During ASTU this year, we read texts that addressed conflicts around the world. Starting with Persepolis, which examined the violence in Iran during the Islamic Revolution, we came closer to home with Obasan, which dealt with the prejudice and racism that Japanese-Canadians faced during World War II. Entering second semester, we turned our sights overseas again to the Bosnian War as depicted by journalist, Joe Sacco in Safe Area Goražde. As an American, we did not finally turn our attention towards my home country until our discussion of The Reluctant Fundamentalist. However, even this piece still looked at the events that took place on September 11th from a more global perspective. For me, it seemed only fitting that that we concluded with American Sniper and “Redeployment,” two works that look at the experiences of American Soldiers during the Iraq war, since they forced me to examine the effects of violence on the lives of my fellow Americans.

During the year, we also examined the work of scholars, one of which was the philosopher, Judith Butler’s “Survivability, Vulnerability, Affect” which argues that in order for war to end we must recognize all lives as vulnerable and grievable. Although, Butler primarily looks at how we relate to people in other countries, I believe that we can begin this process with people within our own countries. In class, we have discussed how in modern war culture there has been a blurring of the home front and war front. Despite this infiltration of militarization into our lives, the number of people who have been directly affected by the casualties and realities of war has decreased. Unlike, the World Wars where men were drafted, the soldiers who fought in Iraq were all volunteer soldiers. With less families affected, it raises the question of whether we have less qualms about sending our U.S. forces into battle. I propose that if we are better able to view the lives of U.S. soldiers as grievable and vulnerable we will be less likely to deploy them.

For myself, this may be more difficult than expected since my personal views don’t align with the views of many of the U.S. soldiers, or at least the depiction of their views as portrayed in American Sniper. Chris Kyle, the protagonist in American Sniper, fervently believes that he is protecting his “brothers in arms” and Americans in general, including his wife, from the evil in the world. He buys into the narrative that by eradicating al-Qaeda terrorists he is making the world a safer place. I personally feel that this issue is more complex and that the 9/11 attacks, that triggered the Iraq war, do not justify the approximately 200,000 thousand Iraqi civilian deaths that have occurred since then (www.iraqbodycount.org). Personally, I think that by simplifying the world as good vs. evil we are overlooking the ulterior motives behind George W. Bush’s creation of “The Axis of Evil.”

However, despite my differences in opinion with many of the U.S. soldiers, I maintain that it is important to recognize the effects that the Iraq War has had on their lives. Even if less soldiers are being killed in battle, meaning an increasing number are making it home, those that make it home are permanently altered, something that we find difficult to address. Phil Klay tries to address the unspeakability of soldiers’ experiences of war in his book Redeployment. In the first chapter, also entitled “Redeployment,” the veterans are met by their wives and families, thrusting them back into their home lives, despite the fact that they are not the same people they were when they left. In this homecoming scene, Klay is asking the reader to consider the veterans’ point of view, as opposed to the more relatable perspective of the awaiting loved ones, which is more commonly portrayed in the media. Although, the veterans physical life is not lost, the life they knew before the war is. By asking us to try and understand what the soldiers have gone through instead of turning away from it because it is ‘too terrible to imagine,’ we are better able to grieve the loss of the veterans’ prewar lives and understand the destruction of war.

In our ASTU class we have discussed who is telling the story and how this influences the story being told. In our discussions, we have acknowledged that the portrayals we read do their best to convey an individual’s version of the truth but that this may not be the complete story. In my view, the Amazonia exhibit that is currently being shown at the Museum of Anthropology (MOA) is trying to convey the aspects of life in the Amazon that are not commonly portrayed, such as the conflict between the pressures of development and the indigenous populations living in the Amazon and the environmental implications of this conflict.

In my experience, the portrayal of Indigenous people living in the Amazon is one that focuses on their detached lifestyle, as if they live separated from the chaos of modern development. While the artifacts displayed in the exhibit convey a sense of the simpler lifestyle of the indigenous people, the overall message of the exhibit is that the collision between indigenous ways of life and modernization is unavoidable as environmental degradation continues in the Amazon. Rising global demands for palm oil, sugar, soy, and beef have contributed to rapid rates of deforestation. There has also been increasing levels of resource extraction, such as mining, logging, and extracting oil and gas. Not only does deforestation and resource extraction have detrimental environmental effects, but it encroaches on indigenous land.

People have been living in the Amazon for 11,200 years. For over ten millennia people have been living harmoniously with the environment. Yet, with the rise of industrialization and the continuing trends of consumerism, the prosperity of the Amazon is in a state of unprecedented insecurity. The exhibit highlights how indigenous people have taken political action against development in the Amazon. In addition, countries have begun to recognize the significance of indigenous groups relationship with the land, with certain countries like Ecuador and Bolivia going so far as to adopt indigenous ‘rights of nature’ into their constitutions.

The exhibit also does its best to portray the diversity of the indigenous groups currently living in the Amazon, recognizing the vast number of indigenous groups living in each country and making sure to explain from which group an artifact came and the use of that artifact within said group. One of the striking features of the exhibit is a display case with an assortment of objects that have no accompanying explanation about their cultural significance and purpose. This is because they were taken from indigenous groups for someone’s private collection without recording their history. They were later donated to the museum, however the cultural significance of the objects had already been lost. The exhibit notes that it wants to avoid situations like this, where culturally significant objects become mere trinkets when people fail to take the time to document the stories attached to them. This sheds light on the exhibits mission of emphasizing the importance of exchange as opposed to larceny.

The Amazonia exhibit tells a story of the complex relationship between nature and people. It is both a study of indigenous ways of life and a call for environmental protection. The interconnectedness of these themes can be seen closer to home, with striking parallels between the conflict in the Amazon and the environmental and indigenous conflicts here in Canada. In our geography class, we recently read an article explaining the significance of the #IdleNoMore movement here in Canada. The #IdleNoMore movement protests resource exploitation on First Nation’s land on the grounds of protecting the environment, protecting indigenous rights, and honouring treaties. This multifaceted issue makes clear that building more sustainable relationships between the land and all people is a global issue. My takeaway from the Amazonia exhibit is that by making Canadians aware of problems elsewhere in the world that so closely reflect those here in Canada, there is a greater potential for the finding and sharing of parallel solutions.

In our ASTU class, we recently finished reading Joy Kogawa’s novel Obasan, which looks at the traumatic treatment Japanese Canadians endured during World War II. The story is told from the perspective of Naomi, who is a Sensei, a third generation Canadian of Japanese descent. The story is portrayed through a web of flashbacks from Naomi’s childhood. Some of the factual details about the policies enacted during World War II surrounding the relocation Japanese Canadians are outlined in Naomi’s Aunt Emily’s diary, that is structured as a series of letters to Naomi’s mother. Aunt Emily is a fiery character, involved in social justice and concerned with remembering the past.

During our ASTU class we visited the University of British Columbia’s Rare Books & Special Collections and University Archives and looked at the Joy Kogawa Fonds. A recurring theme in several of the documents was strong feelings about the character of Aunt Emily and the letters that made up her diary. Although, many of these reviews were written in regard to earlier drafts of the book, meaning I am unaware of what Kogawa may have changed in Obasan before it reached publication, they do still give us an idea of some of the early reactions to the book.

In a set of editorial notes, one reviewer is especially critical of the character of Aunt Emily, who he refers to as E. At one point he says, “E is for me the least real & convincing character in the story. Even her name bothers me” (Picture 1). He goes on to say that “Most of this is lovely — though E, still annoys. Do we need her here? Can we just omit her name?” (Picture 1). The author of the editorial notes does not give concrete reasons why he dislikes Emily, simple makes clear that he finds her annoying. Whether consciously or unconsciously, his dislike of Aunt Emily may stem from the discomfort she makes him feel. Unlike Obasan and Naomi, who are happy to let the past remain in the past, Aunt Emily is obsessed with preserving the past because, as she says, “The past is the future” (Kogawa 51). She likes to push the past into people’s faces, as she often does to Naomi by physically pushing documents under her nose. The past is rarely pleasant or pretty. It is easier to not talk about it because of the discomfort it makes people feel. Yet, by not talking about the past we are more likely to make the same mistakes again. 

The idea of silencing is central to the novel. Omitting the character of Aunt Emily, which this reviewer would probably like to see, would itself be an act of silencing. It would be the loss of a means of presenting information about the past for the sake of comfort. The attitude of the reviewer is an excellent example of the attitudes Kogawa seems to be challenging by writing Obasan. Obasan is about telling the dark and difficult stories that often make people uncomfortable, but are still a critical part of Canadian history and a crucial part of building Canada’s future.

In a different review of the book, from someone at the Department of English at the University of Alberta, we see that Aunt Emily’s diary of letters also faced scrutiny. This reviewer said that “There are I feel real sags — the rather tedious business of the letters which document at too much length, I think, historical details of the hauling away from B.C.” (Picture 2). Viewing historical details from the major disruption of the lives of thousands of Japanese Canadians as tedious is culturally and historically insensitive. This view also causes me to question why these details seem so tedious. Perhaps, being forced to acknowledge the atrocities that the Canadian government subjected its own citizens to causes too much unease. Yet, trying to ignore that which makes us uneasy does not make it go away; it simply allows the root of the problem, which in this case is prejudice and racism, to fester.

Another key role of Aunt Emily is to present a different emotional response to dealing with trauma. Where Obasan and Naomi feel that it is too painful to relive the past and that it will not change anything, Aunt Emily rages against injustice, a whirlwind of energy and anger. The same reviewer from the editorial notes says at one point that “she complains too much,” (Picture 3) referring to Emily. This is extremely insensitive considering that the treatment that Japanese Canadians endured justifies any amount of complaining. Although it may be painful to relive the past, not acknowledging it allows the past to be buried, creating the danger that it can be repeated. Being angry, being annoying, refusing to be silent forces people to acknowledge the prejudice interwoven in Canadian history.

Through these historic documents, that represent early reactions to Obasan, we see people’s discomfort when being forced to acknowledge the past. This discomfort is not directly stated but hinted at through disapproval of Aunt Emily and the letters she writes. Towards the beginning of the book, Naomi asks, “If Aunt Emily with her billions of letters and articles and speeches, her tears and her rage, her friends and her committees – if all that couldn’t bring contentment, what was the point?” (Kogawa 50). The point is that without such efforts, fighting to remember the past is seen as complaining too much and fighting against injustice is seen as an annoyance. The point is that covering up the unpleasant parts of the past increases the likelihood of repeating the same atrocities.

Bibliography:

Kogawa, Joy. Obasan. Anchor Books, 1994

All pictures were taken at the University of British Columbia’s Rare Books & Special Collections and University Archives.

Picture 1:

Picture 2:

Picture 3:

In our ASTU class we have been reading a graphic narrative called   Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi. The book is about the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the Iran Iraq War. The protagonist of the story is Marji, who represents Satrapi as a young girl growing up in Iran from 1979-1982. Central to the shaping of the story is the perspective of the narrator. Marjane, the voice of adult Satrapi, serves as the narrator. The narrative has been distinctly shaped by following the story of a muslim, female child, growing up in an upper class family. Marji’s challenges are not the same as a boy’s growing up during this time or as a girl who belongs to a lower class. Her unique perspective puts a bias on the story that she is telling. This does not make it less valid, but it is something that should be recognized when analyzing the events described in Persepolis. I am going to focus specifically on how Satrapi’s gender has influenced her narrative.

By observing the gender bias of the narrator, we can gain insight into the what issues are of central concern to women, especially during times of crisis, like the Iran Iraq War. Marjane begins her story by talking about how the veil, as she refers to the hijab, impacted her childhood, specifically her life at school. When the veil is first presented it is made to seem like a solely women’s issue. It is the female teachers at Marji’s school that force her to wear a hijab. In addition, on page 5, a panel is captioned “Everywhere in the streets there were demonstrations for and against the veil.” Yet, only women are depicted in this panel, with veiled women on one side chanting “the veil!” and bareheaded women on the other side chanting “freedom!” This makes it seem like women are choosing whether or not they and their fellow women should wear the veil. However, later on in the book, a more mature Marji recognizes that although only women wear the veil, it is not women perpetuating their own oppression. In a panel, on page 74, a man on a TV is saying that “Women’s hair emanates rays that excite men. That’s why women should cover their hair.” The panel is captioned “And so to protect women from all the potential rapists, they decreed wearing the veil was obligatory.” This panel indicates that Marjane recognizes that men are the ones forcing women to wear the veil, and therefore actively oppressing women. It also brings up the reoccurring issue in cases of rape where blame is moved away from men and onto women, perpetuating a culture of male dominance.

It is important to recognize that not all women view the hijab as a sign of oppression and that views can change over time. During the 1980’s, women living under the Islamic regime in Iran were forced to wear a hijab. Many intellectuals like Marji and her mother viewed the hijab as a sign of oppression and defied the regime by refusing to wear it or wearing it improperly. However, in today’s increasingly anti-Islam political climate, some Muslim women see wearing the hijab as a sign of defiance and of pride in their culture and religion. For instance in an interview, Leila, a muslim women living in Berlin, said that “as time passed, my hijab was more than a symbol of faith, it became a symbol of resistance and a political symbol.” (http://queermuslimproject.tumblr.com/?og=1) Like recognizing that Marji’s view is just one of many, it is important to recognize that Leila’s view is unique to her. However, it does highlight that forms of resistance can change as political climates change. By mentioning that “as time passed” Leila alludes to the idea that wearing a hijab was not a straightforward decision. It was something she decided for herself due to her experiences and formation of distinct opinions. By forcing women to wear or not to wear a hijab, governments are limiting women’s ability to make their own decisions and limiting their self expression, which is both close minded and oppressive.

Women being positioned in subordinate roles to men is not unique to the Islamic republic. In her blog post, ‘We Have Always Fought’: Challenging the ‘Women, Cattle and Slaves’ Narrative (http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2013/05/we-have-always-fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative-by-kameron-hurley/) Kameron Hurley highlights that the roles women played, especially in times of war, are often not told. Often, the stories told in books, in film, and on television focus on the actions of men and the support that women gave them. Although, Persepolis partially breaks free of this standard, telling the story from a female perspective, Marji is still positioned primarily as an observer. This is accentuated by the fact that she is a child, since children are also put in subordinate roles to adults and are constant observers of adult life. Marji watches as Siamak Jari and Mohsen Shakiba, two male friends of her father’s are released from jail and as her Uncle Anoosh is imprisoned and then later executed by the Islamic republic. In the majority of cases it is the men who are jailed, killed, punished, or sent off to war. This perpetuates the view that men are the fighters and the ones involved in the action while the women offer support and serve as passive observers. This follows the pattern recognized by Kameron Hurley and that reappears throughout history.

A boy, specifically a boy belonging to a lower class, growing up in the early 1980s in Iran would be more likely to be sent off to war and face physical violence than Marji. Having a reduced risk of being sent off to war, sent to jail, or killed influences her perspective and her actions. For instance, Marji often takes risks and acts rashly. This may in part stem from her lower potential for consequences. However, although Marji is in less physical danger than other people living in the Islamic republic, it is shortsighted to think that the war did not effect her. Her childhood was shaped by violence and oppression. The Islamic Revolution and the Iran Iraq War have forever scarred her youth, shaping her story as significantly as her gender has.

Making the transition to university is hard. There are many reasons for this, including living on one’s own, probably for the first time, being expected to make one’s own decisions, and adjusting to new academic pressures all without the sympathetic safety net of home. In addition, the study habits that worked in high school are no longer going to cut it. Part of the difficulty is that the expectations put on students in a university classroom are very different from those of high school. The game just elevated to a whole new level, which means figuring out new skills on the fly. All of a sudden students find themselves as a part of an active research community. As touched on in our ASTU class discussions, we are now expected to contribute to the collection of new knowledge that comes out of UBC each year.

In high school, one generally succeeded by memorizing information and then regurgitating it back onto a piece of paper during a test. However, on my first day of Introduction to Political Science here at UBC, Professor Erickson informed my class that we could memorize everything in the textbook and we might end up with a C in the class. In order to succeed in his class, we would need to not only know the information but be able to interact with it and expand upon it. Creating our own thoughts about material is just as important, if not more important, as understanding his take on the material.

Pictured below is a visual representation of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Up until this point, my fellow students and I have been happily using the skills described at the bottom of the pyramid, focusing on remembering and understanding information, and maybe occasionally stretching ourselves to apply our new knowledge. However, nothing new would ever be discovered if everybody relied on only learning old information. As students entering college, it is now our time to analyze, evaluate, and even create new knowledge. This requires us to think differently and at a higher level.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/vandycft/29428436431

According to a case study called Higher-order Thinking in a College Course by Josué López (https://www.nactateachers.org/attachments/article/563/JosueLopez_NACTA_Journal_December_2001-3.pdf) “The public is becoming increasingly aware of the need for students to develop the higher-order thinking abilities needed to cope with the exigencies of living in modem society.” In essence, we must learn higher level thinking skills, like analyzing, connecting, and predicting, in order to contribute to our ever advancing world. If high school was a training ground for college, then it is only natural to view college as a training ground for the job market. If we can learn to think at a higher level then we will not only be better prepared for the world after university, but one day we might find ourselves being cited instead of being the ones always doing the citing.