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.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
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 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 andthe 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?
* Submitted narrative evaluations for your own presentation and
* Completed and submitted the scavenger hunt?
* Participated in the progressive portfolio discussion thread in Blackboard?
* Noticed the new material added to the Art, Film and Music area and the Online Resources - websites and article area in Blackboard?
Friday, May 29, 2009
Crossing Over: Thoughts (and Spoilers)
Last night, I watched Crossing Over, a movie about immigrants and immigration process. On the whole, it was a rather disappointing movie. It attempted to tie together several different intersecting storylines through chance encounters, but just came off as unbelievable and exploitative.
Perhaps the most exploitative and unbelievable storyline was that of Claire Shepard, a struggling Australian actress who is attempting to get her green card. Through one of those proverbial twists of fate, Shepard gets into a car accident with Cole Frankel, who just happens to be an immigration judiciary official, one of the people who can approve people's green card applications. Frankel essentially blackmails Shepard into a sexual relationship, in small part for the car, but mostly for her green card. The agreement of the relationship is that she is to be available at his beck and call whenever he pleases for two months. Shepard obviously finds herself haunted and tormented by this agreement, but what makes it so exploitative is that after this agreement is made, nearly every time we see Shepard, she's completely naked. The use of nudity is gratuitous to the extreme, and the storyline fizzles out when Shepard "gives up" Frankel for voluntary deportation back to Australia.
Another exploitative storyline is the one surrounding the Kim family, Koreans who are days away from their naturalization. The focus is on the eldest son, Kim Yong, who becomes involved with Korean gang members (ggangpae). There is no given reason for this. This plot distinctly lacks depth. During a planned robbery where "no one was supposed to get hurt," Kim finds himself as the only surviving ggangpae, as the others are systematically killed by Hamid Baraheri, an immigration official who, by yet another twist of fate, finds himself in the liquor store during the robbery. The two share a completely unbelievable dialogue about immigration and naturalization, and Baraheri lets Kim go. There are very few scenes with Kim and the Kim family, and almost all of them involve some form of violence. The story and characters had promise, but the story fell flat with too much violence and not enough focus on character development.
There are, however, a few moments in the film that are heart-wrenching and slightly more believable. The Bangladeshi Jahangir family has a very interesting storyline, involving a daughter who tries to see the 9/11 attack from another perspective, and the whole family pays the price. I wondered the entire time about the accuracy of this story; is it imagined reactions, or real ones? Have they put together various true stories to make this one? I have not been able to find that answer, but I will continue looking. If the entire movie was about this family, it would have improved. There was enough in the family dynamics and the situation for an entire movie, without the useless big names stars, i.e. Harrison Ford, Ray Liotta. The exploration of this storyline would be interesting to see, especially due to the fact that the parents and oldest daughter were illegal immigrants, but the two younger siblings are American-born. This dynamic could have been further investigated, considering there must be plenty of US residents who find themselves in a similar place.
The final storyline I'd like to put down is the one concerning the Iranian family, the Baraheris. There was gratuitous sex, murder and a cover-up involving the young daughter, Zahra. Farid, her older brother, discovered she was in a relationship with an older man, who was married with two kids. He decided, under his father's orders, to "scare them a little" by killing the two of them, and subsequently asking Hamid, the immigrations official brother, to help him cover it up. This storyline was nothing but a complete mess, with an utterly unnecessary sex scene, full frontal nudity and murder. The family dynamics could have been better explored without the sex and murder, and it would still have been a revealing exercise between American vs. Iranian cultural expectations/differences.
I'm going to stop here before I discuss the entire movie. Crossing Over was purely for shock value, and did not explore immigration issues as one might have expected. Instead, Crossing Over focussed primarily on issues the white people in the movie bothered to concern themselves with, which gave us the longwinded and unrevealing storyline involving Mireya and her son. On the whole, not a worthwhile watch, but interesting to see what Hollywood considers important issues in immigration.
Perhaps the most exploitative and unbelievable storyline was that of Claire Shepard, a struggling Australian actress who is attempting to get her green card. Through one of those proverbial twists of fate, Shepard gets into a car accident with Cole Frankel, who just happens to be an immigration judiciary official, one of the people who can approve people's green card applications. Frankel essentially blackmails Shepard into a sexual relationship, in small part for the car, but mostly for her green card. The agreement of the relationship is that she is to be available at his beck and call whenever he pleases for two months. Shepard obviously finds herself haunted and tormented by this agreement, but what makes it so exploitative is that after this agreement is made, nearly every time we see Shepard, she's completely naked. The use of nudity is gratuitous to the extreme, and the storyline fizzles out when Shepard "gives up" Frankel for voluntary deportation back to Australia.
Another exploitative storyline is the one surrounding the Kim family, Koreans who are days away from their naturalization. The focus is on the eldest son, Kim Yong, who becomes involved with Korean gang members (ggangpae). There is no given reason for this. This plot distinctly lacks depth. During a planned robbery where "no one was supposed to get hurt," Kim finds himself as the only surviving ggangpae, as the others are systematically killed by Hamid Baraheri, an immigration official who, by yet another twist of fate, finds himself in the liquor store during the robbery. The two share a completely unbelievable dialogue about immigration and naturalization, and Baraheri lets Kim go. There are very few scenes with Kim and the Kim family, and almost all of them involve some form of violence. The story and characters had promise, but the story fell flat with too much violence and not enough focus on character development.
There are, however, a few moments in the film that are heart-wrenching and slightly more believable. The Bangladeshi Jahangir family has a very interesting storyline, involving a daughter who tries to see the 9/11 attack from another perspective, and the whole family pays the price. I wondered the entire time about the accuracy of this story; is it imagined reactions, or real ones? Have they put together various true stories to make this one? I have not been able to find that answer, but I will continue looking. If the entire movie was about this family, it would have improved. There was enough in the family dynamics and the situation for an entire movie, without the useless big names stars, i.e. Harrison Ford, Ray Liotta. The exploration of this storyline would be interesting to see, especially due to the fact that the parents and oldest daughter were illegal immigrants, but the two younger siblings are American-born. This dynamic could have been further investigated, considering there must be plenty of US residents who find themselves in a similar place.
The final storyline I'd like to put down is the one concerning the Iranian family, the Baraheris. There was gratuitous sex, murder and a cover-up involving the young daughter, Zahra. Farid, her older brother, discovered she was in a relationship with an older man, who was married with two kids. He decided, under his father's orders, to "scare them a little" by killing the two of them, and subsequently asking Hamid, the immigrations official brother, to help him cover it up. This storyline was nothing but a complete mess, with an utterly unnecessary sex scene, full frontal nudity and murder. The family dynamics could have been better explored without the sex and murder, and it would still have been a revealing exercise between American vs. Iranian cultural expectations/differences.
I'm going to stop here before I discuss the entire movie. Crossing Over was purely for shock value, and did not explore immigration issues as one might have expected. Instead, Crossing Over focussed primarily on issues the white people in the movie bothered to concern themselves with, which gave us the longwinded and unrevealing storyline involving Mireya and her son. On the whole, not a worthwhile watch, but interesting to see what Hollywood considers important issues in immigration.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Presentation Research Journalling
Response
During my research for my pre-session presentation, I found myself encountering many unpleasant thoughts and feelings raised by the issue of immigration into Canada. I had never encountered this before, and the experience is an entirely new and uncomfortable one for me. I also find myself very ignorant and naive in relation to how I perceive Canada, and I am loath to admit to myself the extent of which Canada makes things purposefully difficult, immigration-wise, to come to Canada. I do not wish to believe such things are really true, despite having the evidence and accounts laid out before me. I find myself exhausted at the possibility - not the possibility, the truth - about Canadian immigration.
Indeed, such issues are raised in Bannerji's The Dark Side of the Nation, a narrative which shocked me in many ways. Her treatment upon coming into Canada, the way officials talk to her as if she stole her way "in" Canada, is insulting and dehumanizing.
Self Critique
The reason I am so uncomfortable encountering this vitriol towards Canada is due to a numbers of things. First and foremost, I consider myself a patriot of Canada, and while I certainly do not consider Canada a perfect place or utopia, I am astonished at the preconceptions about immigration that I held, when such conceptions about the ease of immigrating into Canada is so completely and wholly untrue.
I am unsure about my own shock. Am I shocked at her treatment because she is a human being, and Bannerji has the same right to treatment that I have? Or is it my white privilege, my secret belief that Canada cannot be so bad because I have never been treated as such, for I have not? Is my awareness of skin colour - my own, and others - the beginning of my othering of people?
Cultural Critique
How the culture I find myself in is obvious, and greatly influences my reactions. I am part of a culture in Canada that is largely unaware of what is happening around it. I am part of the dominant white culture, whose concerns largely do not encompass those of immigrants, and are very out of touch with the Real Canada vs. White Canada. While this concept is personally offensive to me, I realize and recognize why it is; the culture accepts and embraces the false nature of multiculturalism in Canada. In reality, Canada strives more to categorize and define people from a racialized perspective so hard that it stops multiculturalism and functions as racism.
The term racism within this culture defines itself as a person, or group of people, who practically foam at the mouth with hate, slinging racist and derogatory terms left and right like mud. Canadian racism is subtle, and digs itself into its purported "multiculturalism." This is a direct contradiction towards how Canada endeavors to present itself to the world.
During my research for my pre-session presentation, I found myself encountering many unpleasant thoughts and feelings raised by the issue of immigration into Canada. I had never encountered this before, and the experience is an entirely new and uncomfortable one for me. I also find myself very ignorant and naive in relation to how I perceive Canada, and I am loath to admit to myself the extent of which Canada makes things purposefully difficult, immigration-wise, to come to Canada. I do not wish to believe such things are really true, despite having the evidence and accounts laid out before me. I find myself exhausted at the possibility - not the possibility, the truth - about Canadian immigration.
Indeed, such issues are raised in Bannerji's The Dark Side of the Nation, a narrative which shocked me in many ways. Her treatment upon coming into Canada, the way officials talk to her as if she stole her way "in" Canada, is insulting and dehumanizing.
Self Critique
The reason I am so uncomfortable encountering this vitriol towards Canada is due to a numbers of things. First and foremost, I consider myself a patriot of Canada, and while I certainly do not consider Canada a perfect place or utopia, I am astonished at the preconceptions about immigration that I held, when such conceptions about the ease of immigrating into Canada is so completely and wholly untrue.
I am unsure about my own shock. Am I shocked at her treatment because she is a human being, and Bannerji has the same right to treatment that I have? Or is it my white privilege, my secret belief that Canada cannot be so bad because I have never been treated as such, for I have not? Is my awareness of skin colour - my own, and others - the beginning of my othering of people?
Cultural Critique
How the culture I find myself in is obvious, and greatly influences my reactions. I am part of a culture in Canada that is largely unaware of what is happening around it. I am part of the dominant white culture, whose concerns largely do not encompass those of immigrants, and are very out of touch with the Real Canada vs. White Canada. While this concept is personally offensive to me, I realize and recognize why it is; the culture accepts and embraces the false nature of multiculturalism in Canada. In reality, Canada strives more to categorize and define people from a racialized perspective so hard that it stops multiculturalism and functions as racism.
The term racism within this culture defines itself as a person, or group of people, who practically foam at the mouth with hate, slinging racist and derogatory terms left and right like mud. Canadian racism is subtle, and digs itself into its purported "multiculturalism." This is a direct contradiction towards how Canada endeavors to present itself to the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)