Warriors of the King: Prairie Indians in World War I by L. James Dempsey (review)

HUMANITIES 305 was >a small and seemingly ineffective sect= during the Second World War, in large part because it was difficult to maintain in the face of brutal totalitarian regimes. More often than not, pacifism or a reluctance to resist the occupiers was taken as tacit approval of the occupation. In a fascinating essay, Torleiv Austad describes the impact on the Norwegian pacifist movement of the Nazi occupation, which began in April 1940. >Those who remained convinced pacifists,= he writes, >came easily under suspicion of supporting the enemy.= As other contributors to Challenge to Mars tell us, the situation was similar in most occupied countries. Even many Gandhians rallied to the support of the Indian government when a Chinese invasion loomed in 1962. Their willingness to soften their pledge denouncing war as a crime bothered many American peace activists, who never had to make a choice between maintaining an anti-war stance and defending their homes against foreign invaders. In short, perhaps pacifism is too utopian to survive twentieth-century realpolitik. As Brock and Young put it so succinctly, >pacifists ... failed to consider properly the implications of pacifism and non-violence in relation to a totalitarian dictatorship equipped with all the means of suppression provided by modern science.= Both of these fine books make it clear that the pacifist movement=s struggle against war has been a very unequal contest. Militarism has had many forms over the course of the twentieth century, but in each of its forms, it has enjoyed a striking degree of consistency and unity (often, it must be said, brutally imposed from above). Pacifism has also taken many forms but unity and consistency are the very elements which it has so often lacked. When pacifist groups have been able to muster those characteristics, as in the American civil rights movement or Gandhi=s non-violent resistance in India, they have achieved remarkable things. More often, however, the movement has become divided, and was therefore easily conquered. (JONATHAN F. VANCE) L. James Dempsey. Warriors of the King: Prairie Indians in World War I Canadian Plains Research Center 1999. viii, 124. $19.95 Aboriginal participation in twentieth-century wars has lately received increasing scholarly attention in Canada and especially in the United States. Warriors of the King is a useful, though somewhat limited, addition to this growing field of historical inquiry. L. James Dempsey reconstructs the story of the four hundred Prairie Indians who served with Canadian forces during the Great War. He argues that Indian men enlisted for three reasons: the continuing warrior ethic within Plains Indian cultures; a strong loyalty to the British Crown; and the chance to escape the stagnation of reserve life. The book tracks evolving recruitment policies, from federal authorities= initial reluctance to accept Indians, to Indian agents= active encouragement 306 LETTERS IN CANADA 2000 of Indian enlistment in 1917, to the decision to exempt Indians from conscription in early 1918. Along the way Dempsey provides anecdotal evidence of the wartime experiences and responses of First Nations soldiers and their communities. On the home front, Dempsey describes the contributions that First Nations communities made to the national war effort through the purchase of war bonds and donations to patriotic organizations. Warriors of the King closes with a look at the war=s aftermath for Indian veterans and their people, noting the bitterness engendered at sharing the burdens and the sacrifices of war only to remain effectively barred from the benefits due to veterans. Dempsey is at his best in his depictions of Plains Indian culture prior to the war and in his description of the experiences of individual First Nations soldiers and their families and communities during the war. He is also strong in his examination of the government side, and makes good use of archival and period newspapers. These sources enable him to explore, or at least introduce, a wide range of issues. Despite its strengths, however, the book is plagued with several shortcomings. There are a number of errors of fact or untested assumption. The most serious of the former is Dempsey=s mistaken claim that Indians were exempted from military service in 1918. PC 111 only exempted Indians from conscription...