Fear

Earlier this week, Aruna asked us to contextualize and find our fear, mentioning that the system tries to make you feel fearful.

I find it interesting how I fill my life with fear. I am obsessed with watching crime shows, particularly true crime shows, such as American Justice and Cold Case Files. I have been diagnosed with four (yes, four) separate anxiety-related disorders. Fear is a daily part of my life.

Putting my fear into context is a little more difficult for me. I can only assume I surround myself with fear for a couple reasons. Mostly importantly, I have never really experienced fear in my life. Most of it was manufactured by Hollywood, sensational newspaper stories, or other people's stories. I have never feared for my life, I have never had a near-death experience. My fear is purely the result of the system in the culture I live within. As a result, I eventually envisioned my fear for everything in the form of snakes, a phobia I was diagnosed with in my 4th year, but one that has affected me for a long time. Although my ophidiophobia has lessened, it is still a very present part of my life, and one I doubt I will ever fully be able to release, especially during times of stress.

I do find it interesting, however, that all of my anxiety-related diagnosis are surrounded around things that haven't happened yet. They all trigger my OCD, which is my defense mechanism to ensure bad things do not happen, and the completing the various rituals my OCD dictates me to do (sometimes with no particular reason, it seems) makes me feel better. This is my system to deal with fear, and being in therapy to help rid me of my system is frightening in itself.

However, I find my fear is really about the anticipation before an event happens, and the government, news, etc, all capitalize on this fear of anticipation of a horrible event. I have never experienced a natural disaster, religious persecution, or threats against my race or sexuality. I have experienced the fear of moving, and of my parents and brother (all of whom I am very close to) moving far away from me, which provokes the fear of isolation and immediate threat (i.e. if one of them was in the process of dying suddenly, would I be able to see them before they died?), but I am incapable of accurately and processing the reality of this fear because it so emotional and personal.

I feel that optimism has been quashed due to its lack of marketability. People don't want to hear how well things are going because that won't sell the newspapers. I dislike this fear-mongering culture because I bought into it so long ago that I feel I can't get out.

Journal Entry: Queering Diaspora

Response: I find myself shocked at my own reaction to the article by Meg Wesling, "Why Queer Diaspora?" At the very beginning of the course, we discussed the topic personal diaspora vs. ethnic/religious/political/racial diaspora, and I commented that I thought there was no reason for the two not to be equally valid representations of diaspora. I am now finding myself wondering how people can justify queer diaspora on the same level.

This is not to say that I don't believe there are similar types of hardships surrounding the difficulty of coming out to friends, family, the town/city you live in, etc, and finding your sexuality so rejected by them that you feel you must move. I do, however, feel that there are inherent differences and choices to make surrounding these very different types of diaspora. In particular is the visibility of sexuality; it is a little easier to hide, so to speak, than gender or ethnicity, which makes the ability to choose your new home a little easier, and also with less of a sense of urgency.

There is also the problem about thinking globally about queerness and queerly about globalization. Do mashing these two issues together reduce the importance of one or the other? I do not believe that it is possible to address both of those issues equally while considering them together, and would best perhaps be considered apart from one another.

I do definitely have a very big problem with the parallel drawn between the disruption of national sovereignty and disruption of gender normativity, as Wesling puts it. I think it is very easy to see how this might paint me in the light of a homophobe, but I cannot allow such an unequal parallel to be drawn between the two. The disruption of national sovereignty is most often due to a visible difference, which one cannot hide, no matter how hard one tries, and one does not have to talk to someone to determine that their race is different. However, in the case of sexuality, one may assume someone's sexuality (much like one can assume race), but it is impossible to tell one's sexuality based solely on appearance. I am not trying to say discrimination does not occur regardless of this, but that it is a little less easy to do so, visually speaking.

Self-Critique: Wow. I definitely surprised even myself by some of the things I typed out and thought. I did not give much thought to what I was saying, I simply said it, and I think that is abundantly clear in the above paragraphs.

I am not thinking in terms of queer theory very well at all, and I think I am grossly misrepresenting several of the points Wesling made in her article. It is very clear I am not well educated on queer theory, nor have I spent much time researching it prior to reading this article. I am entirely unfamiliar with queer diaspora, not only as a concept, but I do not have anything to really base my speculations on aside from assumptions I have made.

I obviously consider LGTBQ problems and minority problems as two entirely separate things, when this is not true at all; there are people who belong to both cultures, and experience the institutional discrimination from both sides.

Cultural Critique: In the culture(s) I belong to, queer theory and LGBTQ rights are actually quite a prominent and popular type of activism. It might be cynical to call it thus, but it is a favourite "white" type of activism. My response, however, tells me that it is still quite popular to assume that LGTBQ people do not "have it all bad," and that they do not experience discrimination on the same level as minorities might in the same situations. It is still part of dominant culture to ignore the difficulties involved in LGTBQ culture, as well as to compare their hardships to those of minorities, as I have in my response. I also did not take into consideration those people who belong to both LGTBQ culture and minority culture, which is often considered a subculture of its own.

My response is telling. The dominant culture in Canadian society is still resisting LGTBQ issues from a minority stand point, and refuses to truly consider that similar problems can really be similar. This also leads to the point of labelling - problems belong in their own little, separate boxes, and should not be mixed. This mixing of issues and theories must be considered for this culture to move forward.

Ignorance

It has taken me a few days to make this post because the circumstances that brought this post around were difficult to process.

It was bedtime for my long-term boyfriend and I. We often talk at length before actually falling asleep, and that night was no different. Somehow, I admit I cannot recall how, we came to the subject of immigration in Canada. His tone immediately changed. Although he still attempted to keep the topic light, his tone became so negative regarding immigration I found myself taken aback. He claimed immigration was easy, that integrating immigrants into the community was no challenge at all, and he felt that being white was turning into the minority in Canada.

I was so stunned I hardly knew what topic to address first! While I hardly consider myself an authority upon immigration and racism, I also felt I could not ignore the direction he had taken our conversation. My boyfriend, whom I shall refer to as S for the remainder of this post, could not understand why I reacted so negatively towards his statement. He thought that I, as a white woman, would understand his point of view, but did not want to investigate the conversation any further.

I must inject here that normally, I would not have gone further, and would have left what he had said well enough alone, although perhaps with a stern look. I now feel that such a reaction in the face of such ignorance and blatant racist misunderstanding only helps to perpetuate it, instead of helping the perpetrator understand where exactly s/he has gone wrong.

So, I talked. I asked him to cite his sources for his wildly inaccurate claims. I asked him if he knew what white privilege was, and whether or not he understood the kind of power that comes with white privilege that others cannot attain. We argued over many things, but most of all we argued about racism in Canada. He believed it did not exist. As a direct result of this 513 course, I was able to quote different anecdotes from various articles, novels and websites I've come across, and I saw surprise across his face. I talked about how racism is often defined as power plus prejudice, and how you can still be prejudiced, but have no power. It took him a while to understand that.

He asked what he was supposed to do. He said he couldn't stop it himself, so why bother? I told him that was a cop-out, and that next time someone says something racist, or derogatory, to tell them to stop, and that it's wrong. He laughed. He said he couldn't understand what good it would do.

What I said next is something I truly believe. Standing up to something like that takes courage. Racism is such a long-standing "accepted" part of white culture that just by ascertaining only white folk are around, it must be acceptable to tell a racist joke. Simply by saying, "Hey, that's racist, and that's wrong," won't change anyone's minds immediately, but it will make them uncomfortable, like they made you uncomfortable by trying to tell the joke in the first place. By doing this over a long period of time, you will eventually realize that it is wrong, no one should stand for that sort of passive racism, and that is exactly the kind of racism that the Canadian government has been turning a blind eye to for years, such as in the situation of the Japanese-Canadians in the second World War, and ultimately, passive racism hurts people.

Writing this post was hard. I'm sure I got a lot of things wrong, and I'm more than happy to have people correct me, so I can continue to learn, think and act, and help S to learn, think and act, instead of standing by, allowing passive racism to continue.

Theorizing Diaspora: I Wonder

While reading Nation, Migration and Globalization: Points of Contention in Diaspora Studies, I realized that much of the article discussed diaspora as a concept itself, and made references to how hotly debated it was. The article mentions several times what it is and what it isn't, but never comes to a completely direct and solid definition of diaspora. While certainly many critical theories never do garner a straightforward definition, I find it very interesting that many established academics argue diaspora, yet many simple students in a 500 level course are running rampant with their own definition of diaspora.

What I'm wondering exactly is whether or not these academics who had made what diaspora is, or is not, their business would approve of this. How would they view this course, and the things people discuss, or write about, or even this post? Would they want to contribute, or would they simply rather tell us how it really is, as opposed to hearing what we think? I wonder how much their opinion of diaspora itself will change in ten years' time.

I do not like being told, "This is how it is." I much prefer to hear/read many sources and come to a conclusion myself. While reading the article, it would appear they do not agree. Is this because I am not an established academic? Is it part of my class or racial privilege that I am unaccustomed to being told how it is, and I am having difficulty accepting it? I wonder.

Journal Entry: Joy Kogawa's Obasan

Response: This is not the first time I've read Obasan. The first time I did was in 11th grade, and it is such a powerful book that it left a large impression on me; it made me realize that Canada has a history of which I am not, was not, fully aware. I found, and still find, parts of Obasan shocking. This current reading of it has made me realize I am conflicted between Aunt Emily and Naomi's different points of view: Aunt Emily constantly reminds everyone that they are Canadian, and is an activist for Japanese-Canadian rights, although she likely would not put it like that. Over the years, Emily has collected much correspondence with government officials regarding Japanese-Canadian rights, and speaks about it openly and without chagrin, which is very unlike Naomi, and other members of her family. Naomi does not want to dredge up the past, and prefers instead to forget and move on with the present. She is very uncomfortable with Emily's force of nature to remember and recall the past, because she believes without analyzing and correcting the past, there can be no future.

In the past, I could not understand why Naomi would not want to see injustices corrected or addressed. Now, I feel torn between the activism of Emily, and Naomi's silent determination to advance, leaving the past as past. However, I cannot understand Naomi's reluctance to address racism against Japanese-Canadians, as it effects her on a day-by-day basis.

Self-Critique: Obviously, my values have changed a great deal since 11th grade, which has been seven years. My life, opinions, and my literary and academic experience has changed exponentially, and naturally, my response to Obasan is a reflection of how much has changed. My knowledge of what occurred during the years Obasan takes place has increased, and so has how appalled I am to learn about Canada's involvement and passive approval of racism.

I feel I have lied, since I chose my phrases rather carefully while discussing Aunt Emily and Naomi in my response. I had originally written "Aunt Emily embraces being a Canadian," and found that phraseology troubling. Aunt Emily is Canadian, born and raised - why should she need to embrace what she is? But perhaps there's more to it than that. I believe that is an interpretation of Emily has presented herself, versus how Naomi has presented herself in the novel; Emily is forcibly Canadian, thrusting the word in Naomi's face, while Naomi has not said how she identifies in the novel, whether she feels more Japanese than Canadian, Canadian than Japanese, or both. I'm not entirely certain why I think it's important for Naomi to "identify" herself; I can only assume it is because I identify so strongly as Canadian that I cannot imagine why someone else would not want to identify strongly as something.

Cultural Critique: It is quite clear to me from reading this that I have white privilege, and my heritage is an "acceptable" Canadian heritage (i.e. Irish, British, Scottish, French, etc), both of which mean I, nor have many in the culture I share, have never had to experience any kind of the oppression they have, especially during such a turbulent time in WWII. The same culture prides itself on being open, honest and intolerant of inequality, yet I do not easily discover information about Japanese-Canadian internment, and I do not recall learning about it in depth during prior school years; it is a subject I've had to dig and find out things on my own. Why would such a culture hide its own intolerance in the past, which directly effects the future? Why not address it, come to terms with it, and make it so it will not occur again? Instead, this culture buries its shame, and refuses to allow it to resurface without a fight. This is a major conflict between what we are taught in school and what we actually learn from it.

Canadian culture is a passive one, which prefers to leave past in the past, and ignore ills against its own people, while at the same time pretending to fight for the right and freedom of people overseas! This is a confusing contradiction, and one that begs to be investigated further.

Line of Inquiry: Mapping Our World

1. Locate as many different projections of maps of the world as you can and research their provenance (origin, history, debates about their use, superiority, etc).

I did manage to find a couple maps of the world. Sadly, I found this on Wikipedia from 1897, although it is clearly marked:



My version of the world, seen in question 3, is not too different from this, although perhaps a little "rounder."

Here is another, from the 1700s, which shows how little they knew about North American at the time:



As we go further back, I found a fascinating early map, completed by Ptolemy before Christopher Columbus discovered the New World, again from Wikipedia:



I am glad to see that I am better informed then they are! Europe, Asia and Africa take up the entirety of the map. I found several more very, very old world maps from the late 1200s and on here, all of which are fascinating to see, although the detail is not nearly as good as the ones I have posted here.

A little more recently, here is a map complete with political information, from 1952:



I find it very interesting which countries are considered "important" enough to have their leaders displayed, and which are left blank. I admit I was surprised to see Canada completely blank!

2. Think of the projections you are most familiar with and, in critique mode, determine why that might be.

I am most familiar with fairly outdated (i.e. does not contain Nunavut) maps, which originate from my childhood. I can only speculate as to why I have not bothered to familiarize myself with the world as it is today. I know it's not a subject I've found particularly interesting, and I suppose it's because it does not affect me in a personal way, nor does it affect my family or friends - as far as I know.

3. (this is the trick part). Draw a map of the world with which you are familiar and one with which you are unfamiliar, and then see how close you are (in whatever projection)--or try the whole world if you wish. What does this exercise tell you about our knowledge? What nations do you know most geographically and culturally about? Least? What countries do you not know exist? How did they come into existence? How many countries in the subcontinent of Africa can you name and map? South America? Which areas of migration/diaspora can you identify? How did you come by this knowledge? And so on.



This is my map of the world. As you can probably see, it's not something I think about much, and it's quite obviously a subject I know little to nothing about. I know most about geographical locations closest to me, such as the United States, although that didn't stop me from forgetting Alaska on my map, and I forgot where Cuba is, etc. I hardly know much about Canada, either, given that I cannot draw any of its islands - I even forgot PEI! - although I did remember to draw Vancouver Island, at the very least.

I know nothing at all past the United Kingdom. The further south-east I go in the world, the less and less I know about it, i.e. culture, geographically, people, language. I could not tell you what languages people speak in South America, although I do know Portuguese is one of them. I know nothing about the various Chinese dialects. Although I guess I shouldn't be, I still find myself surprised at how uninformed I am. I feel like I was, perhaps, better informed when I was just learning geography in elementary school!

I recall when Becky brought in her map of the world, and we all made play-dough shapes based on flags, or symbols, of people and cultures around the world, and seeing the amount of diaspora from the United Kingdom, Japan, China, and countries I had not considered before, such as Brazil, was fascinating. She had with her a sheet of paper detailing who had gone where and when, which made it easier to visualize. Simply reading that Brazilians are coming to Canada does not give one an amount, which makes it clearer how many people are coming, what the percentage of the population are, etc.

I'm not very good at blogging, am I?

I'm glad Tracy posted this on Bboard, I was wondering about my status in the course - am I ahead, behind, somewhere in the middle? Thanks to this list, I believe I'm somewhere in the middle; I have some catching up to do, but nothing serious! I've posted the list for my own benefit, so I can come back and check to see what I have and have not done.

* Submitted a presentation evaluation rubric which describes how group/individual presentations will be (were) evaluated?
* Submitted narrative evaluations for your own presentation and the presentations done by others in the class? (group or individual)
* Completed and submitted the scavenger hunt?
* Submitted a learning journal and scheduled a time to meet with Aruna to discuss your journal?
* Completed the mini LOI found in the Group Work folder?
* Contributed to the class blog as both an author and a responder?
* Submitted your group work (research) process document?
* Completed the Elluminate Live survey found in Blackboard?
* Participated in the progressive portfolio discussion thread in Blackboard?
* Visited the LOI area in Blackboard to see what new ideas are found there?
* Noticed the new material added to the Art, Film and Music area and the Online Resources - websites and article area in Blackboard?
* Retrieved the documents you want from Round Four of the Rotating Reading Room?