By Walter Kish

In the last issue of this paper, we printed a letter from a reader who takes me to task for my “views” in a previous editorial on the future of the UNF. The letter was passionate and well written, and I found myself agreeing with most of what was said. What was disappointing was something I am finding all too common whenever I write on a controversial topic, namely people attributing to me views and opinions that are either distorted or, in many cases completely wrong.

The author of the letter, for instance, implied that because I had criticized the UNF for not giving enough focus and priority on programs for second and third generation Canadian born Ukrainians, that I was therefore opposed to the organization’s support of causes and initiatives aimed at helping Ukraine, or that I didn’t care about the newest wave of Ukrainian immigrants. Similarly, because I have pushed for the organization and this paper to provide more content and services in the English language, that this therefore implies that I am somehow an opponent of the use of the Ukrainian language. This, of course, is nonsense, and a classic example of adding two plus two and getting five. At best it distorts my real views and opinions and at worst verges on an ad hominem assault on me as a liberally minded, thinking person and involved Ukrainian. In the case of this letter, there is an extra degree of irony in that the author and I share essentially the same views on things Ukrainian.

In a broader sense, what disturbs me most about this, is that it is an indicator of the fact that our Ukrainian community continues to be afflicted by a strong degree of polarization. Any dissenting view or opinion that is at odds with established dogma or practice immediately brands an individual as an “enemy” or a radical. The biases and prejudices kick in, and the merits of a particular opinion or view get overwhelmed by passionate rhetoric, as reason gives way to emotion. It brings back memories of an earlier era, when, if you were not a die-hard patriot, then you must be a communist.

We live in an age and a time when education and historical experience should have taught us that when it comes to social and political issues, there are seldom “black and white” answers or solutions. The achievement of harmony and progress can only come through the often difficult and time-consuming process of two-way dialogue, compromise and co-operation. This requires rational consideration of all the relevant points of view and a synthesis of the most positive elements of each. It requires that we listen more than we talk. In our case, it also requires recognition of the possibility that there is more than one model as to what constitutes being a good Ukrainian.

For the record, I believe that the UNF and organizations like it should always be involved in providing both moral and tangible assistance to our Ukrainian homeland, but only after they have insured that their own organizations and the Ukrainian community here in Canada have been adequately taken care of. I also believe that the preservation and the teaching of the Ukrainian language should be one of the organization’s top priorities, but also that the lack of Ukrainian language skills should never hinder anyone from participating fully in the organization’s activities and programs if they have the desire to do so. Lastly, as I have stated a number of times in previous editorials, the organization should make the task of recruiting and assisting our newest wave of Ukrainian immigrants one of its primary objectives.