"We choose what we see about our past": Vimy Ridge

 "We choose what we see about our past."

I chose the above quote from one of the historians in the CBC's Video "Why Vimy Ridge Matters" because it encapsulates the central themes discussed in the video, symbolized on the monuments' webpage and provides an entry point for applying Harrold Innis' theories of space and time biased media.

Defining Theory 

According to James Carey's interpretation of Innis' theory, Time bias refers to a culture's interest in time; history, stability and permanence of ideas, symbols and traditions inform future generations are creating close ties within a rooted culture (Carrey, 162). On the other hand, space bias refers to a culture's interest in space, areas bound to a culture's innate identity. This identity derives from the discovery and creation of symbolic representations of culture that endure and grow in the minds of people within culture despite vast distances of separation (162). The "bias" of both time and space comes from the transportation and interaction of communicative practices of a culture; time-bias media is fixed and routed in place. They are immobile; they draw people in to get information. Space bias media are more mobile; their information is quickly disseminated across distances.  

Argument

When our class initially discussed the importance of Vimy Ridge, the immediate reaction centred around the theme of Canada's identity being constructed out of that battle. This immediate reaction speaks to the intentional reputation of nation-building rhetoric we, as students, have hammered into our minds as part of the education system in Canada. I argue that Canada's mythical treatment of Vimy Ridge encapsulates the entirety of Canadians' role in WWI, symbolizes a focal point of national identity, and incorporates a space and time bias.

Applying Theory

The artifact, the CBC video, reaffirms the separation between Vimy Ridge, represented originally and its symbolic representation of Canadian identity. Historians in the video explain that there were much more significant Canadian battles than Vimy Ridge and its relevance to the war was its tactical strategy. However, it took hold in the minds of Canadians once spread through newspapers. This initial reaction is space biased, as the battle occurred overseas, and the praise occurred in Canada, thanks to the reproduction of positive narratives of Canada's massive impact in the war. However, since the stories circulated away from the battle's location, their significance grew for several reasons, including their context within Canada and the overall war narratives. For example, When it was reported as a resounding victory, there was a disconnect between being swept up in celebrating victory and acknowledging lives lost. Those back at home and away from witnessing war desperately needed news about the war, especially if it was good news. So Vimy Ridge became a focal point of good news, and because it was distinctly Canadian, it put Canada on the map as not just an arm of the British. This disconnect is also a product of space bias. The video indicates the Allies desperately needed a victory at the time of the battle, leading to a greater emphasis on the victory and its narrative. 

The different understandings of its fallout are added to the argument of Vimy Ridge as space bias. The video explained Arthur Currie did not believe that Vimy Ridge was Canada's most significant victory in WW1. Focusing so much on Vimy Ridge as a victory takes away its true revelation of military tactics. Essentially, it was a great victory, but the tactics used in the battle were more influential than the results of the battle. But the Canadian government put the results at the forefront as a symbolic and truly Canadian event. To think about Vimy Ridge as only positive is also false according to the video Vimy Ridge was more divisive; its narrative of representing a distinct Canadian success constituted Canada's government to illicit conscription of soldiers to the war effort. Our modern-day attachment to Vimy Ridge as a victory is also time biased, in the sense that without the video, I would have no idea of how it led to conscription and criticism of the government.

Moreover, the CBC video represents space bias as the framing of the historians who comment about the conflicting images and imaginations of Vimy Ridge provides this information retrospectively. My knowledge of Vimy Ridge was almost verbatim what the Canadian government propagandized about its victory; without the video and its frames, I would not have a deeper understanding of the complexity between what happened on the battlefield and how it was utilized as a Canadian identity tool.

In contrast, the artifact, the monument of the battle of Vimy Ridge, created in 1936, gained, lost and regained its significance as different cultural circumstances came to pass over the years, making its symbolic power time biased. Initially, just three years after the monument's unavailing, the world went back to war in 1939, causing the peace it stood for to be shortlived. The unifying characteristics of the monument were and still remain a focal point for ideas of patriotism, with politicians drawing upon its symbolism in the 60s when Canada turned a hundred. 

Significantly adding to the monument's time bias is its decay over time and politically motivated restoration by the Harper government. The video details that after the 1960s, the monument was left to decay. Decade after a decade, it was neglected and left in disrepair, yet, Vimy Ridge was still discussed as a focal point of Canadian identity through victory despite the neglect. My interpretation of this neglect is that Vimy Ridge, as a symbol, was more important than maintaining its connection to soldiers' grieving and lost lives. The monument depicts Harper's government-funded money towards restoring the monument to capitalize on its patriotic ties and to buy goodwill from voters. 

Significantly, this decay and restoration have also become space biased. Without seeing the monument either in person, Canadians would be less aware that its purpose was to draw attention away from the result of the battle and towards loss.   They would also not see its decaying as symbolic of the disregard of sacrifice in favour of the unifying narrative. This sacrifice narrative comes from the monument representing a different meaning of the battle. According to both the website and video, the main structures of the monument include a "Bereaved Canada," a statue of a woman mourning the loss of life of not just Vimy Ridge but all Canadian soldiers in WWI. Adding to the theme of loss and grief is that there is no depiction of soldiers on the monument. Instead, a broken sword re-emphasizes what is lost when war is fought. Other structures include the two towers that symbolize not great victory but justice and peace for those buried directly underneath.

Returning to the restoration done by the government, before this and its accompanying virtual tour, Canadians would have to travel to visit the immobile monument to understand the differences between what the monument represents, justice, sacrifice and morning and what the narratives around Vimmy Ridge, military, victory, tactics and bloodshed one needs to visit the memorial. Having to visit is a product of time biased. However, the Canadian government instituting a virtual tour of the monument as a part of the restoration process represents a shift towards space bias. Now I am not saying the monument is space bias. Still, its virtual tour is, as it allows users to travel to the monument virtually, which will lead to a different understanding than seeing it in the physical world. So perhaps the monument represents both, as other classmates in this course who have visited the monument have a more profound emotional response than visiting it virtually on the computer.

Discussion questions:

Do you think Canada remembers Vimy Ridge too fondly as a propaganda tool? Yes or no, and why? Is there enough focus on this sacrifice of soldiers as the monument depicts?