Third World and Western Feminist linkages through colonial art
The picture above was taken on March 30th, 2017. I was driving back from studying at UBC over the Burrard Street bridge (a bridge I take every single day to get to and from school), when I noticed an image/sculpture illustrated atop the bridge. The image depicts a supposedly happy connection between what seems to be a colonial white man and a First Nations man. Both have their hand placed on an emblem symbolizing health and the Queen (with the representation of the knight), and the caption to the image reads, “By sea and land we prosper”. There are many layers to this representation of connection and “peace”. It seems the artwork is attempting to take away the struggle and oppression of the first nations group by overriding it with themes of hard work and cooperation, wherein reality the white settler colonialists treated the First Nations as though they were less than human.
Although these observations regarding mistreatment and oppression are true, I would like to focus more on the feminist globalization aspects (or lack thereof) in the image depicted. The fact that it is two men standing together, “prospering”, does not just put the idea of feminism to the side, it actually completely erases the female. It claims that it is the man who does the adventuring, the searching, the community building, and the thriving in the world, while the women merely sit back and watch them without any involvement.
The issue that comes along with this is that Vancouver prides itself on supporting third world feminism and the support of women who want to make a name for themselves and can achieve whatever goals they may want. However, this sign creates a “complicated tension” (MacDonald 2015) between what we would call Western feminists and Third World feminists. Organizations such as Because I am A Girl (2015) work hard to make connections between third and first world females as a means of an intersectional support group on a global scale. Yet, when artwork like this is displayed in a country that supposedly supports the entrepreneurship and independence of young women, it minimalizes female struggle and works hard to erase the female altogether, especially considering the significance of the bridge it is placed upon. It ties the female to her “Master Signifier” (Mansoor 2016); or the man who can make her significant. It shows that the man is the one who is meant to build the nation, and thus the essentialism of the submissive, quiet female housewife is introduced in order to appease the man.
Works of art like these, when placed in such a public setting, work to minimalize femininity and emphasize the need for a male figure to take on the role as dominant. It minimalizes the struggle of Western and Third World feminists, and creates tension on the relationship between the two.
References
Mansoor, A. (2016). “Marginalization” in third world feminism: its problematics and theoretical reconfiguration. Palgrave Communications,2, 16026. doi:10.1057/palcomms.2016.26
Macdonald, K. (2015). Calls for educating girls in the Third World: futurity, girls and the ‘Third World Woman’. Gender, Place & Culture,23(1), 1-17. doi:10.1080/0966369x.2014.991699