categories over time. The two examples of discontinued attachments to place and

language were utilized to explore the dynamics of change in greater detail. They revealed

that external circumstances catalyzed an internal debate, and an internally led process of

15 Fond memories of the Steppe continued many years after emigration but without a strong desire for return.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 266

change. Changes in Mennonite identity drew upon pre-existing properties and categories of

Mennonite identity.

The close examination of the content of Mennonite identity over three different

conflict periods exposed an intriguing movement between change and continuity,

maintenance and transformation. Continuity was enabled by adaptations to new

circumstances. Change was constrained by referrals to the past and repeating references to

common elements of the identity narrative. In the following chapter, the Mennonite

example is placed in broader context; and, the contributions that this dissertation makes to

understandings of identity today and the larger literature on identity and conflict are

examined.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER VII

PATTERNS IN THE MARGINS: CONTRIBUTIONS TO

UNDERSTANDING IDENTITY CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN CONFLICT

This dissertation explores one group, “Russian” Mennonites, in considerable depth

during three decades that spread out over seventy-three years. It is, in many ways, a study of

a group on the margins: on the margins of the European core, on the margins of mainstream

Christianity, and on the margins of national belonging. Marginal zones are not static but rich

with complexity, as discussed in the first chapter. Creatures that live in the mixing zones

between fresh water river outlets and the ocean’s salt water have adapted to survive in their

complex environment. Studying life in the margins can provide a host of new ways of

looking at and understanding phenomena and dynamics that are otherwise seen as static and

stable. Mennonites, as a group on the margins of political communities provide one such

interesting, and surprisingly complex case to study.

This chapter examines the broader literature and highlights the contributions that

this dissertation makes to understandings of identity, change and continuity under conditions

of conflict. The chapter parallels the structure of the previous chapter with its focus on

content and then specific dynamics around identity change and continuity. I begin by

placing this research within the purview of identity literature. In the second section of this

chapter the categories of Mennonite identity are examined for points of contribution,

resonance and difference with identity formulations present in the literature. The following

267

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 268

how this study contributes to that subset of literature. The chapter proceeds to a brief

section on identity conflict and two cautionary insights for the field of conflict

transformation. I conclude with a summary of the main contributions that this dissertation

makes to knowledge about identity.

Identity

The previous four chapters examined the categories of identification that Mennonite

leaders used in referring to their distinctive group of belonging during three periods of

conflict. There were core categories of identification that emerged with relative consistency

over time although had constituent properties that shifted (a strong religious group, a worthy

people, hard workers), there were some categories that shifted over time (nation-based and

citizen-based identity), as well as some properties of categories that were discontinued

entirely (German language, attachment to a specific place). Here I will spend some time on

the concept of identity, as it is multifaceted concept that has generated volumes in various

disciplines and sub-disciplines, including literature in Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology,

Communication, Political Science, International Relations and Conflict Resolution. The

repeated and expansive use of the term identity has led some to suggest the term has lost its

utility as an analytic tool; that, “Whatever its suggestiveness, whatever its indispensability in

certain practical contexts, ‘identity’ is too ambiguous, too torn between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’

meanings, essentialist connotations and constructivist qualifiers, to serve well the demands

of social analysis” (Brubaker and Cooper 2000, 2). This section clarifies the approach to

identity used in this dissertation in order to sharpen the analysis and frame identity in an

analytically meaningful way.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 269

It is important to make clear that this dissertation does not engage with three

prominent areas of debate in identity literature. First, this research is not concerned with

how ethnic-national identifications developed as an historic project or phenomena. This

means it does not enter into a now somewhat faded debate over the '‘primordial,”

“modernist” or “ethno-symbolic” origins of ethnic nationalism. Crudely summarized, this

debate pitted a view that ethnic nationalism was a product of various developments in the

modern world — political, economic, linguistic and technological — against a view that ethnic

nationalisms were rooted in more ancient, natural and often primal associations. The former

position was variably termed modernist, functionalist or instrumentalist and associated with

authors like Ernest Gellner (1999; 1983), Eric Hobsbwam (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983;

Hobsbawm 1990), John Breuilly (1985; 1996), and Benedict Anderson (1991). The latter was

usually termed primordial and associated with authors like Clifford Geertz (1963; 1973) and

Edward Shils (1957). Anthony D. Smith, who has written extensively on ancient ethnies and

the roots of nationalism, has often been categorized as the latter although he distinguishes

himself as an “ethnosymbolist” (1986; 1981; 1991; 2003b).

Secondly, this dissertation is not concerned with the question of why various group

identities - ethnic, religious or national — are important to individuals. That question is a

focus of research in psychology - particularly social psychology - as well as some research in

conflict resolution. The various theories on the individual-level explore the parameters for

group identification, and issues such as the importance of being part of a group with a

common fate, maintaining positive self-esteem, and reducing uncertainty (Abrams and Hogg

1999; Erikson 1968; Fiske 1993; Tajfel 1978; Tajfel and Turner 1986). In conflict resolution

this work in psychology has been tied to understandings of group identity as a basic human

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 270

need (Burton 1990; Fisher 1997). Work is also being done to address the “why” of group

identification in political science and political theory utilizing cognitive models and research

(Flale 2004; Brubaker 2001a).

Third, this dissertation does not engage the question of whether or not, and to what

degree immigrants assimilate or accommodate to the majority culture around them. An

updated literature on assimilation has resurfaced after a period of disrepute in response to

the racist under- or over-tones included in research in the 1920s to 1960s (Alba and Nee

1997; Brubaker 2001b). There is evidence of assimilation in the various Conflict Sites and

this could produce a fruitful area of study, however it was not a question that formed the

research project and therefore does not come into focus.

This dissertation is concerned with understanding identity through the categories of

identification that are articulated to give meaning to the group, and how these categories,

with their fixity and flow, fit into an understanding of identity change and continuity over

time. In doing so it focuses both on the content of the categories that members of the

group identify with as well as the processes of identification, identity maintenance and

transformation over time. This approach to identity fits into a constructivist understanding

of identity as a fluid and an ongoing process of development and maintenance, which is an

approach to identity that emerged from symbolic interactionist work in sociology.16 As

Smart Hall (1998) has noted, focusing on identity as ‘production’ highlights that it is “never

complete, always in process, and always constituted within, not outside, representation”

(222). Hall takes a more post-modern approach to identity than that used here, but there is

16 For early examples see Strauss (1997) and Goffman (1963).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 271

overlap around this concept of identity being produced over time through practiced

categories.

Overall, considerable agreement has accrued around the view that identities change,

even amongst those who argue for an ancient, primordial root to particular types of identity

still see a role for social construction of that identity (Laitin 1998; Hale 2004; Smith 2003a).17

However, the repeated emphasis by many constructivists on change and multiple, shifting

identities have led to pointed criticism, and a concern that: “conceptions of identity may be

too weak to do useful theoretical work. In their concern to cleanse the term of its

theoretically disreputable ‘hard’ connotations, in their insistence that identities are multiple,

malleable, fluid and so on, soft identitarians leave us with a term so infinitely elastic as to be

incapable of performing serious analytical work” (Brubaker and Cooper 2000, 11, emphasis

retained). This dissertation is placed within the constructivist approach in following a

process of identification and construction of identity categories, looking at stasis and change,

over time but it also seeks to perform “serious analytic work” around the content of the

categories of identification.

The content of Mennonite identity was explored herein by examining the categories,

and constitutive properties of the categories, that emerged during the Conflict Sites.

Typically it is this content that is understood to be the “essential” core of identity, or the

substance that comprises group classification. This core is connected to the theoretically

disreputable “hard” connotations of identity quoted in the preceding paragraph. There are a

17 For example, Laitin argues “There is a growing consensus among academic observers of identity politics that identities are not inherited like skin color.. .but constructed like an art object” (1998, 11). Hale (2004) observes that both “primordialists and constructivists agree that identities are constructed (i.e. that beliefs about primordiality are formed) during some identifiable period in history, that their symbolic content can vary to some degree over time, and that there is at least some variation in the intensity or nature of identification across members” (461-462).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 272

set of questionable assumptions that accompany the notion that there is an “essential”

identity; they include the suggestions that individuals and groups naturally seek membership

in relatively closed groups, that the are static over time, and produce sharp distinctions

between members and non-members (Brubaker and Cooper 2000, 10). These three

assumptions — static, closed and sharp distinctions — run counter to the constructivist

approach discussed above. They are also arguments that are closely linked to explaining the

negative role that ethno-national exclusive identity has played in violent conflicts, such as in

Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

In this dissertation I sought to prevent reifying Mennonite identity by looking both

at continuity and change over time. Taking the content of identity as well as the dynamics of

change into consideration deepened the understanding of what elements in Mennonite

identity continued over time, what changed, as well as an understanding of the internal and

external conditions that contributed to change, and constraints on change. Identity was

therefore studied as a process of identification, and a production of practiced categories.

The balancing of constructivist and essentialist approaches echoes the early symbolic

interaction approach of Berger, Barth and Strauss.18 More recently, David Laitin has worked

to balance the two “Janus faces” of identity in his research on Russian identity in former

Soviet bloc countries, and has sought to better account for “both the constructed nature of

social identities (the current conventional wisdom) and the power of these identities to seem

natural to those who hold them” (Laitin 1998, 19). Another scholar working at the point of

integration, Henry Hale (2004) — quoted in the first chapter — notes that both sides of the

debate agree that, “identities are constructed.. .during some identifiable period in history...”

18 Fredrik Barth (1998,10) referred to ethnic groups as categories of ascription and identification by the actors themselves and therefore had the characteristic of organizing interactions between people.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 273

(461-462). Rogers Smith (2003c) also combines the two in his recent theory of people-

making and examination of certain types of constitutive stories for peoplehood.

However, as Smith notes (2003c), there are large gaps in understanding the process

of group identity generation, maintenance and transformation, particularly around political

identity. This gap exists in multiple literatures, but is particularly evident as a gap in political

science, international relations and conflict resolution due to the focus on identity as one of

the motivating or driving forces for conflict (Gurr 1993; Huntington 1993; Huntington 1996;

Fox 2004). There is also limited understanding how conflict affects the content of identity

in political science and conflict resolution. There is research that focuses on the dynamics

that occur around the solidification of identity groups in conflict (Pruitt and Kim 2004;

Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim 1994; Tajfel and Turner 1986); there is also extensive research on

one aspect of identification, chosen traumas and glories ( Montville 2001; Volkan 1997).

However, there tends to be less focus on understanding other, subtler ways that conflicts

affect identities over time. This dissertation helps to fill the gap in understanding identity

maintenance and transformation with respect to political peoples. It also explores the

impact of conflict on categories of identity over time. The next section of the chapter

explores the contributions that this study of Mennonites makes to our understanding of the

content of group identity, and categorizations of peoplehood.

Categories and Content

The categories that emerged from the three Conflict Sites fit into a range of

classifications of group identity. As noted in chapter one, Rogers Smith’s definition of

political people provides an understanding of group identity that is particularly useful for this

dissertation because it focuses on contestation, focuses on collective narratives, and opens

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 274

up the concept of political peoplehood to more non-standard groups, like Mennonites.

Smith writes:

I define a group as a political people or community when it is a potential adversary of other forms of human association, because its proponents are generally understood to assert that its obligations legitimately trump many of the demands made on its members in the name of other associations. (2003c, 20)

This definition provides an opportunity to explore the unique dynamics and content of

Mennonites when there are latent or realized affinity demands that trump demands by other

associations. Smith’s definition also provides an opening to enhance the understanding of

Mennonites vis-a-vis the state in Mennonite area studies literature, because it provides a

framework that pushes beyond the limited framing of the “dual kingdom theology” or

borrowed concepts of nationalism and ethnicity (discussed below). Smith’s usage of political

peoples reframes the problematic to identify Mennonites as a political people when the

obligations of being Mennonite supersede the state. In this way, Mennonites are of the

world even if they are driven by religiously inspired associational demands.

Before proceeding to analyze the categories of identity I will introduce one further

set of elements from Rogers Smith’s theory of political peoplehood as a point of departure

for analyzing the content of Mennonite identity and potential contributions to knowledge.

Smith (2003c) argues that persuasive stories are one of two general means used to pursue

political people-making - the second is coercive force, which is less relevant to the

Mennonite experience and so not pursued here. He argues that persuasive stories are meant

to inspire the senses of trust and worth in leaders, amongst members, necessary for

successful people-building. Smith then identifies three types of persuasive stories: economic

stories, political power stories, and ethically constitutive stories (2003c, 60). The three-fold

structure Smith posits provides a surprisingly good fit for the themes of identification that

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 275

emerged from the grounded theory analysis in this dissertation. The economic and ethically

constitutive types stories are congruous with the hard work and religious group categories of

Mennonite identity. The concepts of generating a sense of trust and worth are also similar to

the Mennonite conception of worth, although Smith has a slighdy different socio-political

dynamic in mind. The political power stories are less immediately consonant with the

Mennonite categories of identification, but applying this framework to the Mennonite

categories generates further insight into the content of Mennonite identity.

The three types of stories as well as the concepts of trust and worth are therefore

used as a scaffold or backdrop against which to analy 2 e the content of Mennonite identity.

This structure helps to pinpoint areas where the Mennonite experience can make

contributions to a larger understanding of political peoplehood and identity. In the analysis,

I also reference the more standard terminology and understandings of ethnic and national

groups as points of contrast in order to provide further illumination and grounding.

Worth and Trust

“Worth and trust” for Smith, are necessary outcomes from, or products of, the

stories in order to engender support for leaders from constituents. There is an intriguing

difference in this study of Mennonites with Smith’s theory. For Mennonites, worth was a

general category of identification for group members not merely something that Mennonite

leaders tried to secure for themselves.

Mennonites identified themselves as a worthy people, based on their model role as

(invited) agriculturalists, progressive tendencies, positive contributions to the state

(economic, relief assistance), and as a people who were willing to sacrifice for their beliefs.

These were properties that were inspired by Mennonite’s religious beliefs but related directly

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 276

to theit position within, and contributions, to the state. In the context of the conflicted

political environments of World War I and World War II, Mennonites strove to have this

category of their identity recognized more broadly by Russian, Ukrainian and Canadian

political leaders and constituents. Mennonites were a group struggling for broader

recognition and continued acceptance within polarized environments where they were not

entirely sure of their position. These were very different situations from Smith’s suggested

usage, which was by political leaders to gain or solidify a group of followers.

The Mennonite experience brings to the fore the idea that an entire people may

develop a story of worth. Smith’s focus on leadership obscures this possibility, although his

framework is helpful in elevating the concept of worth. Mennonites formed a vulnerable

minority within the larger polity during the two World Wars in Imperial South Russia and

western Canada. The category of worth was an important feature of self-identification, and

was brought forward to government ministers and a larger public, in good part to persuade

authorities of their value to the state. In the Russian Revolution there was an undercutting

of the properties that Mennonite’s group worth rested upon, particularly the capitalist

economic contributions and individualistic style of agriculture that Mennonites modeled and

valued. The negation of the group worth, coupled with a loss of order, proved catastrophic

for many in the Mennonite colonies. In Canada, during World War II, overall group worth

was only partly threatened, and the social and political order was continuously maintained, so

Mennonites did not encounter the same problems. In the third Conflict Site, the concept of

worth framed the notion that Mennonites were a unique identity group. Mennonites’

identification with the larger western Canadian, European-descent farming population was

tempered by the understanding that they were a unique people, which was used at the time

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 277

as a point to encourage Mennonites to identify with the Young Chipeewayan.19 The

suggestion that groups may develop stories of self-worth is an insight that is in-line with the

positive in-group image research in psychology (Tajfel and Turner 1986; Fiske 1993).

A further insight that might be gleaned from the Mennonite experience is that

stories of worth were reinforced in conflicts of competing affinity demands. For example,

the concept that Mennonites were progressive was emphasized in Site II as a reaction against

critiques that Mennonites were too conservative and not worthy of Canadian citizenship.

Situations that contested group worth also reproduced arguments for group worth as part of

the group’s identity.

Hard Workers and Economic Stories

The first type of persuasive story that Smith identifies is economic stories. He makes

the case that “Economic stories ... promote trust by arguing that it is in the interests, usually

the economic interests, of particular groups of leaders and their constituents to advance each

constituent’s economic well-being” (2003c, 60). There is a promise of collective prosperity

for belonging to the group.

The hard worker category of Mennonite identity was comprised of a set of

properties that in part reflected the influence of their religious beliefs on their economic

means of livelihood, the nature of work and perception of the results of their labors. The

full set of properties — ignoring the flux in properties for the moment — involved agricultural

work as a religious calling, the intrinsic satisfaction of work, individualism and productivity.

19 The self-concept that Mennonites are a unique, minority population in North America has been critiqued by Mennonites who focus on race relations. They have argued the framing obscures white-privilege and racism within the Mennonite community. This critique has spurred efforts within the Mennonite church to confront racism and white privilege; a concerted effort to do so began after a joint General Conference Mennonite Church and Mennonite Church statement titled “A Church of Many Peoples Confronts Racism” in 1989 (Mennonite Church and General Conference Mennonite Church 1989).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 278

In the Mennonite category of “hard worker” there was a promise of economic prosperity in

the property of productivity. However, actual prosperity tended to be understood as divine

blessing rather than the purpose of work. There was also an emphasis on the intrinsic value

of work as a property, rather than the end point of wealth. The Mennonite experience adds

a breadth to Smith’s understanding of economic stories, and suggests that while prosperity

may be appreciated it is not a necessary part of the economic story for a political people.

However, during periods the WWI and WWII periods of conflict, when Mennonites

were emphasizing their worth as people, economic contributions to the state emerged as one

of the ways Mennonites cited themselves as positively contributing to society. This suggests

that while political peoples may not aspire to wealth formally for themselves, wealth accrual

may be an important dimension of “worth” for political actors within the larger, external

state. The arguments for Mennonite’s contributions to agricultural and industrial

development in Ukraine, for example, were surprisingly successful in gaining exemptions

from Soviet policies on land distribution for a short period of time in the 1922 to 1924

period. The argument was, however, a double-edged sword and played into an external

categorization of bourgeois, ku la ks that were to be eliminated from the new communist

society.

It is also worthwhile noting that Mennonite identification as hard workers focused

on the work itself, the occupation, the productive outcome and intrinsic satisfaction of work.

The economic story was therefore one that, while rooted in land, was essentially de

territorialized or more accurately, it was one that was located in multiple territories and

places. Mennonites identified themselves as people who worked hard in historical narratives

of settlement/colonization as well as within each contemporary narrative of the Conflict

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 279

Sites — with the one exception of the revolutionary period in Ukraine when violence and

hunger prevailed and work did not. Hard work was therefore a feature that of identity that

could move with Mennonites as they moved.

Nationals, Citizens and Political Stories

The second type of persuasive stories Smith identifies is political power stories. The

power stories do not fit comfortably with the Mennonite categories of identification because

Smith focuses on the elements of a people’s narrative that draw adherents to leaders aspiring

to greatness. Smith suggests that political narratives promise that leaders and other members

of a political community will exercise their powers through policies and institutions that give

members significant power, and promise that membership in the community will enhance

the power of members of the community, individually and as a group.

The only time this framing could have applied to Mennonites in terms of civic

political representation was in Imperial South Russia at the start of Site I. However, because

the Conflict Site started during the war when Mennonite institutions were beginning to lose

their capacity to function, the analysis is not possible. Dimensions of Mennonite intra

community dynamics were surfaced, to some degree, in the properties that made-up the

category of “a strong religious group.” The properties of religious institutions, and a

commitment to intra-communal consultation processes could be read, using Smith’s lens, as

promises for participation by leaders to community members.20 However, that

interpretation begins to distort the properties from their original usage. The texts analyzed

20 The independence of the Mennonite congregational structures and the intra-communal consultation processes often, but not always, functioned as restraints on political power within the Mennonite community. For example, in the third Conflict Site, the leaders in the two Native Concerns offices for CMC and MCC were constrained from making independent public statements and actions by the need to consult with the local Mennonite congregations in Laird.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 280

for this dissertation were geared to an external audience rather than an internal audience. So,

pursuing a direct analogy to Smith’s original meaning is not germane.

The discussion can be reconfigured to examine how Mennonites construed their

relationship to political power. The two categories that emerged across the three Sites that

directly related to the state as a configuration of political power were “a nation-based

identity” and “good citizens.” These categories captured two models of relationships that

Mennonites’ identified for themselves vis-a-vis the “nation” and “state.” The two categories

of identification imperfectly match the ethnic and civic models of national belonging, which

are explored extensively in literature on nationalism (Brubaker 1992; Greenfeld 1992;

Ignatieff 1993; Wimmer 2002). The first understanding of national membership,ykr sanguinis,

relies on bloodlines and direct descent. The only way to become a national in this model is

to be born into it (e.g. German and Japanese). The second model of national membership is

through location of birth, or ju s soli, where citizenship or national membership is granted if

one is born upon the soil of the country or through a process of naturalization and the

meeting of certain residency requirements (e.g. American and Canadian). The second model

removes ethnicity and blood-descent requirements from citizenship, whereas the first model

relies upon it. The Mennonite categories of identification imperfectly fit these classifications

because they contain some of the features that are commonly understood to be part of each

model and lack other features, which warrants further exploration.

The ethnic-based nation links the ethnic group to an aspired or achieved

independent territorial state. While the terms ethnicity, nation, nationalism are debated, a

relatively prominent set of definitions provided by Anthony Smith will be used here as a

basic point of comparison as they clearly articulate attributes for an ethnic group and a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 281

nation.21 Features of the ethnic group, which can provide the foundation for a nation but

does not necessarily do so, include a myth of common ancestry, shared memories of a joint

past, shared culture (including religion, language, or customs), a link with a homeland and a

sense of solidarity (Smith 1986; Hutchinson and Smith 1996).22 A nation can be defined as

“a named human population occupying a historical territory and sharing common myths and

memories, a public culture, and common laws and customs for all members” (Smith 2003a,

24). Combining the two, an ethnic-based nation is a named human population, with a myth

of common ancestry and a joint past, a shared culture (that may involve elements of religion,

language or customs), occupying a historical territory, with a public culture and common

laws and customs for all members.

Disregarding the change in properties and categories over the three Conflict Sites for

the moment, the category of the Mennonite “nation-based identity” captured a curious sub

set of the features of an ethnic nation. Certainly they were a named population with a myth

of common ancestry, a joint past, and a shared culture that heavily featured elements of

religion, customs and language. These were elements that surfaced as properties of not only

the nation-based category (language, historical contributions to the state, loyalty to the state)

but also the religious group category (common historical narrative, a separate community).

In Russia, during the first several years of Site I, Mennonites even believed they had

common laws and customs for all members before the Imperial Russian Empire devolved.

21 One succinct review of the debate is captured in BreuiUy (1996). More thorough mining of the terms can be found in a variety o f sources (Breuilly 1985; Driedger and Peters 1973; Mortimer and Fine 1999; Oommen 1997). 22 As a point of comparison, Max Weber, who saw the term as vague, nevertheless defined ethnic groups as “those human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration; this belief must be important for the propagation of group formation; conversely, it does not matter whether or not an objective blood relationship exists”(Weber 1978, 389). Or, Clifford Geertz (1963) identified the descriptive features of such groups as including: assumed blood ties, race, language, region, religion, and custom.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 282

However, these laws and customs were based within and relied upon a larger system of

Russian laws and customs, which makes it problematic to identify them as part of the

Mennonite community.

A challenge for classifying Mennonites as a group with an ethnic-national identity

arises with respect to territory. A geographic “point of origin” — Holland or Germany — was

cited as a property of the “nation-based” category of identification. However, there was also

the territorial space that Mennonites lived in, called their homeland, and which they had

become emotionally attached to in Sites I and III (the Steppe and later the Canadian prairie).

This “attachment to place” was also a property of “nation-based” identification. Jan

Penrose (2002, 277-278) helpfully articulates that space holds two potential sources of power

for humans: the material dimension of land, water, and atmosphere that are pre-requisites

for survival, and the “latent emotional power” of space, which may be mobilized when the

material dimensions are filtered through human experiences over time (transforming space

into place and territory). Mennonites had developed an attachment to place, and during

periods of contestation that emotional attachment was fully mobilized despite a relatively

short history of habitation. There was also the counter-veiling, albeit typically latent,

historical narrative of movement and displacement.

For the Mennonites in these three Conflict Sites, the possibility of realizing an

ethnic-national self-categorization was largely abandoned after Site I. Using the definition of

ethnic-nationalism above, Mennonites did not pursue jurisdiction and territory. For a short

period of time in Conflict Site I there was a moment when it appeared the Mennonites in

Russia might gain legal jurisdiction over a particular territory. There was a further dynamic

around nationalism that occurred in the second Conflict Site. In the mid-1930s, some

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 283

Mennonites were convinced that Mennonites should affirm a strong German national

identity, which would have provided a historical homeland and legal jurisdiction. The

German national socialist “political power story” also promised to enhance the power of its

supporters, which may have been attractive to those who experienced the vulnerability of

Mennonite communities during the revolution in Russia. Mennonites were on the edge of

multiple national affiliations, in a precarious liminal zone during the periods of large-scale

inter-group conflict of World War I, the Russian Revolution and World War II. National

aspirations gave way to the second model of national membership — a civic model.

A civic model of nation holds that membership is based on meeting particular

residency requirements — whether by birth, naturalization, or a successful immigrant

application. If we continue to use Anthony Smith’s definition of national identity without

the ethnic connotation it remains: a named population, living within a historical territory,

with shared myths, memories, public culture, as well as laws and customs for all members

(Smith 2003a, 24). When Mennonites identified themselves utilizing the “good citizen”

category, the national identity that they subscribed to was Canadian (with some equivalencies

in the earlier Russian context). The property of a “positive contributions to the state”

specified the relationship between Mennonites and the historical territory, and shared myths

and memories of western Canada. This property included references to breaking the land,

and contributing to the agricultural development of the state. It also included the relief work

and alternative service work that Mennonites performed. Emphasis on the properties of

being “obedient” and “quiet” fit into the concept of being governed by the common laws of

the state, and fitting into the common culture, although here Mennonites maintained a

significant caveat of separation. The state had jurisdiction over laws, but Mennonite

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 284

religious beliefs around military service trumped state laws. There was therefore extensive

engagement with the state to ensure the right or privilege to be exempt from military service

was protected — another defining property of Mennonite nation-based and citizen categories

of identification. Mennonites were citizens, but with a particular limit.

The related categories of nation-based identity and good citizens emerged as

Mennonites negotiated their group identity within the context of the external political system

of the state. These identity categories captured what has long been an area where

Mennonites have wrestled. The dual kingdom theology was meant to create a third-way,

where Mennonites would live in the world but be separated from it, and be a-political.

However, as Rogers Smith’s concept of political peoplehood helps clarify, the very nature of

belonging to a group that has competing demands with other group affiliations, like the

state, make Mennonites members of a political people. The tension in the relationship with

the state was succinctly captured when Mennonite leaders referred to themselves as both

“obedient” and “quiet,” in order to ameliorate their refusal of conscription. Or, conversely,

when Mennonite leaders in MCC thought they should do more to prompt the government

to act on the Young Chipeewayan claim because of Mennonite beliefs around justice. Many

Mennonite scholars have ruminated on the relationship between Mennonites and the state

(Ainlay and Kniss 1998; Bender 1939; Bush 1998; Driedger and Peters 1973; Dueck 1994;

Ens 1994; Regehr 2000; Reimer 1994; Urry 1994). It appears that the tension itself becomes

a persistent feature of Mennonite identification during conflict.

A return to Rogers Smith’s framing of political peoplehood helps to further

understand this somewhat unusual dynamic of Mennonite identity. Smith refines his analysis

of “political peoplehood” by suggesting that the potency of a group varies in two ways

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 285

(Smith 2003c, 19-32). First, supporters of a group may believe its obligations override

demands of many or just a few associations, with a range from strong to moderate to weak.

Second, supporters of a group may view its primacy over a wide range of issues, or only

certain ones (wide to midrange to narrow). Smith suggests this dimension is the more

politically important feature because such claims and assertions may give rise to political

conflict. A spectrum of senses of political peoplehood are proposed, wherein states may, for

example, make “strong” claims over a “wide” range of issues, such as the United States or

China; “strong” claims over a “narrow” set of issues, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses;

“moderate” claims over a “midrange” set of issues, such as Wales; or, “weak claims” over a

“narrow” set of issues, such as Oxfam.

Utilizing this framework, the Mennonite group identity contains “strong” claims that

combine religious and, to some degree ethnic, appeals to members. The claims supersede

state authority on a few key issues, above all on the issue of military service. The range of

issues might be construed as “narrow,” however it appears to be more often “moderate” and

extend to a broad range of issues, although this changes over time. For example, in Imperial

Russia, there was a strong claim over a wide range of issues (language, life in separate

communities, etc.). In Canada, during WWII, the claims were also strong and covered a

medium range of issues that included critical war-time issues around the draft, but also

extended to political affiliation (“quiet” and therefore not a threat) and lifestyle — affirming

that some degree of assimilation was appropriate (language, living without independent

settlements). Even in the 1970s and 1980s, there were strong claims over issues that implied

a moderate range, such as the economic means of livelihood and processes of social

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 286

engagement. Mennonite identity demands were strong, although the numbers of issues over

which the claims were made varied over time and context.23

A Strong Religious Group, Worthy People and Ethically Constitutive Stories

Two of the categories (a worthy people and a strong religious group) fit together and

provide elements for what Smith has called ethically constitutive stories — the third type of

persuasive stories. Smith uses this term to refer to a range of accounts that:

.. .present membership in a particular people as somehow intrinsic to who its members really are, because of the traits that are imbued with ethical significance. Such stories proclaim that members’ culture, religion, language, race, ethnicity, ancestry, history, or other such factors are constitutive of their very identities as persons, in ways that both affirm their worth and delineate their obligations. (2003c, 64-65)

These narratives suggest that traits a group possesses have an inherent value. Smith also

suggests these stories tend to be religious or quasi-religious, include ethnic myths of

common descent, and incorporate economic and social arrangements embedded within the

narratives that often support gendered or patriarchal themes and roles (2003c, 66-67).

Within the two categories of a worthy and a strong religious group there are

properties that support Smith’s interpretation of an ethically constitutive story. The

“worthy” category properties of being model agriculturalists and invited setfiers provided a

secular referent for a particular role within society as farmers. Further, the properties of

being positive contributors, progressive peoples, and a people willing to sacrifice for values,

fleshed out the content of particular characteristics that were understood to have an intrinsic

value for the people themselves, as well as for the larger state.

23 Ernest Gellner (1983, 41) has made passing reference to the under-explored link between the “relationship of Protestant-type attitudes and nationalism” and the Mennonite example provides insight into a distinctive dimension of that relationship, although not the industrial-national intersection that interested Gellner.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 287

Here again, the Mennonite example highlights a case where the narrative of worth

was important not only for group members themselves - to affirm their participation in an

inherently worthwhile group — but also for surviving as a minority group within a politically

charged conflict context. Mennonite leaders in World War I and World II worked with

political leaders in Russia, Ukraine and Canada to gain public affirmation of their worth.

The Mennonite leaders and constituents were convinced of their own worth and worked to

have a broader audience recognize this sense of worth.

Tied to the notion of worth and ethically constitutive stories for Rogers Smith is the

concept of chosen-ness, or being a chosen people. This concept periodically arose in the

first two Conflict Sites for Mennonites, and was a sub-dimension of the common historical

narrative property, within the “strong religious group” category. While not sufficiendy

present to become an independent property of either “a worthy people” or a “strong

religious group,” it was present. Mennonite’s periodic use of the concept of chosen-ness fits

one of Anthony Smith’s (1992) “myths of election” as the “emigrant colonist.”24 Anthony

Smith describes this myth of election as a people on the move, who have left or fled their

old homeland, to build a new community in a new homeland: “Theirs is a settler community

and mission. They carry with them their values, memories and traditions, regarding

themselves as chosen by God for a providential destiny that will abolish the old order and

inaugurate a new society” (Smith 1992, 447). Mennonites fit into this mold to some degree.

Interestingly, Anthony Smith (1992) also highlights that chosen-ness involves being

placed under particular moral obligations. Particular moral, ritual and legal codes must be

observed. For Mennonites, the moral obligations in all three Conflict Sites were more

24 The other three myths of election cited are imperial-dynastic (a ruling house and dynasty), communal -demotic (community tied to a homeland, struggling to retain it), and diaspora-restoration (a community moving back to the old homeland) (Smith 1992).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 288

evident than the self-concept of chosen-ness or the link between chosen-ness and a

religiously inspired nationalism. The obligations emerged as properties of the strong

religious group category and consisted of a commitment to constructive action, to morally

upright behavior and non-resistance. Ignoring the variations in practice over time, the

Mennonite case suggests that while chosen-ness was important, it was the obligations and

repeated practices that constituted the ethical dimension of identity. In the third Conflict

Site, the obligations (justice, stewardship, reconcilers) were critical to Mennonite identity and

the debate over how to respond to the Young Chipeewayan claim.

To reframe the concept of moral obligation in Rogers Smith’s terms, the religious

category of Mennonite identification supported one of the more positive dimensions of

Rogers Smith’s notion of ethically constitutive stories; namely that ethnical stories can limit

the “invidious potential of particularistic senses of membership” (2003c, 89). Smith’s initial

definition of ethically constitutive stories includes reference to the negative, gendered and

economically limiting roles that such narratives often contain. Indeed, the patriarchal,

gendered aspects of Mennonite leadership, particularly during the first half of the twentieth

century, while not explored in this dissertation, have been explored elsewhere (Epp 1987;

Loewen 1995; Epp 2000). There have also been analyses of the relationship between

economic wealth and Mennonite leadership in the Imperial South Russia before the

revolution (Reimer 1990; Rempel 1933; Urry 1985, 1989).25 However, any correlation

between leadership and wealth disappeared during the revolution, and the Mennonite leaders

in western Canada in the two Conflict Sites tended not to be wealthy — as they were often

25 At various times members of Mennonite communities have accrued considerable wealth. The contrast was particularly great in Russia, but also apparent in western Canada where the average Mennonite farmer would be better off than the average First Nations member.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 289

not paid well or for parts of their work.26 On the positive side, the limits to the “invidious

potential” were periodically raised within Mennonite identity via the commitment to morally

upright behavior (a property of “a strong religious group”) and the commitment to making

positive contributions to the larger society (a property of “a worthy people”). For example,

the debate that emerged around the conflict in Laird and the interpretation of the issues of

stewardship, justice and reconciliation illustrated an internal moral deliberation of what was

right. The debate was part of a long-term effort to move beyond self-serving dimensions of

Mennonite life and practices. The effort was not always immediately successful, as the Laird

conflict indicated as well and as the pre-1914 situation in Russia also reinforced. However,

the potential was there.

The religious narrative of “chosen-ness” also contributed to the Mennonites’

detachment from the land during and after the Russian Revolution. This dynamic is

interesting because it is an area where the Mennonite concept of chosen-ness reinforced a

religious claim that competed with state identity. It is often argued that religion is used as a

symbolic resource to support nationalism (Rieffer 2003; Smith 2003a). In the three Conflict

Sites explored here, Mennonite religious identification was sometimes supportive but often

antagonistic to state claims. Religion also functioned to keep Mennonites from identifying

too consistently with a bounded territory. The historical narrative of moving for beliefs was

present, even if latent. As noted above, this applied to the category of work as well.

Religious identity could move as Mennonites moved.

26 Financial struggles are the more frequent situation for Mennonite leaders. See for example the life history of David Toews (Harder 2002), or J.J. Thiessen (Epp-Tiessen 2001). Many ministers were also lay congregational members who did not receive a regular salary.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 290

Mennonite Contributions to Stories of Political Peoplehood

To summarize, placing the content of the categories that Mennonites identified with

on Smith’s scaffold of three types of persuasive stories, and in contradistinction to the

categories of ethnic and national identity, shed light on both the mundane and exceptional

dimensions of Mennonite political peoplehood. The categories of Mennonite identification

that emerged fit into larger stories of political peoples and their narratives, reinforcing the

importance of worth and trust, as well as political, ethical and economic stories.

The Mennonite example suggested Smith’s formula can be reframed from focusing

on stories that confirm the worth and trust of a particular leader to stories that confirm the

worth and trust of a minority political people. During times of competing affiliation

demands, Mennonite leaders worked at conveying their narrative of worth to political leaders

in Ukraine, Russia and Canada. Conflicts that involved a questioning of group worth

reproduced the concept.

The Mennonite experience also presented contributions to understanding each type

of persuasive story. The hard worker category that Mennonites identified with,

demonstrated that prosperity was not a necessary part of a group’s economic story; however

prosperity, or rather productivity, was important for emphasizing the minority group’s worth

to the state. The political power story analysis highlighted that Mennonites did not have a

strong political power story of their own once the civic apparatus in Russia was dismantled —

Mennonites did not pursue legal jurisdiction over particular areas of land in Canada. The

tension between Mennonite identity demands and state demands was an ongoing feature of

Mennonite identity within the Conflict Sites, which was framed in both national and civic

terms. Placing the Mennonite identity categories of religious group and worthy people

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 291

against Smith’s concept of ethical stories reinforced the concept of chosen-ness. The

Mennonite narrative contained elements that could be employed to decrease the “invidious

potential” of group identity, and other elements that could be employed to distance

Mennonite identity from being a symbolic resource for the state. Finally, the Mennonite

versions of economic and ethical stories were not territorially bounded and so could move

with the people.

It is time now to unfreeze the identity categories and focus on their movement and

change. The next section explores how the dynamics of identity change and continuity,

identified in chapter six, fit within a larger identity literature.

Continuity and Change, Stasis and Rupture, Maintenance and Transformation

Constructivist understandings of group identity - whether national, ethnic, or

political peoplehood — emphasize change, and yet our understanding of change processes, as

well as continuity, remains weak and underdeveloped. Various authors have emphasized the

importance of understanding stasis and rupture, generation, maintenance and transformation

over time (Barth 1998; Hall 1998; Strauss 1997). Some exploration has focused on

boundaries and boundary maintenance; other studies have dealt with the practices of

inclusion and/ or exclusion as formative forces; a third approach has been to examine

continuation through reiteration and reframing of categories and a retelling of the past.

Relatively few studies have focused on the change process for group identity within Political

Science or International Relations.27 The following section builds upon these areas of study

focusing on the interaction of internal and external factors involved in change processes that

were identified in the previous chapter. The processes of change are examined as well as

27 As noted previously, David Laitin’s (1998) study of identity shifts as a “tip” or “cascade” process are an exception.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 292

time horizons for change. The discussion then moves to the limits of change identified in

this research, and a consideration of the continuity of identity categories over time.

Interplay of Internal and External Factors in Change Processes

Fredrick Barth (1998) and colleagues highlighted the importance of boundaries and

boundary maintenance for ethnic group identity and continuity in the 1960s. Barth’s work,

fed by the symbolic interaction vein of sociology, positioned itself in contrast to previous

cultural anthropology studies that viewed cultural groups — and subsequently ethnic groups -

as independent, bounded containers. Barth’s contributions centered on looking at ethnicity

as the social organization of cultural difference, formed as an interaction between self

ascription and ascription by others, and critically focusing on the “boundary-connected’

points by which membership is signaled and members are evaluated (1998, 6).28 It was

subsequently argued that a focus on boundaries meant that contents of identity could change

as long as the boundaries and mechanisms for maintaining those boundaries continued.

This argument was extended to nationalism and it was argued that groups define themselves

by exclusion and in comparison to strangers.29 Others have suggested that some categorical

distinctions may be considered as intrinsic to a group, such as the language used, while

others may be extrinsically imposed (Forsyth 1990; Flale 2004).

One of the distinctive features of this dissertation was the effort to utilize historical

research methods with grounded theory to examine the interplay between the external

circumstances and internal group dynamics in situations of land-related intergroup conflict,

28 Authors working in this vein included Strauss, Blumer and Goffman, as well as the earlier George Herbert Mead and John Dewey. 29 For example see John A. Armstrong (1982, 5).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 293

and the resulting content of Mennonite identity over time. What emerged from the study

was a rather complex dance or interplay between the external and internal.

In the previous chapter, the mid-range theory that was developed suggested three

levels of change. The first level, minor changes to the properties of identity categories

occurred regularly and were an internally driven process that also fit a changing external

environment. For example, there was internal debate and subtle shifts over what constituted

constructive action in the two different war contexts, or what constituted morally upright

behavior in the Laird land claim context. Changes that involved the temporary suspension

of categories or properties — such as the loss of productivity in the revolution and the “Dirty

30s” or the loss of a general commitment to pacifism during the Russian Revolution -

occurred when the property appeared to rely on external events outside of Mennonite

control, and those external events or conditions were extreme. The external forces, whether

weather or chaotic violence, were too much for Mennonites to cope with using their usual

modus operandi. The normal conditions and ways of responding did not work under those

circumstances and new responses were therefore generated, but the responses, or outcomes

of the responses, did not fit into how Mennonites generally perceived themselves over time.

These responses were therefore temporary and did not become an integrated part of what

Mennonite identified as features of themselves. The significant changes that occurred when

properties and categories were discontinued from use (a specifically located or linguistic

identification), or when categories merged and became a new part of Mennonite identity

(good citizens), occurred when there was a mix of external pressure upon the group and a

significant degree of internal support for the change.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 294

The conditions around the major and minor fluctuations of identity categories

suggested that while external factors were critically important for catalyzing change, the

changes needed to be owned by Mennonites in order to become a constituent category of

identity.30 Ownership in this case meant that the Mennonite leaders promoted the change,

the shift responded to the circumstances Mennonites found themselves in, and there were

resources within Mennonite identity, particularly the historical narrative, that provided a

foundation for the change. For example, Mennonite’s “released their grip on the native soil”

when there was an inhospitable social, political and economic environment, great losses in

the community, identity antithesis, lack of hope and a revitalized historical narrative of

regeneration. In cases where the external actors pressured too heavily for change, then

Mennonites tended to respond by outright rejection. For example when Mennonites felt the

state pushed too strenuously for military service then the reaction by Mennonite leaders was

to dig in their heels. This occurred not only around the issue of alternative civilian service

but also around the issue of language. When the use of German was banned in Russia,

Mennonite attachment to the German language continued unabated and was even

reinforced. In contrast, in situations where there was less direct coercion and there was an

internal drive for change the changes were more supported. In Canada, the use of German

was not banned and Mennonite leaders slowly disentangled Mennonite religious practices

and beliefs from language. Or, when Mennonites themselves suggested armed self

protection during the Russian revolution it garnered more support. This internal-external

interactive process fits into the research noted above, but further emphasizes that internal

30 The dynamic is somewhat akin to Oliver Zimmer’s (2003) suggestion that two mechanisms are used to reconstruct nationalism over time, one being voluntarist and the second organic. However Zimmer’s notion of organic relies more heavily on deterministic and mechanistic constructions then is here suggested.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 295

community support is required for an element of identification to become a regular feature

of an identity group.

Two specific sub-processes of change that emerged in this research can be explored

for contributions to our understanding of change processes during periods of conflict. One

is the effort by Mennonite leaders to alter the external classifications placed on Mennonites

during the two World Wars, and the second is the time dimension associated with change

and an exploration of the rates of change implicated in the three different Conflict Sites.

These sub-processes occurred when tensions around group identification with Mennonites

meant heightened points of deviation with state claims on behavior.

Ameliorating negative identity labels when they “mattered.”External

classification schemes and labels matter during conflict. They potently mattered for

Mennonites when their survival hung in the balance in Russia as kulaks at the end of the first

Conflict Site. Negative labels like traitor and enemy could lead to deadly outcomes for those

so-labeled. There is evidence that the use of negative labels and stereotypes increases during

periods of inter-group conflict, and that the distinctions and boundaries between in-groups

and out-groups become stricter and starker (Allport 1954; Brewer and Brown 1998; Fiske

1998; Sherif and Sherif 1953). This study illuminates situations wherein representatives of a

negatively labeled group sought to ameliorate the consequences for the label, and where

possible, change the connotations of the label from negative to the more positive

connotations encapsulated in the concept of being a worthy people. Awareness of this type

of counter-response to a stigmatic or negative label is not new. For example, Anselm

Strauss observed:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 296

... there will be complicated tactics for preventing the assignment, to others and self, when we see it 'coming up' in interaction — including the very breaking off of the interaction or adequate preparation at critical phases of the interaction. Other devices exist for countering an assignment after it has occurred, or while it is occurring, since the assignment is sometimes not of a single moment but may take place over a span of time. (1997, 85)

However, the situations in the first two conflict Sites provided detailed looks at situations

where group leaders deliberately acted to counter the negative labels when they mattered for

the survival of Mennonite values, such as non-resistance, or for their very physical survival as

a unique group.

The Mennonite example in the first two Conflict Sites (WWI and the Revolution in

Russia, and WWII in Canada) highlighted moments in time when Mennonite leaders worked

to ensure that Mennonites were not negatively assigned. The leaders made repeated visits to

state authorities in an effort to ensure Mennonites were able to continue to live within the

respective states and follow their belief systems. Generally the purposes were, firsdy to

create a more positive view of Mennonites as good and worthy subjects or citizens regardless

of their religious prohibition against military service (and avoid an anti-patriotic or anti

national label), and secondly, to lessen the negative sanctions incurred by being labeled

conscientious objectors (for example, having conscientious objectors work in camps rather

than being put in jail).

The process of Mennonite leaders engaging with state authorities was regular enough

to become a constituent element of a nation-based or citizen-based identity. Small groups of

Mennonite leaders made visits to political leaders in Russia, Ukraine and Canada.

Occasionally in Ukraine, just one leader, B.B. Janz, made the visits. In the first Conflict Site,

some of the issues that Mennonite leaders negotiated with political leaders included status as

a separate ethnic group, immigration provisions, land ownership and non-resistance. In the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 297

second Conflict Site, the primary issue was conscientious objection, and how to acquire the

status and identify appropriate sanctions or obligations. In Russia and Canada, Mennonite

leaders initially based their argument on privileges and exemptions negotiated with

government leaders during colonization but then shifted to a citizen rights-based argument.

The direct visits or written appeals were regular, repeated and aimed towards the highest

authority in the appropriate branch of government — from the President or Prime Minister

to judges and security officials. In Ukraine, Janz’ visits earned him a reputation of being a

thorn in the side of some officials. The repeated visits appeared to achieve concessions in

Russia, Ukraine and Canada. However, given the loss and shifting political order in Russia

and Ukraine, the efforts did not produce results with a long duration.

In Canada, Mennonites leaders also wrote letters to the press to increase public

awareness of Mennonite beliefs and counter negative views. Mennonite leaders were

obviously aware that public opinion was important. Some of the letters in the larger

circulation newspapers in western Canada strove to explain the Mennonite beliefs and

present a positive face on Mennonites and their contributions to and appreciation for

Canada. Others directly countered negative views promulgated in newspapers — sometimes

with a fairly high degree of indignation.

The interaction with government officials did not necessarily lead to one-way shifts

in categorization. The engagement also appeared to affect the self-categorization of

Mennonite leaders. For example, the Mennonite Dutch historical roots became a more

salient feature for Mennonite identification in both Russia and Canada. The shift in

emphasis was particularly clear in David Toews’ presentation of Mennonite history in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 298

western Canada during World War II. The shift from privileges to rights also occurred

within the interface, as did the linguistic shift in Canada.

Notably, Mennonite leaders did not mind some negative external sanction when it

played into a religiously inspired view of persecution for upholding values. At these points

in time, the negative sanctions reinforced a positive moral self-view of Mennonites and their

historical narrative, as a people who suffered for their beliefs. Erving Goffman (1963)

captured this dimension of Mennonites when he once referred to them as a group that was

not bothered by a stigmatic label.31 However, there were circumstances under which these

labels mattered, as these Conflict Sites illustrate, and survival was important.

Overall, the efforts to ameliorate the negative labels and views of Mennonites met

with some success. The labels Mennonite leaders tended to focus on were the official

government labels, which had direct and immediate consequences. The process involved

repeated visits and letters to public figures emphasizing features of the Mennonite

community and pursuing options for action. The public-oriented efforts in Canada during

World War II suggest that Mennonite leaders saw the need for engagement beyond political

officials to achieve a more positive image or to limit antagonism with their neighbors in

Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. The engagement produced changes not only in how

Mennonites were viewed externally, but also had a ripple affect on Mennonite’s identity

internally, within the community. These changes were not negotiated explicidy but rather a

31 Goffman wrote: ... it seems possible for an individual to fail to live up to what we effectively demand of him, and yet be relatively untouched by this failure; insulated by his own alienation, protected by identity beliefs of his own, he feels he is a full-fledged, normal human being, and that we are the ones who are not quite human. He bears the stigma but does not seem to be impressed or repentant about doing so. This possibility is celebrated in exemplary tales about Mennonites, Gypsies, shameless scoundrels, and very Orthodox Jews. (1963, 6)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 299

product of internal-external interactions and circumstances that elevated and catalyzed an

alteration in features of Mennonite identification.

Time horizons for change in conflict. A second sub-area that this research sheds

light upon is the time dimension of identity change processes during periods of conflict.

Research on the process of change has suggested that reiterating and use or disuse of

particular categories are part of the dynamic of change. For example, Hale suggests Geertz’s

(1973) notion of “thin” and “thick” levels of meaning can lead to an understanding of

changes in identification as “thickening” and “thinning” as categories acquire a lower or

higher level of meaning (2004, 468). Thickening of identification may have to do with

accessibility of the categories and fit to the current situation.32 The time it takes to change

or, to use Hale’s application of Geertz’s terms, to “thicken” or “thin” identification with

properties and categories of identity is less clear. There appears to be an assumption that

change is slow, although some like Strauss suggest that extreme circumstances may affect

more dramatic change (Strauss 1997). In this dissertation, rapid and slow changes around

categories of identity were apparent, and seemed to be deeply affected by the degree of

violence and social disorder or order. Rapid is used here to refer to changes that occurred

within the ten-year duration of a Conflict Site and persisted over time. Slow is used to refer

to changes that occurred over more than three decades.

The most striking instance of rapid change occurred during the first Conflict Site.

Attachment to place was a property of Mennonite identification that was put under

considerable stress and strain with the rivaling claims of political peoplehood in the Russian

32 A study of Scottish national identity suggested the terms reiteration, recapture, reinterpretation and repudiation to refer to the processes involved in identity construction and maintenance (Bond, McCrone, and Brown 2003).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 300

revolution. Territory and attachment to territory is often used to define an ethnic identity

group; conflicts over territory are often viewed as integrally tied to identity concerns (Agnew

1987; Herb and Kaplan 1999; Penrose 2002; Yiftachel 1999). Some globalization-influenced

literature argues that territory is not as important for identity groups and politics as it once

was (Mandaville 1999; Soguk and Whitehall 1999). However, land-related conflicts continue

to plague both international relations - which inherently rely upon territorial boundaries - as

well as intra-national relations and the ways that groups define self-determination. Land

continues to matter for both its material resources and emotional power (Penrose 2002). It

is unusual to see a rapid identity change around detachment from place.

The extreme circumstances around the detachment and the Mennonite historical

narrative resources made the alteration comprehendible. As noted there was a general sense

of rejection of Mennonites as loyal subjects or citizens, a context of disorder, violence, great

loss, and a moment where circumstances indicated that Mennonites acted in ways that were

antithetical to their categories of Mennonite group identification. Coupled with a lack of

hope for the future and the narrative history of a capacity to regenerate, a substantial portion

of the Mennonite population and leaders then looked for opportunities to move to a new

land. Many of those who emigrated were wistful about leaving their beloved land behind,

but they did not seek return, nor encourage future generations to think of such an event.

The move was final, as previous moves in Mennonite history had been.

The five factors identified above worked together to produce the shift. Strauss has

suggested that one critical point in identity comes when a member of a group realizes he has

been deceived generally by events, which may produce self-hate, or diffuse resentment

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 301

against the world. Strauss’ summation of the experience sounds similar to the experience of

antithesis that occurred for Mennonites during the Russian revolution. Strauss writes:

He is not what he thought he was. Self-classificatory disorientation, of course, can be mild. ...There is more anguish involved when a person finds that although he believed he possessed a comfortable dual identity ... significant others are now challenging one of these identities. ... This negation of a portion of identity may not provide much of a crisis if the person withdraws from his attackers, but if he stays...he must make his peace with the challenging audience. (1997, 101-102)

While Strauss did not explore this dynamic in-depth, it appears that antithetical moment in

Mennonite identity sped the process of detaching from place. Stuart Hall similarly talks of

ruptures and discontinuities in Caribbean cultural identity produced by history (Hall 1998).

Further comparative research can indicate when or if similar conditions and responses have

produced rapid changes in other group’s attachment to place.33

Disengaging from viewing the German language as a defining property of the

category of Mennonite religious identity provides an example of a slower paced identity

change process. The rate of change was sped along by the war context in Canada and

therefore likely more rapid than it would have been in “normal” conditions, although not as

swift as the change around land-based identification.34 Here the second wartime context and

negative social pressure was a cause for concern amongst Mennonite leaders, within a

generally secure political and economic environment, and one with political respect for

Mennonite conscientious objection. There was also precedent of declining German

language use amongst the previous groups of Mennonite immigrants and a historical

narrative that validated change. The actual decline in using German in practice occurred

33 The proliferation of literature on “identity crisis” that Erik Erikson sparked in the 1970s is focused on the individual level, but suggestive for understanding the experiences of individuals within the larger group dynamic. For example see Erickson (1968). 34 For example, Mennonites who live in settlements in Paraguay and Mexico have continued to use Low and Fligh German for community and home life.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 302

over a longer period of time, and was solidified only with the next generation of Mennonite

leaders, which fits more into models of immigrant assimilation over time (Alba and Nee

1997; Brubaker 2001b).

The rate of identity change with respect to the properties of language and place was

dramatically dissimilar. Interestingly, in both cases, all Mennonite constituents did not

immediately support the change, but there was a process of gradually building support for

the change; the process pace was brisk in the post-revolution context and slower in the

WWII situation. The reframed identity category did become a feature of Mennonite

identification over time, which fits Laitin’s tipping model (1998). There were also slower

changes in identity properties that were less easily examined, such as the fluctuations in the

content that comprised a property or over time (for example, the debate over what was

considered morally upright behavior). The move to a more active concept of reconciliation

within Mennonite identity, evident in the Mennonite response to the Young Chipeewayan

case and explored in chapter six, can be further noted as a slow, internally-led change

process that was catalyzed by external events.

The intensity of the external circumstances played a significant role, adding pressure

on the Mennonite community and their leaders in ways that could yield transformations.

However, in both cases the new options, particularly identity categories, were not entirely

new but rather were built upon older, historical narratives of Mennonite life. Some

properties or categories did build upon new modifiers, such as using the term citizen rather

than national subject. Nevertheless the historical narrative played a critical role in both

examples of change explored above. The following section delves into the limits or

constraints in the transformation process, and factors that promoted continuity.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 303

Limiting Change and Advancing Continuity

Numerous thinkers have theorized about the generative and limiting power of group

identity narratives. In 1959, Strauss wrote an account of continuity that emphasized

interpretation, and a subjective feeling of continuity established by interpreting events within

a particular framework; he argued, “The awareness of constancy in identity is, then, in the

eye of the beholder rather than ‘in’ the behavior itself’ (Strauss 1997, 149). In 1974 Peter

Berger emphasized the importance of placing identity within a historical context and limited

by what seemed to be trans-historical and cross-societal constants, such as a person’s

biological constitution or the “human condition” (166). Berger wrote, “Identity is grounded

in socialization. That socialization takes place within an institutional context, which has a

particular history. Thus, identity is finally grounded in history, has history or, if one prefers,

is a historical product” (1974, 165). This view of continuity as well as change in the symbolic

interaction approach suggested limits on the degree of transformation or the perception of

that transformation.

More recent scholars have continued to explore the notion of continuity in works on

the ethnic and national. Anthony Smith’s (1986) argument of the ancient ethnic roots of

modern national groups can also be interpreted in this vein of viewing contemporary

identities as historical product. Smith more recently has explored the “collective beliefs and

sentiments about the ‘sacred foundations’ of the nation” as providing the durability and

strength of national identities (Smith 2003a, 4). Craig Calhoun emphasizes the role that

culture plays in making persons, enabling access to each other and the rest of the world

through language, norms, beliefs and tacit understandings: “common culture not only

contributes to ‘groupness’, it contributes to the extent to which groups appear to their

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 304

members (and sometimes others) as natural and necessary rather than arbitrary and optional”

(Calhoun 2003, 559).35 Rogers Smith suggested that stories of peoplehood do not merely

serve interests but also help constitute the interests for leaders and constituents alike, or

rephrased, have a generative causality. Generative causality is used to denote the potential

narratives have to help create the conditions for the future, to make it “more probable, but

not inevitable, that the actor will do those things and less likely, though not impossible, that

the actor will do something else entirely” (2003c, 46-47). The suggested degree of

institutional and historical constraints on change forms part of the core arguments around

the causes and origins of nation, which as I note above, I do not explore in this

dissertation.36 What was explored more deeply in this dissertation were the properties and

categories of self-identification that had continuity over time, as well as some understanding

of how those identifications changed or remained the same during conflicts over time.

The content of the categories that continued over time was explored in chapter six.

The central argument, that there was continuity as well as subtle and more dramatic

transformation in the content of identity, supported the literature on identity, of which only

a part is cited above. This dissertation adds further depth to that literature with a detailed

analysis that contributes in three ways. First, identity continuity during periods of conflict

appeared to rely particularly on re-invigorating historical narratives. Secondly, which the

research hints at, was the importance of flexibility in the content of categories or the

interpretation of categories for continuity. Thirdly, institutional structures played a

35 A distinction between the definition of cultural and ethnic groups that this dissertation will also use is that ethnic group definitions rely on notions of shared lineage whereas cultural groups do not. 36 An area of study this dissertation does not delve into deeply is the intersection of the structures of the global political economy and identity, although economic questions are addressed in the discussion around economic stories. For further explorations of identity in this area see Manuel Castell’s (1997) The Power of Identity, or Carolyn Gallaher’s (2003) On the Vault Une.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 305

particularly key role in re-invigorating the historical narratives, as well as providing an

apparatus for maintaining communication that supported a common identity during periods

of conflict.

On the first point, it was evident that Mennonite history, and the components of that

history that leaders underscored, played an important generative role for the transformation

of categories of Mennonite identification. The historical roots appeared to especially matter

during internal Mennonite community debates. For example, in Site I, there were debates on

whether to remain non-resistant or engage in self-defense, whether to emigrate or stay. In

both cases there were critical arguments around what constituted the true origins and calling

of Mennonites as a historic (and chosen) people. In Site II, the debates around German

nationalism and Canadian patriotism again surfaced a return to the historical narrative as the

basis for both renouncing a German national identity and for embracing some degree of

change in Canada. In the third Conflict Site, the conflict as explored here centered on the

internal Mennonite community debate sparked by the Young Chipeewayan land claim, which

produced the debate on core tenets of Mennonite faith, wrapped in a narrative of again

being a specific type of historic, religious community. The internal debate on each issue was

effectively a review of the content of the history, the values seen as important therein, which

once surfaced then reinforced particular properties and categories for Mennonite

identification. However, within this process there were opportunities and seeds for change

as well as continuity; the opportunity to interpret in a slightly new way as well as to return to

a well-worn interpretation that fit the “eye of the beholder.”37

37 Berger also cogently said: The mandate of continuity is grounded in the fact that every society has a history, must have a history, since its impossible for one generation to construct in toto the world in which we live... In other words, identity (both as objectively assigned and as subjectively appropriated) not only locates the individual in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 306

Secondly, certain properties that emerged from the data appeared to be malleable

and therefore more easily applicable over time and may have played a role in continuity. The

example of Mennonites as positive contributors illustrates this feature. Mennonites adapted

the types of positive contributions they made to the state during times of war based in part

on what was needed and in part on what they could contribute — money, clothes, food,

labor. Here it is useful to build on another insight from Strauss, who suggested that

renaming an object embodies a change in its perceived value, and “amounts to a

reassessment of your relation to it” (Strauss 1997, 24). The interpretive flex that appeared to

be inherent in some properties may have prevented “renaming” and inhibited a larger

reassessment or change in the category.38 The flexibility to allow some change promoted

continuity.

Thirdly, institutional structures played an important role in supporting group

continuity, and group identity during periods of strife. Institutions provided a location and

apparatus for discussions, meetings, and other types of interaction that formed the bedrock

of communal life. The institutions included the pre-revolution, well-established civic and

religious institutions in Russia, the less established conference institutions in western Canada

before WWII, and the more firmly established conference institutions of the 1970s. Several

Mennonite institutions became stronger because of the roles they played during the conflict

periods; the Mennonite Central Committee formed in response to the crisis in Russia in the

1920s, organized war relief efforts and conscientious objector discussions in the US and

worked with sister organizations in Canada (which then amalgamated into Mennonite

Central Committee Canada). MCC-C and MCC-S continued to play a role in responding to

society but also in history. It links him to others so identified in the past and, usually in the future as well. (1974, 169-170) 38 This might fit Strauss’ notion of “mundane” changes, barely perceptible over time (1997, 95).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 307

various issues in Saskatchewan in the 1970s and ‘80s. When the revolutionary war fighting

was fierce in south Russia, those Mennonite institutions outside of the most affected areas

proffered recovery assistance as long as they could, and when their ability to assist ran out,

the external Mennonite community helped to restore the community physically, morally and

spiritually. The civic Mennonite institutions, which could have formed the basis for state-

building, were gradually dismantled as Mennonite leaders opted to keep the institutions in

Canada more closely tied to religious congregational structures. The multiple conference

bodies in western Canada harmonized activities during WWII. The institutions were

important for physical survival in times of serious crises, and for sustaining dialogue,

interaction and the debates that formed an important part of Mennonite community, and

their categories of identification as a people.

The words continuity and change, stasis and rupture, maintenance and

transformation all describe the double nature of identity in conflict. The short tide for this

dissertation “Barn Razing” was meant to capture this dual nature of change/continuity in

periods of conflict. Mennonites, long known for cooperatively raising barns, have also had

parts of their identity forged in periods of conflict and razing; Mennonite identity was forged

in and by fiery circumstances as well as in and by more gender and subde pressures (internal

and external to the community).

A Word About Identity and Conflict Transformation

An initial impetus for this research was the idea that the Mennonite experience might

offer new insights into identity change in conflict, which could lead to suggestions for how

to broach identity issues more purposively in conflict when those identifications fueled

deadly conflict. However, the conflicts this dissertation probed were not identity conflicts

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 308

per se. They involved significant identity issues and clashing demands of political

peoplehood that invoked dimensions of worth, religion, state and economy - or, in Smith’s

words, ethical, political and economic stories. The conflicts evoked identity issues and

provoked identity change, but not within a framework of dialogue or reconciliation

processes, which therefore limited the sagacity of this research for the field of conflict

transformation. With that caveat up front, there are a few relevant insights it is worthwhile

to draw out as it relates to that literature.

There is a curious tension in conflict transformation literature between viewing

identity as “non-negotiable” (Gurr 1994, 365) and looking for ways to negotiate solutions to

identity-based conflicts (Fisher 1990; Horowitz 1985; Kelman 1997; Kriesberg, Northrup,

and Thorson 1989; Rothman 1997; Stein 1996). It is a tension between considering

identities as fixed and “essential” or flexible and a resource to work with and change within

conflict dynamics. There are embedded assumptions that certain core identity needs will not

change (Burton 1990), but the ways they are constructed or the ways groups protect the

boundaries of their identities can be altered. This research suggests that outside actors

entering into purposive identity change comes with perils, pitfalls and potential counter

productivity, to which interveners should be alert. This dissertation research suggests that

external circumstances — in this case, mosdy negative external circumstances — could catalyze

change. However, for the change to be meaningful to the group and incorporated over time

into the way the group saw themselves, it had to be an internally-led process that fit within

the group’s historical narrative, and met the group’s current needs of the situation.39 Identity

changes are happening all the time, even dramatic identity change in times of antithesis and

39 Approaches to conflict transformation that work to draw on intra-communal processes and cultural resources appear to be working within this framework of understanding; see for example Mohammed Abu- Nimer (2001), Kevin Avruch (1998) and Mitchell Hamm er (2002).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 309

rupture, but there is also a restraining continuity, in which institutions play an important role.

Finally, this case also provides a tantalizing example of minority engagement in times

of intense conflict. It is often argued - and for good reason — that in-group cohesion

increases during times of conflict (Coser 1956; Sherif and Sherif 1953). It is also suggested

that inter-group conflict leads to out-group derogation, bias and competition — although this

is affected by circumstances (Brewer 1999; Forsyth 1990; Sherif and Sherif 1953). In this

dissertation there was evidence of increased cohesion and out-group derogation. There was

also, more importantly, intensive engagement with the out-group and political authorities as

well as well as neighbors, through a variety of media. This outreach, which was primarily

aimed at government officials in Russia, gradually expanded to reach more variegated groups

in western Canada, including the Young Chipeewayan who were more directly the ‘other’ in

the land claim conflict for residents at Laird. The outreach appeared to be a critical feature

for minority group survival in the first two Sites. In the end, it was not the guns that

Mennonites picked up in Russia to defend their property that sustained them over time, one

could argue it was the critical representative work that B.B. Janz and others did to open the

doors to emigrate. The ongoing work to represent Mennonites to government officials as

well as to their neighbors was an effort to ensure stigmatic labels and their associated

negative impacts were limited, and their worth was valued. Engagement was an important

element of survival; it was a reaching out, while simultaneously still reaching in to maintain

community.

Summary

This chapter reviewed identity literature, mapping the terrain to locate this research

within and identify its contributions. Three identity debates that this research does not

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 310

address were identified. It was also noted that this dissertation utilized a historical grounded

theory approach to ascertain both the content of Mennonite identity, and examine the

processes of change and continuity over time — balancing what are often called constructivist

and essentials elements in the tradition of symbolic interactionism.

Rogers Smith’s concept of persuasive stories was used as the backdrop against which

the content of the categories of Mennonite identity were studied to identify contributions to

the concept of political peoplehood. The concepts of ethnic and national identity were also

utilized to enrich the discussion. The Mennonite example suggested that Smith’s formula

for worth and trust needed to be broadened from its focus on leaders gaining the trust of

followers. Mennonites worked at conveying their narrative of worth as a group to political

leaders in Ukraine, Russia and Canada during times of contestation. Conflicts helped

reproduce a narrative of worth. The categories of Mennonite identity enriched the concept

of economic stories, suggesting that prosperity was important for presenting group worth

but not necessarily for the group itself. The political power stories highlighted the tension in

Mennonite identity over their collective relationship to the state, which was captured in both

national and civic terms. The Mennonite example reinforced Smith’s concept of ethical

stories, including the notions of chosen-ness and the possibility of religious identity

ameliorating the more negative (invidious) potential of groups.

The analysis then moved to explore processes of continuity and change, or

maintenance and transformation. The research findings, that external factors were

important for catalyzing change but change processes needed to be internally led in order to

become constituent categories of identity, supported previous identity research in sociology.

The dissertation contributed a distinctive approach that permitted the group to explore these

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 311

dynamics over a considerable period of time for one identity group. The detailed

examination enhanced understanding of two sub-processes of change. One was the dynamic

of Mennonite leaders working to reduce negative identity labels, and promote group worth,

within the larger political context where and when their identity was contested. This

featured a process of Mennonites reaching outside of their in-group to the out-group. It was

also noted that Mennonites did not mind stigmatic labels when they reinforced their self-

concept of suffering for their beliefs. The second sub-process examined was time horizons

for change. More extreme violence and disorder appeared to contribute to a more rapid

pace of identity change, provided the change was viewed as internally driven. For example,

the detachment from place occurred fairly rapidly; the change occurred with a potent mix of

general rejection of Mennonites, disorder, violence and loss, an antithetical moment for

identity, a lack of hope for the future and a historical narrative of the capacity to regenerate.

The disengagement from the German language was slower, although catalyzed by external

circumstances, and occurred within a generally context of order.

Three final contributions with respect to continuity limiting change were

summarized before a short discussion on identity and conflict transformation. Firstly, this

dissertation provided a close look at the critical role that pre-existing concepts about

Mennonite identity played in helping to respond to new situations, particularly those

concepts that were embedded within the historical narrative. Change, in the Mennonite

experience, was constrained by the continuity of historical categories. Secondly, the minor

flux within categories and adaptability of properties to the context enhanced continuity over

time. The flux allowed Mennonite categories of identity to persist across different times and

circumstances between 1914 and 1987. In this way, processes of change enhanced

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 312

continuity. Thirdly, institutional structures, and the internal engagement and dialogue they

facilitated, were integral for ensuring physical survival and a common group identity over

time and place. Institutions and engagement provided the structural and procedural glue for

Mennonite identity, which became more solidified during periods of conflict.

To understand identity change and continuity this dissertation put a small political

people under the microscope. The Mennonites studied in this dissertation lived on the edge

of major historical events. They lived as a community with competing affiliation demands

that came to the fore in these large-scale events, as well as the localized land-conflict in

Saskatchewan. This third Conflict Site had not been fully documented in prior to this

study.40 Looking at these conflicts over time opened a small window of insight into the

dynamic process of attaching and detaching from territory. While this window is not at the

center point of the dissertation, the insights were nevertheless intriguing given the weighty

role that territory plays in ethnic and national conflicts. The larger window of insight

focused on the internal-external interaction of identity maintenance and transformation.

The fine-grained study, over ten-year blocks of time, created a sharp image of the integrated

nature of change and continuity in Mennonite identity during periods of conflict. Barn-

razing, or external contestation, was an important catalyst for barn- raising, or an internally-

led change process that built upon the well-worn narratives of past. Change was affected by

the intensity of experiences as well as the internal engagement process. These insights

advance our understanding of Mennonites and political peoplehood.

40 There have been some newspaper articles and short journal articles on the subject, which are cited in chapter five. These have not put the full sets of event together nor explored the themes of Mennonite identification therein.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. REFERENCES

A.K. 1938. Wie man ueber Russland und Deutschland urteilt. Der Bote, 29 June, 1-2.

Abrams, Dominic, and Michael A. Hogg, eds. 1999. Social identity and social cognition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Abu-Nimer, Mohammed. 2001. A framework for nonviolence and peacebuilding in Islam. Journal of Taw and Religion 15 (l-2):217-265.

Agenda of the mini-conference on the future of the Conference owned Mennonite Youth Farm lands and Draft Proposal. 1983. MCC Native Concerns Fonds, 3296, Mennonite Historical Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

Agnew, John. 1987. Place and politics. Boston, MA: Allen & Unwin, Inc.

------. 1989. Beyond reason: Spatial and temporal sources of ethnic conflicts. In Intractable Conflicts and Their Transformation, edited by L. Kriesberg, T. A. Northrup and S. J. Thorson. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Ahenakew, Alex. 1987a. Letter from Shell Lake to David Neufeld, Saskatoon, 3 June. Edgar Epp Files, MCC-S Archives, Saskatoon, SK.

------. 1987b. Letter from Shell Lake to Edgar Epp, Saskatoon, 6 April. Edgar Epp Files, MCC-S Archives, Saskatoon, SK.

Ainlay, Stephen, and Fred Kniss. 1998. Mennonites and conflict: Re-examining Mennonite history and contemporary life. The Mennonite Quarterly Review 72 (2):121-139.

Alba, Richard, and Victor Nee. 1997. Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration. International Migration Review 31 (4):826-874.

All-Mennonite Congress. 1917. Minutes of the All-Mennonite Congress, 14-18 August. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents , edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpubhshed. Original edition, Christian Press.

Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

313

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 314

Selected documents., edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Christian Press.

Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism. 2nd ed. New York: Verso.

Appleby, R. Scott. 2000. The ambivalence of the sacred: Religion, violence, and reconciliation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Armstrong, John A. 1982. Nations before nationalism. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

------. 1990. Ukrainian nationalism. Englewood, CO: Ukrainian Academic Press.

Avmch, Kevin. 1998. Culture and conflict resolution. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Baerg, Anna. 1985. Diary of Anna Baerg 1916-1924. Translated by G. Peters. Edited by G. Peters. Winnipeg, MB: CMBC Publications.

Baerg, P. 1922. Letter to B.B. Janz, 1 July. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents, edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Christian Press.

Balzar, Irma. 1985. A blurb on the Nov. 8 & 9 meeting. Tiefengrund "In Touch”, 34-5.

Bargen, Peter F. 1960. Mennonite land settlement policies. Mennonite Life, 187-190.

Barkman, Ed. 1987. Letter from Saskatoon to Alex Ahenakew, Shell Lake, 5 May. MCC-S Archives, Saskatoon, SK.

Barron, F. Laurie. 1984. A summary of Federal Indian policy in the Canadian West. Native Studies Review 1 (l):28-39.

Bartel, Robert. 1991. MCCS study discerning involvement with Native People. Saskatoon, SK: Mennonite Central Committee Saskatchewan.

Barth, Fredrik, ed. 1998. Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organisation of cultural difference. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Bearinger, N.M. 1940. Committee on Military Problems, minutes, 5 November. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1320, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

Bender, Harold S. 1939. Church and state in Mennonite history. The Mennonite Quarterly Review 13 (2):83-103.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 315

Bender, Harold S., and C. Henry Smith, eds. 1955. The Mennonite entylcopedia: A comprehensive reference work on the Anahaptist-Mennonite movement. 1969 ed. V vols. Vol. I. Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House.

Berg, Bruce L. 1998. Qualitative research methods for the Social Sciences. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Berg, Wesley. 1999. Bearing arms for the Tsar: The songs of the Germans in Russia. Journal of Mennonite Studies 17:178-193.

Berger, Peter L. 1974. Modern identity: Crisis and continuity. In The cultural drama: Modem identities and socialferment, edited by W. S. Dillon. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The social constmction of reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Blase, Joseph J. 1986. Socialization as humanization: One side of becoming a teacher. Sociology of Education 59 (2):100-113.

Blumer, Herbert. 1962. Society as symbolic interaction. In Human Behaviour and Social Processes, edited by A. M. Rose. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

------. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bohn, Ernest J. 1941. Report of the Peace Committee 1938-1941. In Official Minutes and Reports of the Twenty-Ninth Session of the General Conference of the Mennonite Church ofN M ., edited by C. E. Krehbiel. Newton, KS: General Conference of the Mennonite Church of North America.

Boldt, Garry, Howard Boldt, and Leonard Doell. 1985. Proposal to the Youth Farm Board re: Future possible use of Youth Farm land, Warman, 6 March. Leonard Doell Files, MCC-S, Saskatoon, SK.

Bond, Ross, David McCrone, and Alice Brown. 2003. National identity and economic development: Reiteration, recapture, reinterpretation and repudiation. Nations and Nationalism 9 (3):371 -391.

Bondar, C.D. 1983. Mennonite sect in Russia: In connection with the history of the German colonisation in Southern Russia. Translated by J. Rempel, Ekaterinskij Kan. No. 45. Petrograd: W.D. Smirnow Press. Original edition, 1916.

Boys at Seebe. 1943. Open letter from Seebe to B.B. Janz, Coaldale, 17 June. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1321, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 316

Btaun, H.J. 1922. Letter from Halbstadt to Levi Mumaw, Scottdale, 22 March. Russian Relief Collection, Levi Mumaw General Correspondence, Mennonite Church Archives, Goshen, IN.

Braun, P. 2000. A few thoughts on the emigration question. Mennonite Historian XXVI (4):1- 2 ,7 .

Braun, Peter. 1929. The educational system of the Mennonites in South Russia. The Mennonite Quarterly Review 3 (3): 169-182.

Breuilly, John. 1985. Nationalism and the state. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

------. 1996. Approaches to nationalism. In Mapping the Nation, edited by G. Balakrishnan. London: Verso.

Brewer, Marilynn B. 1999. The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues 55 (3):429-444.

Brewer, Marilynn B., and Rupert J. Brown. 1998. Intergroup relations. In The Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske and G. Lindzey. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Brubaker, Rogers. 1992. Citizenship and nationhood in Trance and Germany. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

------. 2001a. Cognitive perspectives. Ethnic and Racial Studies 11:15-17.

------. 2001b. The return to assimilation? Changing perspectives on immigration and its sequels in France, Germany, and the United States. Ethnic and Racial Studies 24 (4):531-548.

Brubaker, Rogers, and Frederick Cooper. 2000. Beyond "identity". Theory and Society 29:1-47.

Burnet, Jean R., and Howard Palmer. 1988. " Coming Canadians:" A n introduction to a history of Canada's peoples. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart Inc. in association with the Multiculturalism Directorate.

Burton, John, ed. 1990. Conflict: Human needs theory, The Conflict Series. New York: St. Martin's Press, Inc.

Bush, Perry. 1998. Two kingdoms, two loyalties: Mennonite pacifism in modem America. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bush, U.S. President George W. 2005. President convenes Homeland Security Advisory Council: Remarks by the President at meeting of the Homeland Security Advisory Council [Press

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 317

Release]. The White House, June 12, 2002 2002 [cited August 25 2005]. Available from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020612-3.html.

Calhoun, Craig. 2003. The variability of belonging: A reply to Rogers Brubaker. Ethnicities 3:558-568.

Canada. 1897. Order in Council Privy Council. National Archives of Canada, 1155.

Canadian confederation: Provinces and Territories 2004. [www]. National Library of Canada 2002 [cited Febuary 20 2004], Available from http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/2/18/hl8-2215- e.html.

Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization. 1934. Minutes of the Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization, 11 October. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1389, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

------. 1935. Minutes of the Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization, 16-17 October. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1389, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

------. 1937. Minutes of the Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization annual meeting, 13 and 19 October. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1389, Mennonite Historical Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

Cardinal, Harold. 1969. The unjust society. Edmonton, AB: Hurtig.

Castells, Manuel. 1997. The power of identity. Ill vols. Vol. II, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Classen, D. 1923. Letter from Halbstadt to C.E.Krehbiehl, 1 January. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents, edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Christian Press.

Coffman, S.F. 1939. Letter from Vineland to David Toews, Rosthern, 4 September. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1322, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

1994. Indian Claims Commission. Commission releases report on the inquiry into the Young Chipeewayan specific claim. 19 December.

Conference of Historic Peace Churches. 1941. Minutes of the 5 th Session of the Conference of Historic Peace Churches. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1320, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

Conquest, Robert. 1986. The harvest of sorrow: Soviet collectivisation and the terror famine. New York: Oxford University Press.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 318

------. 1990. The Great Terror - a reassessment. New York: Oxford University Press.

Conrad, Margaret, and Alvin Finkel. 2003. Canada: A. national history. Toronto: Longman.

Contact: Making the Canadian West 2004. [electronic]. National Archives of Canada [cited 20 February 2004]. Available from http: / / www.archives.ca/05/0529/052902/05290201_e.html.

Corcoran, Carole T., Daniel Bellegarde, and James Prentice. 1994. The Young Chipeewayan Inquiry into the Claim Regarding Stoney Knoll Indian Reserve No. 107. Ottawa, ON: Indian Claims Commission.

Cornies, P. 1922. Concerning the situation, 17 June. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents , edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Christian Press.

Correll, Ernst. 1937. Mennonite immigration into Manitoba, Canada: Sources and documents (1872, 1873). Mennonite Quarterly Review July and August:3-51.

Coser, Lewis. 1956. The functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press.

Country studies: Roland 2003. Library of Congress 1992 [cited March 26 2003]. Available from http://lcweb2.1oc.gov/.

Crombie, David. 1985. Letter from Ottawa to Mr. Edgar Epp, Saskatoon, 23 December. Edgar Epp Collection, MCC-S Archives, Saskatoon, SK.

Derksen, Wilma. 1985. Chippewayans pressing for claims to Mennonite land. Mennonite Reporter, 25 November, 1.

Deutsches General-Konsulat. 1937a. Ueber die Erfassung der deinstpflichtigen deutschen Staatsangehoerigen. Der Bote, 23 June, 4-5.

------. 1937b. Ueber die Erfassung der wehrpflichtigen deutschen Staatsangehoerigen und ueber die Einstellung von Freiwilligen. Der Bote, 14 June, 4-5.

Dey, Ian. 1999. Grounding grounded theory: Guidelines for qualitative inquiry. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Dickason, Olive P. 1992. Canada's First Nations: A history offoundingpeoples from earliest times. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.

Doell, Leonard. 1977a. History of the Mennonites and Natives in the last one hundred years. Saskatoon, SK: Native Ministries, Mennonite Central Committee Canada.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 319

------. 1977b. Letter from Warman to John Funk, Winnipeg, 8 September. MCC Native Concerns Fonds, 2163, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

------. 1979a. Letter from Warman to Ike Froese, Winnipeg, 12 February. MCC Native Concerns Fonds, 2164, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

------. 1979b. Letter from Warman to Ike Froese, Winnipeg, 19 January. MCC Native Concerns Fonds, 2164, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

------. 1984a. Letter from Warman to David Crombie, Ottawa, 25 September. Leonard Doell Files, MCC-S, Saskatoon, SK.

------. 1984b. The Young Chippewayan Indian Reserve #107. Saskatoon, SK.

------. 1984c. The Young Chippewayan Indian Reserve #107. The Saskatchewan Valley News, 8 Novem ber.

------. 1984 - 1992. Personal research notebook. Leonard Doell Files, MCC-S, Saskatoon, SK.

------. 1985a. Call to support Indian land claims in Saskatchewan. Mennonite Reporter, 7 January, 4.

------. 1985b. Meeting notes, 29 March. Leonard Doell Files, MCC-S, Saskatoon, SK.

------. n.d. Breakdown of Young Chippewayan residents' church affiliation. Leonard Doell Files, MCC-S, Saskatoon, SK.

Doyle, Mike. 1978. Ahenakew urges Indians to begin confrontations. Star-Thoenix, 21 April.

Driedger, Florence. 1981a. Education Co-ordinator report:l April - 30 June. Conference of Mennonites in Canada - Native Ministries, 4035, Mennonite Heritage Center Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

------. 1981b. Notes as background for discussion: Florence Driedger to Reference Council Native Awareness in Saskatchewan. Conference of Mennonites in Canada - Native Ministries, 4035, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

Driedger, Irwin, John R. Peters, Jim Ewert, John R. Dyck, and Harvey Unger. 1985. Letter from Mennonite Youth Farm Task Force, Saskatoon, to CoMoS congregations, Saskatchewan, 15 December. 4034, Mennonite Historical Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

Driedger, Leo. 1970. Louis Riel and the Mennonite invasion. The Canadian Mennonite, 28 August, 6.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 320

Driedger, Leo, and Jacob Peters. 1973. Ethnic identity: A comparison of Mennonite and other German students. The Mennonite Quarterly Review 47 (3):225-244.

Dueck, Abe J. 1989. Mennonite churches and religious developments in Russia, 1850-1914. In Mennonites in Russia, 1788-1988: Essays in Honour of Gerhard Jjihreny edited by J. Friesen. Winnipeg, MB: CMBC Publications.

------. 1995. Mennonites, the Russian state and the crisis of Brethren and old church relations in Russia, 1910-1918. The Mennonite Quarterly Review 69 (4):453-485.

------. 1997. Moving beyond secession: Defining Russian Mennonite Brethren mission and identity 1872-1922. Winnipeg, MB: Kindred Productions.

------, ed. 1994. Canadian Mennonites and the challenges of nationalism. Winnipeg, MB: Manitoba Mennonite Historical Society.

Dyck, Cornelius, ed. 1967. A n introduction to Mennonite histoy. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.

Dyck, Cornelius J., ed. 1993. A n introduction to Mennonite history. 3rd ed. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.

Dyck, Harvey L. 1969. Collectivization, depression, and immigration, 1929-1930: A chance interplay. In Empire and Nations: Essays in honour of Frederic H. Soward, edited by H. L. Dyck and H. P. Krosby. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

------. 1982. Russian Mennonitism and the challenge of Russian nationalism, 1889. The Mennonite Quarterly Review 56 (4):307-341.

------. 1984. Agronomists Gravel's biography of Johann Cornies (1789-1848). journal of Mennonite Studies 2:29-41.

Dyck, Harvey L., John R. Staples, and John B. Toews. 2004. Nestor Makhno and the Eichenfeld massacre. Kitchener, ON: Pandora Press.

Dyck, Harvey L., and Aleksandr S. Tedeev, eds. 2001. Mennonites in Southern Ukraine, 1789- 1941: A guide to holdings and microfilmed documents from the State Archive of the Zaporofire Region. Edited by H. L. Dyck and J. R. Staples. Toronto: Center for Russian and East European Studies, University of Toronto.

Dyck, Peter, and Elfrieda Dyck. 1991. Up from the rubble. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.

Dyck, Sarah, ed. 1997. The silence echoes: Memoirs of trauma and tears. Kitchener, ON: Pandora Press and Herald Press.

Eagleton, Clyde. 1942. "Friendly aliens". American Journal ofInternational Taw 36 (4):661-663.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 321

Ein Aufforderung. 1939. Die Rundschau, Sept. 20, 1.

Emerson, Robert M. 1981. Observational field work. Annual Review of Sociology 7:351 -378.

Enns, F.F. 1928. Gemeindearbeiter. Jahrbuch, 30-39.

Enns, FI.FL, Jac. Rempel,J.H. Rempel, Joh. Schroeder, Peter Epp, Jac. Lorenz, J. Friesen, Johann Driedger, and Gerhard Doerksen. 1923. Distress call of the Mennonite emigrants in the Ukraine, Kharkov, 21 December. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents, edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Christian Press.

Ens, Adolf. 1989. Mennonite education in Russia. In Mennonites in Russia, 1788-1988: Essays in Honour of Gerhard Eohren^, edited by J. Friesen. Winnipeg, MB: CMBC Publications.

------. 1994a. Becoming British citizens in pre-WW I Canada. In Canadian Mennonites and the Challenges of Nationalism, edited by A. J. Dueck. Winnipeg, MB: Manitoba Mennonite Historical Society.

------. 1994b. Subjects or citizens? The Mennonite experience in Canada, 1870-1925. Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press.

Ens, F., J. Klassen, and others. 1922. Memorandum on the question of the emigration of the Russian Mennonites, Chortitza, July. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents, edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Christian Press.

Epp, D.H. 1909. Johann Comies: Ziige aus seinem Eeben und Wirken. Ekaterinoslav.

------. 1910. Die Memriker Ansiedlung: Zum 25-jahrigen Bestehen derselben im Herbst 1910. Berdjansk.

------. 1914. Stadt und Landchronik. Botschafter, 22 July, 3.

------. 1934. Memorandum: Cultural work of the Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization, 14 November. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1389, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

------. 1935. Committee for Cultural Work - Minutes of meeting of the Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization, 5-6 July. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1389, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

Epp, Edgar W. 1985. Letter from Saskatoon to the Hon. David Crombie, Ottawa, 18 October. Edgar Epp Files, MCC-S Archives, Saskatoon, SK.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 322

------. 1986a. Letter from Saskatoon to Dogan D. Akman, Counsel, Ottawa, 27 March. Edgar Epp Files, MCC-S Archives, Saskatoon, SK.

Epp, Frank H. 1962. Mennonite exodus: The rescue and resettlement of the Russian Mennonites since the Communist Revolution. Altona, MB: D.W. Friesen & Sons Ltd.

------. 1974. Mennonites in Canada, 1786-1920: The history of a separate people. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada.

------. 1982. Mennonites in Canada, 1920-1940: A. people's struggle for survival. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada.

Epp, Frank Henry. 1965. An analysis of Germanism and National Socialism in the immigrant newspaper of a Canadian minority group the Mennonites, in the 1930s. PhD Dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota.

Epp, G.K. 1989a. Mennonite-Ukrainian relations (1789-1945). Journal of Mennonite Studies 7:131-144.

Epp, George K. 1986b. Russian patriotism among the nineteenth-century Russian Mennonites. Journal of Mennonite Studies 4:120-142.

------. 1989b. Urban Mennonites in Russia. In Mennonites in Russia, 1788-1988: Essays in Honour of Gerhard Eohrens^ edited byj. Friesen. Winnipeg, MB: CMBC Publications.

Epp, Marlene. 1987. Women in Canadian Mennonite history: Uncovering the underside. Journal of Mennonite Studies 5:90-107.

------. 1998. Moving forward, looking backward: The 'Great Trek' from the Soviet Union, 1943-45. Journal of Mennonite Studies 16:59-75.

------. 2000. Women without men: Mennonite refugees of the Second World War. Toronto: Univeristy of Toronto Press.

Epp-Tiessen, Esther. 2001././. Thiessen: A leader for his time. Winnipeg, MB: CMBC Publications.

Erikson, Erik. 1968. Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

Ewert, Benjamin, J.G. Toews, P.S. Wiebe, Jacob Epp, J.T. Wiebe, D.D. Klassen, J.W. Reimer, P.W. Friesen, P.A. Rempel, John f. Nickel, A.A. Regier, J.H. Klassen, W.H. Falk, H.R. Dueck, Jacob J. Loewen, C.N. Hiebert, F.F. Isaak, P.P. Reimer, P.J.B. Reimer, D.P. Friesen, Jacob Pankratz, B.P. Janz, H.S. Voth, H.R. Reimer, John P. Bueckert, Wm. S. Buhr, David Schulz, J.N. Hoeppner, Peter A. Toews, J.J. Siemens, J.P. Klassen, and J.H. Enns. 1938. Letter from Winnipeg to the Right Honorable

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 323

Neville Chamberlain, London, 10 October. XV-31.2, Conrad Grebel College Archives, Waterloo, ON.

Fisher, R.J. 1997. Interactive conflict resolution. New York: Syracuse University Press.

Fisher, Ronald J. 1990. Needs theory, social identity, and conflict. In Conflict: Human Needs Theory, edited by J. Burton. London: St. Martin's Press.

Fiske, Susan T. 1993. Social cognition and social perception. Annual Review of Psychology! 44:155-194.

------. 1998. Stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination. In The Handbook of Social Psycholog)!, edited by D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske and G. Lindzey. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fitzpatrick, Sheila. 1994.The Russian Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Forsyth, Donelson R. 1990. Group dynamics. 2nd ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Fox, Jonathan. 2004. The rise of ethnic nationalism and conflict: Ethnic conflict and revolutionary wars, 1945-2001. Journal of Peace Research 41 (6): 715-731.

Francis, E.K. 1948. The Russian Mennonites from religious to ethnic group. The American Journal of Sociology 54 (2):101-107.

------. 1955. In search of utopia: the Mennonites in Manitoba. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

Fretz, Winfield. 1944. Recent Mennonite community building in Canada. The Mennonite Quarterly Review 18 (1):5-21.

Friesen, A. 1914. Unsere Mennoniten als Sanitare. Friedensstimme, 8.

Friesen, Abraham. 2001a. Readers response: Wrong author attributed to 'Some thoughts on emigration'. Mennonite Historian 27 (2).

Friesen, Allan. 1993. The Tiefengrund story. Tiefengrund "In Touch", 3.

Friesen, Gerald. 1984. The Canadian prairies: A history. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.

Friesen, Leonhard. 1988. Mennonites in Russia and the revolution of 1905: Experiences, perceptions and responses. Mennonite Quarterly Review 62:42-55.

Friesen, Peter M. 1911. Die alt-evangelische mennonitische Bruderschaft in Russland (1789-1910) im Rahmen der mennonitischen Gesamtgeschichte. Halbstadt: Raduga.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 324

------. 1978. The Mennonite brotherhood in Russia (1789-1910). Translated by J. B. Toews, A. Friesen, P. J. Klassen and H. Loewen. Fresno, CA: Board of Christian Literature General Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches. Original edition, Flalbstadt: Raduga, 1911.

------. 1997. Konfession oder Sekte? Der Gemeinsame Konvent in Schonwiese am 7. Marz und die Kom m ission in Halbstadt am 11. u. 12. April 1914. In Moving Bejond Secession: defining Russian Mennonite Brethren mission and identity 1872-1922, edited by A. J. Dueck. Winnipeg, MB: Kindred Productions. Original edition, Raduga, 1914.

Friesen, Rudy P. 1986. Into the past: Buildings of the Mennonite commonwealth. Winnipeg, MB: Raduga Publications.

------. 1999. Places of worship in the Russian Mennonite commonwealth: Expressions of conformity, contradiction and change. The Mennonite Quarterly Review 73 (2):257-285.

Friesen, Victor Carl. 2001b. Where the river runs: Stories of the Saskatchewan and the people drawn to its shores. Calgary, AB: Fifth House Ltd.

Froese, Isaac. 1977. Research proposal for Leonard Doell. MCC Native Concerns Fonds, 2163, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

------. 1978. Letter from Winnipeg to Lawrence H. Hart, 7 April. MCC Native Concerns Fonds, 2164, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

------. 1979a. Letter from Winnipeg to J. Neufeldt, Laird, 22 June. MCC Native Concerns Fonds, 2164, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

------. 1979b. Letter from Winnipeg to Leonard Doell, Warman, 15 March. MCC Native Concerns Fonds, 2163, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

From the time of the governing of the assemblies, anarchists and Bolsheviks. 1918. 1/ oik freund, 8 June, 7.

Funk, John. 1984. Letter from Winnipeg to L. Doell, Warman, 24 May. Leonard Doell Files, MCC-S, Saskatoon, SK.

Funk, Ray. 1992. Letter from Prince Albert to Whom it may concern, 22 April, copy in personal files, Prince Albert, SK.

Fur das Vaterland. 1914. Friedensstimme.

Gallaher, Carolyn. 2003. On the fault line: Race, class, and the American Ratriot Movement. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 325

Geertz, Clifford. 1963. The integrative revolution: Primordial sentiments and civil politics in the new states. In Old Societies and New States: The questfor modernity in Asia and Africa, edited by C. Geertz. New York: Free Press.

------. 1973. The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.

Gellner, Ernest. 1983. Nations and nationalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

------. 1999. Adam's navel: 'Primoridalists' versus 'modernists'. In People, Nation and State: the meaning of ethnicity and nationalism, edited by E. Mortimer and R. Fine. New York: I.B. Tauris Publishers.

General Conference News Service. 1979. Mennonite-Native 'Peace Talk' draws 200 in Saskatchewan. Mennonite Weekly Review, 22 March.

General Conference of the Mennonite Church in Russia. 1917. Minutes of the General Conference of the Mennonite Church in Russia, 6, 7 and 8 June. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents, edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Christian Press.

General United Mennonite Conference. 1918. Lichtenau Conference, 30 June, 1 and 2 July. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents, edited byj. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Christian Press.

------. 1925. Minutes of the United Conference of the Mennonite Churches of Russia, 13- 18 January. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents, edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Christian Press.

Gerbrandt, Jacob. 1941. Drake pastor answers Canadian Corps report: Gerbrandt refers to interference with Bible School as “disgraceful manifestations of intolerance and mob spirit” . Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, 14 April.

Glaser, Barney. 1978. Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociological Press.

Glaser, Barney G. 1992. Basics of Grounded Theoty analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.

Goerz, A. 1907. Ein Beitrag %ur Geschite des Torstdienstes derMennoniten in Russland. Gross Tokmak.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 326

Goerz, Heinrich. 1993. The Molotschna settlement. Translated by A. Reimer andj. B. Toews. Edited by V. G. Doerksen, Echo Historical Series. Winnipeg, MB: CMBC Publications and the Manitoba Mennonite Historical Society. Original edition, 1951.

Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Government of Saskatchewan. 2002. About Saskatchewan [webpage] 2002a [cited 25 September 2002]. Available from http://www.gov.sk.ca/aboutsask/.

------. 2002. Municipality ofEaird [webpage] 2002b [cited 25 September 2002]. Available from http: / / www.municipal.gov.sk.ca/municipalities/rmnumber.asp?number=:404&Go= Go.

Granow, Dr. 1937. Die Erfassung der deinstpflichtigen deutschen Staatsangehoerigen. Der Bote, June 23, 4-5.

Graves, Warren. 1979. Perspective: An exploration for three readers. MCC Native Concerns Fonds, 2164, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

Greenfeld, Liah. 1992. Nationalism: Fire paths to modernity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Griffin, Jim. 1986. Re: The Chipeewayan Band and Stony Knoll Indian Reserve No. 107. Edgar Epp Collection, MCC-S Archives, Saskatoon, SK, Jan. 29.

Gurr, Ted Robert. 1993. Minorities at risk: A global view of ethnopolitical conflicts. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.

------. 1994. Peoples against states: Ethnopolitical conflict and the changing world system. International Studies Quarterly 38:347-377.

Hague-Osier Reserve Book Committee, ed. 1995. Hague-0slerMennonite Reserve 1895-1995. Saskatoon, SK: Hague-Osier Reserve Book Committee.

Halbstadter Volost. 1918. Volksfreund.

Hale, Henry E. 2004. Explaining ethnicity. Comparative Political Studies 37 (4):458-485.

Hall, Stuart. 1998. Cultural identity and diaspora. In Identity: community, culture, difference, edited by J. Rutherford. London, UK: Lawrence and Wishart Limited.

Hammer, Mitchell R., and Randall Gage Rogan. 2002. Latino and Indochinese interpretive frames in negotiating conflict with law enforcement: A focus group analysis. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations 26 (5):551-575.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 327

Harder, A. 1922. Report concerning the economic condition of the village of Kleefeld, Molotschna, 26 July. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents, edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Trans. W. Regehr, Unpublished.

Harder, Helmut. 2002. David Toews was here: 1870-1947. Winnipeg, MB: CMBC Publications.

Hawthorne, H.B., ed. 1966. A survey of the contemporary Indians of Canada: Economic, political, educational needs and policies. 2 vols. Ottawa, ON: Indian Affairs.

Heese, Heinrich. 1848. The Chorlfan Mennonite District. Translated by E. Wise. Germans from Russia Heritage Collection, Vol. 1691, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND.

Herb, Guntram H., and David H. Kaplan, eds. 1999. Nested identities: Nationalism, territory and scale. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Hiebert, P.C., and Orie O. Miller. 1929. Feeding the hungry: Russia famine 1919-1925. Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Central Committee.

Highlights of the Tiefengrund Rosenort Mennonite Church Council meetings 6 October. 1987. Tiefengrund, SK.

Highlights of the Tiefengrund Rosenort Mennonite Church Council meetings 7 July. 1987. 2957, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

Hildebrandt, Walter. 1985. Letter from Ottawa to Mr. Leonard Doell, Warman, 26 June. Leonard Doell Files, MCC-S, Saskatoon, SK.

Himka, John-Paul. 2002. The Ukrainian idea in the second half of the 19th century. Kritika: Explorations in Rjtssian and Eurasian History 3 (2):321-335.

Hider, Adolf. 1939. Mein Kampf. New York: Reynal and Hitchcock.

Hobsbawm, Eric. 1990. Nations and nationalism since 1780. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hobsbawm, Eric, and Terence Ranger. 1983. The invention of tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Horowitz, Donald L. 1985. Ethnic groups in conflict. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

House of Commons Special Committee on Indian Self-Government. 1983. Report. Ottawa, ON: Queens Printer.

Huntington, Samuel. 1993. The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs 72:22-49.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 328

Huntington, Samuel P. 1996. The clash of civilisations and the remaking of the world order. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Hutchinson, John, and Anthony D. Smith, eds. 1996. Ethnicity. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ignatieff, Michael. 1993. Blood and belonging. Journeys into the new nationalism. New York: The Noonday Press.

Isaac, Franz. 1908. Die Molotschnaer Mennoniten: Ein Beitrag yur Geschichte derselben. Halbstadt.

Jahrbook 1935: Report of the 33 Conference of Mennonites in Canada, in Altona, MB, 1, 2 and 3 July. 1935. Rosthern, SK.

Janz, B. B. 1935a. Vorlaeufige Antwort zur 'Judenfrage'. Die Rundschau, June 5, 5.

------. 1935b. Woher and Wohen. Die Rundschau , May 1, 2.

------. 1938. Am I a National Socialist? - God forbid! reprinted in The Eethbridge Herald, June 1,1940, 14.

------. 1940. The Mennonites: Mosdy of Dutch origin. The Eethbridge Herald, 6 July.

Janz, B. B., and Ph. Cornies. 1954. A Russian Mennonite document of 1922. The Mennonite Quarterly Review 28:143-147.

Janz, Benjamin B. 1921a. Constitution of the Union of Citizens of Dutch Lineage in Ukraine. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents, edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Christian Press.

------. 1921b. Letter to Mennonite Relief Agencies, Orloff, 25 July. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents, edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Christian Press.

------. 1921c. Letter to the Dutch Mennonite Relief Agency, 8 October. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents, edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Christian Press.

------. 1921d. Petition to the All-Ukrainian Central Executive Committee. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents, edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Christian Press.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 329

------. 1922. Letter from Kharkov to the Study Commission, 27 April. In The Mennonites in Rztssia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents, edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Christian Press.

------. 1924. Letter from Kharkov to the executive of the Mennonite Colonization Association, Rosthern. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents, edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Christian Press.

------. 1943. Letter from Coaldale to the Honourable Sen. W.A. Buchanan, Ottawa, 28 June. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1321, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

Janz, H.B., K.A. Wiens, and D. Dueck. 1923. Letter from Halbstadt to American Mennonite Relief, Scottdale, 17 July. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents, edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Christian Press.

Janzen, Heinrich. 2003. Letter from the past. Roots and Branches 9 (4) translated by Elma Esau. Original edition 1922.

Janzen, J.H. 1934. Kirche und Staat. Der Bote, 6 June, 1.

------. 1939. Where do we stand on our alternative service? Paper read at Meeting of the Representatives of Mennonites in Canada on the War Question. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1080, Mennonite Historical Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB, at Winkler, Manitoba.

Janzen Lamp, Ingrid. 1979. Wenger speaks about Native issues. Mennonite Reporter, 12.

Janzen, Robert. 1986. Letter to the Mennonite Youth Farm Task Force in support of the Doell and Boldt proposal, 6 March. Leonard Doell Files, MCC-S, Saskatoon, SK.

Janzen, William. 1990. Limits on liberty: The experience of Mennonite, Dutterite, and Doukhobor communities in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

------. 1992. Relations between Canadian Mennonites and their government during World W ar II. The Mennonite Quarterly Review 66 (4):493-507.

Jervis, Robert. 1976. Perception and misperception in internationalpolitics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kaufman, S. Roy. 1997. Learning from others. Tiefengrund "In Touch", 1-2.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 330

Kelman, Herbert C. 1997. Negotiating national identity and self-determination in ethnic conflicts: The choice between pluralism and ethnic cleansing. Negotiation Journal 13 (4):327-340.

Keyserlingk, Robert. 1984. The Canadian Government's attitude toward Germans and German Canadians in World War Two. Canadian Ethnic Studies 16 (l):16-28.

Kingfisher v. Canada 2005. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, 15 January 2003 2003 [cited 6 August 2005]. Available from http: / / www.aand.gov.ab.ca/PDFs/Kingfisher%20v.%20Canada- SCC%20dismissal.pdf.

Klaassen, Walter. 1992. The Cree in Saskatchewan are part of the Mennonite story. The Mennonite Reporter, 2 May, 10-11.

Klassen, C.F. 1935. The Mennonites of Russia, 1917-1928. The Mennonite Quarterly Review 11:69-80.

Klassen, H. 1922. Report from Waldheim, South Russia, 20 April. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents, edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Christian Press.

Klassen, Pamela E. 1994. Going by the moon and the stars: Stories of two Russian Mennonite women. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

Klassen, Walter. 1971. The nature of the Anabaptist protest. The Mennonite Quarterly Review 45:291-311.

------. 1973. Anabaptism: Neither Protestant nor Catholic. Waterloo, ON.

Klebnikov, Paul. 1990. The man who saved Russia...with Capitalism. Wall Street Journal, July 24.

Klippenstein, Lawrence. 1984. Mennonite pacifism and state service in Russia: A case study in church-state relations: 1789-1936. PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota, MN.

------. 1989. The Mennonite migration to Russia, 1786-1806. In Mennonites in Russia, 1788- 1988: Essays in Honour of Gerhard luhreny edited by J. Friesen. Winnipeg, MB: CMBC Publications.

Kommissions-Verlag der Mennon. Fluchthngsfursorge E.V. Heilbronn a. Reszar. 1921. Die Mennoniten-Gemeinden in Russ land: wahrend der Kriegs und Revolutionsjahre 1914 bis 1920. Sinsheim (Elsenz): G. Beckersche Buchdruckerei.

Kotkin, Stephen. 1998. 1991 and the Russian Revolution: Sources, conceptual categories, analytical frameworks. The Journal of Modem History 70 (2):384-425.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 331

Krehbiel, C.E., ed. 1938. Official minutes and reports of the twenty-eigth session of the General Conference of the Mennonite Church o/'N.A. Newton, KS: General Conference of the Mennonite Church of North America.

------, ed. 1941. Official minutes and reports of the twenty-ninth session of the General Conference of the Mennonite Church o fN .A . Newton, KS: General Conference of the Mennonite Church of North America.

Kreider, Robert S., and Rachel Waltner Goosen. 1988. Hungry, thirsty, a stranger: The M CC experience. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.

Kriesberg, Louis. 2003. Constructive conflicts: I'rom escalation to resolution. 2nd ed. ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Kriesberg, Louis, Terrell A. Northrup, and Smart J Thorson, eds. 1989. Intractable conflicts and their transformation. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Kroeker, Abraham. 1914. Ein Demoklesschert uber unserm Haupte. Friedensstimme, 4-5.

FairdMennonite Church (Taird, SK) 2005. [webpage]. Mennonite Historical Society of Canada, 17 January 2005 2005 [cited 11 February 2005]. Available from http://www.mhsc.ca/encyclopedia/contents/L25.html.

Laird Mennonite Church bulletins. 1979. 1089-2, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

Laitin, David D. 1998. Identity in formation: The Russian speaking population in the near abroad. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Lalonde, Meika, and Elton LaClare. 1998. Discover Saskatchewan: A guide to historic sites. Edited by R. Nilson. Regina, SK: Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Regina.

Langille, David. 1977. Letter from Regina to Leonard Doell, Saskatoon, 8 December. Saskatoon, SK.

Lepp, Abraham. 1920. Letter to G.G. Hiebert, Halbstadt, 6 March. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents, edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Christian Press.

Letkemann, Peter. 1998. Mennonite victims of 'The Great Terror,' 1936-1938. Journal of Mennonite Studies 16:38-58.

------. 2003. David Johann Penner [A. Reinmaraus]: A Mennonite anti-Menno, 1904-1993. In Shepherds, Servants and Prophets: leadership among the Russian Mennonites (ca. 1880 - 1960), edited by H. Loewen. Kitchener, ON: Pandora Press and Herald Press.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 332

Letter. 1918. Volksfreund, 22 (7), 7.

Lieven, Anatol. 1999. Ukraine and Russia: A fraternal rivalry. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Loewen, Harry. 1990. Intellectual developments among the Mennonites of Russia: 1880- 1917. journal of Mennonite Studies 8:89-107.

------. 1993. Anti-Mennonite: Introduction to early Soviet-Mennonite literature (1920- 1940). Journal of Mennonite Studies 11:23-42.

------, ed. 2003. Shepherds, servants and prophets: Leadership among the Russian Mennonites (ca. 1880 - 1960). Kitchener, ON: Pandora Press and Herald Press.

Loewen, Helmut-Harry, and James Urry. 1991. Protecting mammon. Some dilemmas of Mennonite non-resistance in late Imperial Russia and the origins of the selbstschutz. Journal of Mennonite Studies 9:34-53.

Loewen, Royden. 1995. Wheat, women, worldviews: Social history and the Mennonites in Western Canada and the United States, 1850-1975. Estudios Migratorios Latinoamericanos 10 (31):705-726.

Loughlin, Sean. 2005. House cafeterias change names for french' fries and 'french' toast [newspaper article]. CNN, March 12, 2003 2003 [cited August 25 2005]. Available from http:/ / www.cnn.com/2003 / ALLPOLITICS/03/11 /sprj.irq. fries/.

MacMaster, Richard K. 1985. Land, piety, peoplehood: The establishment of Mennonite communities in America 1683-1790. Edited by T. F. Schlabach. 4 vols. Vol. 1, The Mennonite experience in America. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.

Magladery, J. 1935. 58764. Ottawa, ON, July 6.

Magosci, Paul R. 1996. A history of Ukraine. Seatde, WA: University of Washington Press.

Mandaville, Peter G. 1999. Territory and translocality: Discrepant idioms of political identity. Millennium 28 (3):653-673.

McTaggart, J. 1895. Letter from Dominion Lands Office to Thomas Daly, Minister of the Interior. Included in the Indian Claims Commission documents for the Young Chipeewayan Claim, Ottawa, ON.

Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Minds, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 333

Mennonite Central Committee Canada 2005. [webpage]. Mennonite Historical Society of Canada, 17 January 2005 2005 [cited 11 February 2005]. Available from http: / / www.mhsc.ca/encyclopedia / contents/m46550me.html.

Mennonite Church, and General Conference Mennonite Church. 2005. A church of many peoples confronts racism. Canadian Mennonite Encylopedia Online 1989 [cited 8 September 2005]. Available from http://www.mhsc.ca/encyclopedia/contents/C488.html.

Mennonite Farmer Associates of the Tiefengrund Area. 1979. Subject: Researching the history of the Young Chippeweyan Band, June. MCC Native Concerns Fonds, 2164, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

Mennonite Union in South Russia. 1922. Margenau Congress, 3,4 January. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents , edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Christian Press.

Mennonite Youth Farm Task Force. 1983. Brief exerpts from presentations at the February ’83 Conference. MCC Native Concerns Fonds, 3296, Mennonite Historical Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB, November 22-23.

Miller, Alvin J. 1922. Letter from Moscow to Professor J.G. Evert, Newton, 31 January. Russian Relief Collection, Levi Mumaw General Correspondence, Mennonite Church Archives, Goshen, IN.

Miller, Jim R. 1989. Skyscrapers hid the heavens: A history of Indian-White relations in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Miller, Orie O. 1920. Letter from Constantinople to J.S. Shoemaker, 31 October. Russian Relief Collection, Levi Mumaw General Correspondence, Mennonite Church Archives, Goshen, IN.

Minutes of meeting with Sidney Fineday. 1979. Leonard Doell Files, MCC-S, Saskatoon, SK.

Minutes of Peace and Social Concerns Committee. 1978. MCC-S Archives, SK, 16 March.

Minutes of the 29 August 1987 meeting of persons interested in Treaty Tand Entitlements. 1987. MCC-S Archives, Saskatoon, SK.

Minutes of the Tiefengrund Rosenort Mennonite Church Council meeting 5 August. 1986. Tiefengrund, SK.

Minutes of the Tiefengrund Rosenort Mennonite Church Council meeting 7 July. 1987. Tiefengrund, SK.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 334

Minutes of the Tiefengrund Rosenort Mennonite Church Council meeting 8 January. 1979. Tiefengrund, SK.

Minutes of the Tiefengrund Rosenort Mennonite Church Council meeting 8 June. 1986. Tiefengrund, SK.

Minutes of the Tiefengrund Rosenort Mennonite Church Council meeting, 13 November. 1978. Tiefengrund, SK.

Mitchell, Christopher R. 1981.The structure of international conflict. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Montville, Joseph V. 2001. Justice and the burdens of history. In Reconciliation, Justice and Coexistence: Theory and Practice, edited by M. Abu-Nimer. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Morris, Alexander. 1971. The Treaties of Canada with the Indians of Manitoba and the North-West Territories. Edited by C. C. Collection. Toronto: Coles Pub. Co. Original edition, Toronto: Belfords, Clarke, 1880.

Mortimer, Edward, and Robert Fine, eds. 1999. People, nation and state: The meaning of ethnicity and nationalism. New York: I.B. Tauris Publishers.

Native/Mennonite peace talk slated for Tiefengmnd. 1979. The Saskatchewan Valley News, 25 January, 11.

Natural Resources Canada. 2002. Atlas of Canada (4th Edition) [Map]. Government of Canada 2000 [cited 25 September 2002], Available from http: / / atlas.gc.ca/site / english/maps / reference/provincesterritories / prairie_provinc es.

Nelson, J.C. 1889. Annual report of the Department of Indian Affairs for the year ended 31st December 1888 , Sessional Papers, Number 16, Part I. National Archives of Canada, Ottawa, ON.

Neuenschwander, A.J. 1935. The Peace Committee. In Official Minutes and Reports of the Twenty-Seventh Session of the General Conference of the Mennonite Church o fN A . Newton, KS: General Conference of the Mennonite Church of North America.

------. 1938. Report of the Peace Committee for 1935-1938. In Official Minutes and Reports of the Twenty-Eigth Session of the General Conference of the Mennonite Church o fN A ., edited by C. E. Krehbiel. Newton, KS: General Conference of the Mennonite Church of North America.

Neufeld, David. 1919. The days of terror in Blumenort, Halbstadt Volost. Friedenstimme, 16 November, 3-4.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 335

------. 1986a. Letter from Saskatoon to J. Leask, Regina, 18 February. Leonard Doell Files, MCC-S, Saskatoon, SK.

------. 1986b. Letter from Saskatoon to J. Leask, Regina, 28 January. Leonard Doell Files, MCC-S, Saskatoon, SK.

------. 1986c. Letter from Saskatoon to Rev. R. Bucher, W. Funk, Rev. I. Schmidt, C. Bueckert, Rev. M. Koenker, Laird, 16 July. MCC-S Archives, Saskatoon, SK.

------. 1986d. Memo re: Land claims, 27 June. MCC-S Archives, Saskatoon, SK.

------. 1986e. Personal notes in file. MCC-S Archives, Saskatoon, SK.

------. 1987a. Letter from Saskatoon to A. George, Rev. M. Koenker, D. Regehr, Rev. I. Schmidt, W. Froese, Rev. R. Bucher, Laird, 12 June. MCC-S Archives, Saskatoon, SK.

------. 1987b. Letter from Saskatoon to A. George, Rev. M. Koenker, D. Regehr, Rev. I. Schmidt, W. Froese, Rev. R. Bucher, Laird, 21 August. MCC-S Archives, Saskatoon, SK.

------. 1987c. Letter from Saskatoon to Rev. I. Schmidt, Rev. M. Koenker, Rev. R. Bucher, Laird, 19 May. MCC-S Archives, Saskatoon, SK.

Neufeld, Dietrich. 1977. A Racssian dance of death: devolution and civil war in the Ukraine. Translated by A. Reimer. Winnipeg, MB: Hyperion Press.

Neufeld, N.J. 1936. Unsere Ruckreise von Europa nach Amerika. Mennonitische Rundschau, 13.

Neufeld Redekop, Gloria L. 1996. The work of their hands: Mennonite Women's Societies in Canada. Waterloo, ON: Wilfred Laurier University Press.

Neufeldt, Colin P. 1998. Through the fires of hell: The dekulakization and collectivization of the Soviet Mennonite community, 1928-1933 .Journal of Mennonite Studies 16:9-32.

Neufeldt, J. 1979. Letter from Laird to Isaac Froese, Winnipeg, 2 July. MCC Native Concerns Fonds, 2164, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

Neufeldt, Reina C. 2003. Boxed in: Expanding the constricted narratives of wartime nationalism. Portland, OR.

Newcombe, E.L. 1897. Letter from the Deputy Minister of Justice to J.D. McLean, Acting Secretary, Department of Indian Affairs. Included in the Indian Claims Commission documents for the Young Chipeewayan Claim, Ottawa, ON.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 336

Newman, David. 1999. Real spaces, symbolic spaces: Interrelated notions of territory in the Arab-Israeli conflict. In A Road Map to War. Territorial Dimensions of International Conflict, edited by P. F. Diehl. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Nove, Alec. 1969. A n economic history of the U.S.S.R. London: Allen Lane.

Oommen, T.K. 1997. Citizenship, nationality, and ethnicity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Paetkau, Plenry. 1984. Russian Mennonite immigrants of the 1920s: A reappraisal, journal of Mennonite Studies 2:72-103.

Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Newbury, CA: Sage.

Peace Problems Committee, Mennonite General Conference. 1937. A statement on peace, war, and military service: Mennonite General Conference.

Penrose, Jan. 2002. Nations, states and homelands: Territory and territoriality in nationalist thought. Nations and Nationalism 8 (3):277-297.

Plett, Delbert F. 1985. The golden years: The Mennonite Kleine Gemeinde in Russia, 1812-1849. Steinbach, MB: D.F.P. Publications.

Pruitt, Dean G. 1998. Social conflict. In The Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske and G. Lindzey. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pruitt, Dean G., and Sung Hee Kim. 2004. Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate and settlement. 3rd ed. ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Ray, Arthur J., Jim R. Miller, and Frank J. Tough. 2000. Bounty and benevolence: A history of Saskatchewan Treaties. Montreal: University of Manitoba Press.

Reddig, Ken. 1989. Judge Adamson versus the Mennonites of Manitoba during World War 11. Journal of Mennonite Studies 7:51-70.

Redekop, Benjamin Wall. 1985. The German identity of Mennonite Brethren immigrants in Canada, 1930 - 1960. Master of History, Department of History, University of British Colombia, Vancouver, BC.

Redekop, John H. 1979. Church and state in Canada: Co-operation and confrontation. In The Believers' Church in Canada, edited by J. K. Zeman and W. Klaassen. Winnipeg, MB: The Baptist Federation of Canada and Mennonite Central Committee (Canada).

Regehr, T.D. 1987. The influence of World War II on Mennonites in Canada. Journal of Mennonite Studies 5:73-89.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 337

------. 1992. Lost sons: The Canadian Mennonite soldiers of World War II. The Mennonite Quarterly Review 66 (4) -.461-480.

------. 2000. Peace, order and good government: Mennonites and politics in Canada. Winnipeg, MB: CMBC Publications.

Regehr, Ted D. 1996. Mennonites in Canada, 1939 - 1970: A people transformed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Regier, J.W. 1988. Tiefengrund "In Touch", 2.

Reid, Anna. 1999. Borderland: A journey through the history of Ukraine. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Reimer, A. James. 1994. Mennonites, theology and nationalism, journal of Mennonite Studies 12:89-103.

Reimer, Al. 1989. The print culture of the Russian Mennonites 1870 - 1930. In Mennonites in Russia, 1788-1988: Essays in Honour of Gerhard Lohren^, edited by J. Friesen. Winnipeg, MB: CMBC Publications.

------. 1990. Peasant aristocracy: The Mennonite Gutcfesitgertum in Russia, journal of Mennonite Studies 8:76-88.

------. 1993. Samtalsdienst and Selbstschuty. Russian-Mennonite nonresistance in World War I and its aftermath, journal of Mennonite Studies 11:135-148.

Rempel, David, and Abe J. (Ed.) Dueck. 1993. Mennonite medics in Russia during World W ar I. journal of Mennonite Studies 11:149-161.

Rempel, David G. 1932. The expropriation of the German Colonists in South Russia during the Great War.journal of Modem History 4:49-67.

------. 1933. The Mennonite Colonies in New Russia. A study of their setdement and economic development from 1789 to 1914. PhD Dissertation, History, Stanford University.

------. 1973. The Mennonite commonwealth in Russia: A sketch of its founding and endurance, 1789-1919. The Mennonite Quarterly Review 47 (4):259-308.

------. 1974. The Mennonite commonwealth in Russia: A sketch of its founding and endurance, 1789-1919 (concluded). The Mennonite Quarterly Review 48 (l):5-54.

Rempel, David G., and Cornelia Rempel Carlson. 2002. A Mennonite family in Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union, 1789-1923. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 338

Rempel, J.G. 1980. The Rosenort Mennonite Church of Saskatchewan 1893 - Elder Peter Regier. In Three Score Years and Ten with God in Tiefengrund Rosenort Mennonite Church 1910-1980, edited by S. Regier.

Rempel, Johann G. 1992. Mennonite revolutionaries in the Old Colony before 1917. journal of Mennonite Studies 10:72-86.

Reports and financial statements of 1981, Tiefengrund Rosenort Mennonite Church: Spiritual Ministries Report. 1982. 1937-3, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

Reports and financial statements of 1987, Tiefengrund Rosenort Mennonite Church: Service Ministries. 1987. 2957-2, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

Resolution of a meeting concerning the question of the constitution of the construction of the Mennonites of Russia as an Evangelical Mennonite Confession. 1914. Russia Related Documents Collection, Box 5, Centre for Mennonite Brethren Studies, Winnipeg, MB.

Riediger, Peter. 1940. Arson in Vauxhall, Alberta. Zionsbote, 10-11.

Rieffer, Barbara-Ann J. 2003. Religion and nationalism: Understanding the consequences of a complex relationship. Ethnicities 3 (2):215-242.

Rieger, Paul W. 1980. Church adherents. In Three Score Years and Ten with God in Tiefengrund Kosenort Mennonite Church 1910-1980, edited by S. Regier.

Rothman, Jay. 1997. Resolving identity-based conflict: In nations, organisations and communities, The Jossej-Bass Conflict Resolution Series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Rubin, J.Z., D.G Pruitt, and S.H. Kim. 1994. Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate and settlement. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Saenger, Gerhart. 1943. The effect of the war on our minority groups. American Sociological Review 8 (1): 15-22.

Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. 2002. Division Five. Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities n.d. [cited 23 October 2002]. Available from http://www.quanmmlynx.com/sarm/Members/graphics/div5.gif.

Sawatsky, K. 1922. Our future in Russia, Alexandrovsk, 15 January. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents, edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Christian Press.

The Schleitheim Text. 1973. InThe Legacy of Michael Sattler, edited by J. H. Yoder. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 339

Schmidt, Peter. 1938. Mennonitische Rundschau, July 27, 7.

Schroeder, William, and Helmut T. Huebert. 1996. Mennonite Historical Atlas. 2nd edition ed. Winnipeg, MB: Springfield Publishers.

Schwandt, Thomas A. 1998. Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In The Landscape ojQualitative Research: theories and issues , edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

------. 1999. On understanding understanding. Qualitative Inquiry 5 (4):451-464.

Service, Robert. 1997. A history of twentieth century Russia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sherif, Muzafer, and Carolyn W. Sherif. 1953. Groups in harmony and tension: A n integration of studies on integroup relations. New York: Octagon.

Sherk, J. Harold, J.B. Martin, David Toews, and C.F. Klassen. 1942. From Winnipeg to Hon. J.T. Thorson, Minister of National War Services, Ottawa, 9 January. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1322, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

Shils, Edward. 1957. Primordial, personal, sacred and civil ties: Some particular observations on the relationships of sociological research and theory. British Journal of Sociology 8:130-145.

Should be known as Canadians. 1945. Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, 6 May.

Smith, Anthony D. 1981. The ethnic revival in the modem world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

------. 1986. The ethnic origins of nations. Oxford: Blackwell.

------. 1991. National identity. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press.

------. 1992. Chosen peoples: Why ethnic groups survive. Ethnic and Racial Studies 15 (3):440-449.

------. 2003a. Chosen peoples. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

------. 2003b. The poverty of anti-nationalist modernism. Nations and Nationalism 9 (3):357- 370.

Smith, C. Henry. 1927. The coming of the Russian Mennonites. Berne, IN: Mennonite Book Concern.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 340

------. 1957. The story of the Mennonites. 4th ed. ed. Newton, KS: Mennonite Publication Office.

Smith, Rogers M. 2003c. Stories of peoplehood: The politics and morals of political membership. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Snake, Albert. 1955. Oral history. In Minutes taken at the Sandy Take Reserve, February 12, 1955. Edgar Epp Files, MCC-S Archives, Saskatoon, SK.

------. 1982. Letter to John Munro, Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, Ottawa, 17 June. Included in the Indian Claims Commission Documents for the Young Chipeewayan Claim, Ottawa, ON.

Soguk, Nevzat, and Geoffrey Whitehall. 1999. Wandering grounds: Transversality, idenetity, territoriality, and movement. Millennium 28 (3):675-698.

Speers, C.W. 1899. Letter from C.W. Speers, General Colonization Agent to Frank Pedley, Superintendent of Immigration. In Saskatchewan Provincial Archives. Saskatoon, SK.

St. John's Lutheran Church. 1987. Letter from Laird to Mennonite Central Committee, Saskatoon, Tiefengrund Mennonite Church, Laird Mennonite Church, Laird, 17 July. MCC-S Archives, Saskatoon, SK.

Stake, Robert E. 1998. Case studies. In Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Staples, John R. 2003. Cross-cultural encounters on the Ukrainian Steppe: Settling the Molochna basin, 1783-1861. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Stauffer, J.L. 1939. Bible teaching and non-conformity: As applied to proper and improper apparel. Gospel Herald 32:258-259.

Stayer, James S., Werner O. Packull, and Klaus Deppermann. 1975. From monogenesis to polygenesis: The historical discussion of Anabaptist origins. The Mennonite Quarterly Review 49 (1):83-121.

Stein, Janice Gross. 1996. Image, identity, and conflict resolution. In Managing Global Chaos, edited by C. A. Crocker, F. O. Hampson and P. Aall. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.

Strauss, Anselm. 1995. Identity, biography, history, and symbolic representations. Social Psychology Quarterly 58 (1):4-12.

Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research. 1st ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 341

------. 1997. Grounded Theory in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

------. 1998a. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

------. 1998b. Grounded Theory methodology: An overview. In Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Strauss, Anselm L. 1997. Mirrors and masks: The search for identity. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Original edition, 1959.

Suderman, Jacob. 1914. Abscheid der mennonitischen Reservisten in Dawlekanowo. Friedensstimme, 6.

Summary: Mennonite Youth Farm seminar, 23-24 November. 1984. Leonard Doell Files, MCC-S, Saskatoon, SK.

Sysyn, Frank. 1977. Nestor Makhno and the Ukrainian Revolution. In The Ukraine, 1917- 1921: A Study in Revolution, edited by T. Hunczak. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tajfel, Henri. 1978. Social categorization, social identity, and social comparison. In Differentiation Between Social Groups, edited by H. Tajfel. New York: Academic Press.

------. 1982. Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tajfel, Henri, and John Turner. 1986. The social identity of intergroup behavior, edited by S. Worschel and W. Austin. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Thiesen, John D. 1999. Mennonite and Naff. Attitudes amongMennonite colonists in Fatin America 1933-1945. Kitchener, ON: Pandora Press.

Tiefengrund Mennonite Church. 1983. Draft proposal regarding the Mennonite Youth Farm. MCC Native Concerns Fonds, 3296, Mennonite Historical Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

Tiefengrund Rosenort Mennonite Church. 1980. The annual congregational meeting of the Tiefengrund Rosenort Mennonite Church, 24 January. Tiefengrund, SK.

Tiefengrund Rosenort Mennonite Church (Laird, SK) 2005. [webpage]. Mennonite Historical Society of Canada, 17 January 2005 2005 [cited 11 February 2005]. Available from http://www.mhsc.ca/encyclopedia/contents/T61 .html.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 342

Tiefengrund Rosenort Mennonite Church Council meeting highlights. 1984. 1937-6, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

Todorov, Tzvetan. 1982. Symbolism and interpretation. Translated by C. Porter. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press.

Toews, David. 1935a. Letter from Rosthern to The Right Hon. W.L. Mackenzie King, Ottawa, 10 April. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1321, Mennonite Historical Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

------. 1935b. Letter from Saskatoon to Mr. Doerr, Regina, 10 April. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1321, Mennonite Historical Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

------. 1935c. The Mennonites of Canada. The Mennonite Quarterly Review 11:83-91.

------. 1936a. Einige Reiseeindruecke. DerBote, Sept. 30, 1.

------. 1939a. Letter from Rosthern to A. Schellenberg, Saskatoon, 12 September. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1322, Mennonite Historical Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

------. 1939b. Letter from Rosthern to His Most Gracious Majesty George VI, King of Canada, London, May. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1080, Mennonite Historical Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

------. 1939c. Letter from Rosthern to W.A. Tucker, M.P., Ottawa, 12 September. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1321, Mennonite Historical Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

------. 1939d. Out of step? Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, 24 June, 7.

------. 1939e. Representative Mennonite meeting in Winkler, Man., 17 May. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1321, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

------. 1939f. Speaks for the Mennonites. Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, 6 May.

. 1939g. Untitled article written for C. Henry Smith, Dept, of History at Bluffton College. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1392, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

------. 1940a. Letter from Rosthern to "Brothers," 20 January. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1322, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 343

------. 1940b. Letter from Rosthern to The Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, 18 July. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1320, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

------. 1942a. Letter from Rosthern to Hon. J. Thorson, Ottawa, 15 April. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1321, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

------. 1942b. Letter from Rosthern to Justice J-F.L. Embury, Regina, 18 June. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1321, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

------. 1942c. Letter from Rosthern to the Officer Commanding, Military Camp, Maple Creek, 30 October. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1322, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

------. 1942d. Letter from Rosthern to the Right Hon. W.L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, Ottawa, 24 October. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, 1322, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

Toews, Jakob. 1936b. Mennonitischer Deutscher oder deutscher Mennonit? DerBote, Mar. 4, 3.

Toews, John A. 1975a. A history of the Mennonite Brethren Church: Pilgrims and pioneers. Edited by A. J. Klassen. Fresno, CA: Mennonite Brethren Publishing House.

Toews, John B. 1967. Dost fatherland. The story of Mennonite emigration from Soviet Russia 1921 - 1927. Edited by J. C. Wenger. Vol. 12, Studies in Anabaptist and Mennonite History. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.

------. 1974a. The Halbstadt Volost 1918-1922: A case study of the Mennonite encounter with early Bolshevism. The Mennonite Quarterly Keview 48 (4):489-514.

------. 1974b. The Russian Mennonites: Some introductory comments. The Mennonite Quarterly Review 48 (3):403-446.

------. 1982. Cpars, Soviets and Mennonites. Newton, KS: Faith and Life Press.

------. 1995. "No songs were sung at the gravesite" The Blumenort (Russia) massacre (November 10-12, 1919 ). journal of Mennonite Studies 13:51-70.

------, ed. 1975b. The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents. Winnipeg, MB: Christian Press.

------, ed. unpublished. The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents. Winnipeg, MB.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 344

Tuchman, Gaye. 1998. Historical social science: Methodologies, methods and meanings. In Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ueber die Erfassung der wehrpflichtigen deutschen Staatsangehoerigen und ueber die Einstellung von Freiwilligen. 1938. Die Mennonitische Rundschau, May 11,7.

Union of Citizens of Dutch Lineage in Ukraine. 1922a. Minutes of the Verband Congress Landskrone, 29-31 May. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents, edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Der Bote II, 2.

------. 1922b. Minutes of the Verband Congress Margenau, 3-4 January. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents, edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Der Bote II, 2.

------. 1924a. Minutes of the Delegate Assembly of Citizens of Dutch Lineage in the Ukraine, held on 1, 3, 4 March. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents, edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Christian Press.

------. 1924b. Notes from minutes from Kalinovo Congress, 1-4 March. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents, edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Der Bote II, 2.

unknown. 1930. Report of a Mennonite Elder in Russia on 1 August 1930. In The Mennonites in Russia from 1917 to 1930: Selected documents, edited by J. B. Toews. Winnipeg, MB: Translated by W. Regehr, Unpublished. Original edition, Christian Press.

Unruh, A.H. 1939. Letter from Winnipeg to Victor Sifton, Pres, of the Red Cross Society of Canada, Winnipeg, 29 November. Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization Fonds, Cornelius F. Klassen Collection, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

Unruh, Benjamin H. 1914a. Rede, gehalten ... im Halbstadter Bethause. Friedensstimme, 1-2.

------. 1933. The background and causes of the flight of the Mennonites from Russia in 1929 II. The Mennonite Quarterly Review2BA\.

------. 1934. The Mennonites of Russia. The Mennonite Quarterly Review.6\-61.

Unruh, H. 1914b. Mennonitische Reservisten. Der Botschafter, 3.

Unruh, Heinrich. 1917. During difficult times: Biographical update. Translated by H. P. Enns. Individual Collections, Conrad Grebel College Archives, Waterloo, ON.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 345

------. 1918. March 10 and on, 1918, biographical update. Translated by H. P. Enns. Individual Collections, Conrad Grebel College Archives, Waterloo, ON.

Urry, James. 1985. Through the eye of a needle: Wealth and the Mennonite experience in Imperial Russia. Journal of Mennonite Studies 3:7-35.

------. 1989a. Mennonite economic development in the Russian mirror. In Mennonites in Russia, 1788-1988: Essays in Honour of Gerhard Juhreny edited by J. Friesen. Winnipeg, MB: CMBC Publications.

------. 1989b. None but saints: The tranformation of Mennonite life in Russia 1789-1889. Winnipeg, MB: Hyperion Press Limited.

------. 1992. The cost of community: The funding and economic management of the Russian Mennonite commonwealth before 1914. Journal of Mennonite Studies 10:22-55.

------. 1994a. Mennonites, nationalism and the state in Imperial Russia. Journal of Mennonite Studies 12:65-88.

------. 1994b. The Russian Mennonites, nationalism and the state 1789-1917. In Canadian Mennonites and the Challenges of Nationalism, edited by A. J. Dueck. Winnipeg, MB: Manitoba Mennonite Historical Society.

------. 1995. After the rooster crowed: Some issues concerning the interpretation of Mennonite/Boshevik relations during the early Soviet period. Journal of Mennonite Studies 13:26-50.

------. 1996. A Mennostaat for the Mennovolk? Mennonite immigrant fantasies in Canada in the 1930s.Journal of Mennonite Studies 14:65-80.

Volkan, Vamik. 1997. Bloodlines: From ethnic pride to ethnic terrorism. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Voth, Norma Jost. 1994. Mennonite foods andfolkways from South Russia. Vol. I. Intercourse, PA: Good Books. Original edition, 1990.

Washburn, Wilcomb E. 1975. The Indians in America. New York.

Weber, Max. 1978. TLconomy and society: A n outline of interpretive Sociology. Vol. 1. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Wenger, Malcolm. 1979a. Letter from Winnipeg to Jake Bergman, Prince Albert, 2 November. MCC Native Concerns Fonds, 2164, Mennonite Heritage Centre Archives, Winnipeg, MB.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 346

------. 1979b. Peace Talk. Mennonite Reporter, 19 Match, 14.

White, Ralph K. 1984.Rearful warriors: A psychological profile of U.S.-Soviet relations. New York: The Free Press.

Wiebe, Menno. 1977a. Letter from Winnipeg to Leonard Doell, Warman, 12 July. Leonard Doell Files, MCC-S, Winnipeg, MB.

------. 1977b. Re: Indian - Mennonite lands, 15 February. Leonard Doell Files, MCC-S, Saskatoon, SK.

------. 1977c. Subject: Land ownership conflicts in Laird, Saskatchewan, 7 February. Leonard Doell Files, MCC-S, Saskatoon, SK.

------. 1984. Letter from Winnipeg to Leonard Doell, Warman, 12 July. Leonard Doell Files, MCC-S, Saskatoon, SK.

------. 1994. Mennonites and Aboriginal identity. In Canadian Mennonites and the challenges of nationalism, edited by A. J. Dueck. Winnipeg, MB: Manitoba Mennonite Historical Society.

Wiebe, Rudy H. 1970. The blue mountains of China. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Williams, G.H. 1962. The radical reformation. Philadelphia, PA.

Wilson, Andrew. 1995. The Donbas between Ukraine and Russia: The use of history in political disputes. Journal of Contemporary History 30 (2).

------. 2000. The Ukrainians: Unexpected nation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Wilson, H., and S. Hutchinson. 1991. Triangulation of qualitative methods: Heiderggerian hermeneutics and grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research 1:263-276.

Wimmer, Andreas. 2002. Nationalist exclusion and ethnic conflict: Shadows of modernity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wolcott, Harry F. 1992. Posturing in qualitative inquiry. In The handbook of qualitative research in education, edited by M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy and J. Preissle. New York: Academic Press.

Woods, Peter. 1992. Symbolic Interactionism: Theory and method. In The handbook of qualitative research in education, edited by M. D. LeCompte, W. Millroy and J. Preissle. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Worchel, Stephen, and William G. Austin, eds. 1986. Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 347

Yiftachel, Oren. 1999. Regionalism among Palestinian-Arabs in Israel. In Nested Identities: Nationalism, territory and scale, edited by G. H. Herb and D. H. Kaplan. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Yin, Robert K. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zimmer, Oliver. 2003. Boundary mechanisms and symoblic resources: Towards a process- oriented approach to national identity. Nations and Nationalism 9 (2): 173-193.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.