When spending time with the Kogawa Fonds, my primary focus landed on what readers and editors had said about the book, Obasan. The book discusses her personal experience of the treatment of Japanese-Canadians during World War II in attempt to keep the history alive. Personally, I felt that the topic book was interesting, but her writing style did not fulfil the distinction and stature of the topic. 

The success of the book suggests that her endeavour to keep the story of the unfair behaviour toward Japanese-Canadians circulating. There is no denying that this book successfully gives most readers an eye-opening look at the standard of living this people group was forced to endure. In a letter from a fan, Henry David Thoreau was quoted to explain to Kogawa that she had “built where no one had built before”. This is an unfortunate truth. Although the topic has seen some media attention, it has not received merely as much as it deserves. I, personally, had never heard of it before and I have lived in Canada my whole life. Unlike the Holocaust, where Canada is seen as a hero, this shameful event is not included in many school curriculum’s. It seems as though our nations leaders want this event forgotten. Unfortunately that leaves it to us to keep these memories alive. 

Canada is a fortunate country. Blessed with resources and a stable government, but as mentioned in a letter from David Holdaway, “…fear drove otherwise rational governments to do irrational acts”. Canada not only dropped the ball by acting irrationally towards the Japanese-Canadians, but they also did not handle the situation with the honour and integrity the world is used to seeing from them as a nation. A public apology was not issued within adequate time, and the event was concealed as much as possible in the years following. History is often said to be taught to prevent mankind from making the same mistakes again, but that is not the case in this circumstance. The mishap is not receiving rightful treatment. In a letter from a publisher who chose not to print Obasan, Ted Whittaker stated, “Canada is a righteous country. This book refuses that righteousness, telling with quiet rage what Canadians can to do each other, and have done.”

Canada has a reputation as a “middle-man” country. It’s new “multicultural” status currently serves it well. Always making decisions which are not too dramatic to avoid upsetting as many people groups as possible. Radical decisions are not it’s specialty and more often than not, it is the positive actions that have been made which are taught in school and promoted in media. Ideally, I like to say that this is unfair. History should be presented as blank and white as possible. Allowing everyone equal access to the facts. The following is merely one, very patriotic, way to look at what Canada has done in the past. Personally, I like the reputation Canada has created for itself by selectively choosing which aspects of it’s history to make known. Having a good reputation in the past drives us as a nation to maintain this character in the future. I understand this can be unfair to the people who endured the hardships of the event and why they would want it to be made known, but my selfish pride takes over. This may be insensitive to say, but I understand why Canada chooses to hide this event in the shackles of the past. 

From the time I began high-school until now I have been hearing many arguments about human nature. Are humans inherently good, or inherently bad? It seems to me that it has been an ongoing discussion throughout history. It appears in old writing, such as most of Shakespeare’s writings, but also in modern children’s books. It has been discussed throughout the ages, yet no one appears to have come to a definitive answer to the question. What seems like a simple question becomes complicated as one looks at the complex dynamics it encompasses.

To begin, a major complication is the individuality of each person. No two people are the same and neither are their motives behind their actions. Two individuals can have the exact same upbringing with the same opportunities throughout life, yet one might end up a pastor of a church and the other in jail. How could this be? There is no black and white answer, maybe one individual was impacted differently by a particular situation causing the direction of their life to be altered from that point on. Maybe we should consider that some individuals can be inherently good, while others bad. There is no uniform trait, it is entirely dependent on the individual.

Next, regardless of how bad a person is, they didn’t start out that way and throughout their life they have done things that emanate goodness. A textbook example of this could be Adolf Hitler. Clearly, at one point, he was an innocent child. When looking at his life and political career in out political science class, it becomes clear that his bad behaviour develops throughout his time. He found a cause which he believed in, and allowed the end he desired to justify the means of achieving this end. Somewhere along the line, he lost sight of Jewish people as human beings. He made a decision for himself to be bad.

In Marjane Satrapi’s graphic novel, Persepolis, we see a young girl who battles with a decision of being good or bad. It is fascinating to watch her flip back and forth as she learns how to deal with the events taking place around her. At times, when she is less informed as to what is going on, she makes quick and rash decisions which often end with decisions to be bad. For example, after seeing the violence which takes place around her, she desires to get violent herself and attempts to beat up a boy at her school. On the other hand, she works to maintain goodness in a time where everything around her seems bad. Depending on what is happening around her, she goes allows herself to travel back and forth from being good, to bad.

My belief is that people are neither inherently good or bad. Both of these characteristics reside in each person and it is up to them which one they allow to develop. At any time, a person can switch from one to another, but it is ultimately their own decision. Also,it isn’t something a person has to be on one side or the other of. Rather, it is a spectrum which a person can reside at any point on. Major life events likely impact where on the spectrum they allow themselves to remain, but it is ultimately their decision where they choose.