I thoroughly enjoyed reading your blog post “Bridging the Gap of Unspeakability: Art and Trauma”. If I am understanding you correctly, art, as a technology of memory, cannot possibly fully represent everyone’s trauma collectively. Everyone views and reacts to trauma differently. I agree. I wholly support your idea of “bridging the gap” as you say, but I have trouble agreeing with your stance of being able to understand one another “without having to discuss…” Art is a wonderful symbol that can cause connection and unity among victims and those who have experienced trauma, however I believe no one can truly understand another person without verbal or written communication. Communication of some kind needs to be exchanged in order for one human being to understand another. That’s just my opinion. Let me know your thoughts; I’d love to discuss this more with you.
First off, thanks for commenting on my blog, I’m glad it resonated with you! To reply to what you said about art in relation to trauma, I would agree that communication is necessary for one human to understand each other. Maybe my blog was misleading in its wording, I hoped more just to make the point that through art we are able to bridge the gap of unspeakability through a collective experience more than a direct communication or understanding. For example, in our ASTU class we as a community are communicating with each other in discussion of art, in order to understand better how that art works towards dealing with trauma. I totally agree with you that as a group, through communication we create understanding of each other and of the book. However, I more meant in terms of just the art, that our collective experience of Foer’s novel, irrespective of communication with one another serves as a point of connection through our combined experience of it. I like how you took my blog even further though in talking about the need for communication, as I did not even think of adding that as a topic, and I recognize its cornerstone importance in understanding each others experience and therefore each others narratives of trauma in relation to the art.
I thought your blog post was really interesting and thought provoking, especially reading it in the context of the IIka Saal essay that we were discussing in class today. You discussed in your blog the power of literature to give the reader an elevated perspective of being able to see another person’s inner thoughts and motives, a perspective that is unattainable in real life. As you pointed out, this elevated perspective is incredibly important to novels like Extremely Close & Incredibly Loud because there is such a lack of communication between the characters themselves – in a sense it seems that by piecing together the different narratives in the story, the reader has a more intimate understanding of the novel’s characters than these characters’ very loved ones do. But, in reference to IIka Saal’s essay, do you think that Foer depends too heavily on the reader piecing together the nuances of each of the narratives in the novel? Do you think that by Foer depending on the reader to make the connections between the traumas experienced by each of the characters, instead of the characters doing so themselves, that Foer contributes to a unilateral framing of 9/11? Anyways, just some thoughts. I would love to know what you think!
Hey Taylor!
just read your most recent blog:The Result of Trauma: A Sporadic Mindset. I hadn’t noticed that the photographs were not in colour while the image of the names in the art store were. Your blog reminded me of the discussion we had in class about why images are included in this novel, why some are hand written while many others are typed though described as hand written. To be honest I payed little attention to these details while reading the novel, but after reading your blog i began to think more deeply about it. You suggest that the images work to create a reading experience of disorientation, slight discomfort and to emphasize how nonsensical times of trauma feel. I wonder if this book is meant to act similarly to a scrapbook. Perhaps this book is actually Oskar’s book of “Stuff that happened to me”. maybe these images are included so that we as readers don’t have to “invent” Oskar and his grandparents stories, the evidence, and ‘truth’ the book is dedicated to trying to find.
best,
Isabelle
I loved reading your blog post (or should I call it an essay, it was really long) about the postmodern nature of Foer’s novel Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. I thought it was really interesting that you felt dissatisfied after reading the novel. In someways I resonate with you, but in other ways I was happy with the way that the novel was concluded. In your blog you talk about the “Flip Flopping” of the non-diegetic information, specifically the narratives. I found this was true as well and it seemed to me, to fully understand how the flip flopping connects all of them in relation to trauma you would have to really analyze the novel and read it multiple times (as we are doing through reading Saal’s article). However, i thought that even though the post-modern, artistic elements were confusing at the beginning of the novel, they were also what drew me in, and motivated the plot for the reader. Going back to the point of the books conclusion, I thought that the ending definitely did conclude the plot lines and complex narratives of the story. As I was reading it I thought the end really brought together a lot of the story for me, which helped me make a few connections as to the relationships of the different narratives in the novel. However, after reading Saal and thinking about it, that sense of conclusion is really only focused on the conclusion of Oskars motivating journey throughout the novel, and while this may serve the author well in trying to solve the problem of trauma simply through a stock narrative I would agree with Saal in that this leaves out the powerful messages that come through in connection with the other narratives, by only showing Oskar’s as a conclusion. Anyway, i’m just summarizing what we said in class now, I thought your blog was really cool, and it definitely made me think about the nature of what a novel is these days or if in fact Foer’s is an exception by creating a post-modern twist to literature. Personally, after reading your blog, Saal, and the novel itself i would tend to agree with you that it Foer’s creation is not postmodern in its meaning. While its form may hold elements that could lead to a post-modern interpretation of the novel, because of the novels conclusion surrounding only one master narrative it leaves the everyday reader still stuck in a modern view point about the extent of trauma. However, the form of Foer’s novel definitley leaves there to be something to be asked of the way novels, and art in general could possibly, through a post-modern lens, lead to a discussion of the power of multi narratives in discussing trauma.
I really enjoyed your blog post (title was spot on as well) about fear culture and how its effects can vary depending on the situation and on the individual. After having a few chuckles due to your blatantly unique, writing style, something that I was left with me was quite a bit of negativity – which got me thinking.
Why is the concept of ‘fear’ linked with negative connotations? In a ‘fight or flight’ situation triggered by fear, why does it usually result with ‘bad decision making?’ Isn’t there a way to utilize fear in a way to make individuals more aware of the “shit” that needs to be fixed and provoke productive action, rather than discouraging them and causing more distress? An example of productive fear would probably be the video we watched in Sociology about the financial inequalities in Canada, where the video inspires us despite of how terrifying the reality is.
Hi Diego!
I think fear has negative connotations because fear is uncomfortable. Basic human instincts dictate a “fight or flight” response, leading to a massive increase in Adrenaline. This makes your palms sweaty and your knees weak. (Mom’s spaghetti) Fear isn’t just physical; a large component of fear is mental. Anxiety and phobias can cloud judgement, leading to terrible decisions. That being said, there are definitely ways to use fear as a means to promote positive impacts. The video we watched in Sociology is a great point! It tries to use our fear of inequality in hopes that we actually do something about it. I’m actually unconvinced that it’ll work. And I’m even less sure if it’s fair to use “productive fear” in the first place… what do you think?
-Carolina
Hey Diego!
I’m really digging your last blog post, especially the last sentence:“Like aiming before firing, think before you speak.” Anyways, onto the post. Your argument of control over language: “Elements of trauma, loss, and fear may provoke irrational and hurtful language that never would have materialized otherwise…” plus your driving example are 100% spot-on. When someone cuts me off, I can come up with some pretty colourful language that I don’t have complete control over. If the person who cut me off heard what I had called them, they would probably be offended.
I agree that words have an incredible amount of power and that you should watch your language… but here’s where my thoughts differ from yours. I appreciate Oskar’s bluntness. (Even though I didn’t like him either: he seemed stuck-up and unaware of the sheer amount of annoyance he radiated.) It has become popular to use flowery language to avoid hurting someonelse’s feelings. But if we didn’t use precise language, no one would know what was going on half the time. Has implementation of self-censorship has become necessary in our contemporary Western society? I’d like to hear your thoughts on this.
-Carolina
You post entitled “C**EFUL LA**UAGE // WELCOME BACK” is intriguing. I found myself noting the use of language while reading Foer’s Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close as well. I am really glad that you brought up the point about our automatic reactions to certain events and the emotions triggered when said events occur. These emotions may be related to “trauma, loss, fear, and revenge”, as you mentioned. Your example of the media influencing our perceptions of people who we should consider “bad drivers” exemplifies this point well. I agree with your thoughts on the effects of being misguided by these perspectives. However, I argue that you can further this analysis by looking at who gets to decide what kind of rhetoric is used. For example, who controls the media? Which source of information is therefore unbiased with regards to their use of language? Is there such a thing as unbiased language? Is unbiased language desirable? I would love to hear your thoughts on the answers to these questions.
Hi Kristen Y,
With the novel demonstrating absence you took a good perspective on this theme. I like how you connected Oskar and Thomas Sr. from the novel to show personal loss. This nicely reflected with the way you feel about personal loss. By demonstrating how readers open themselves to optimism even though there is so much suffering was very exciting to read. When you were analyzing why the book came from a child protagonist I like how you emphasized how a child only understands story they know how to tell. Which furthers demonstrates how they are still learning about the world they live in because they are still children. This outlook was very intriguing and you extended to illustrate how the interpretations of traumatic events they experience are being experienced for the first time. When you brought in your own experiences into your blog is what made the connection to absence very evident because you had that sense of loss with your family members and some of your friends. Overall, your blog had many key points and I thoroughly relished reading it!
I found your most recent blog post “Healing Through Narratives of Trauma” quite unique and interesting to read as I too, reflected on UBC’s Mental Health Week. In addition to the university’s awareness, Bell Let’s Talk and Mind Check are also initiatives that encourage people to talk about stigmas associated with mental illnesses. From personal experiences , I know for a fact that this shouldn’t just be thought about for just a day, or just a week, as it should be recognized everyday. I know this strays away from our ASTU conversation (I enjoyed reading about the connections between loneliness, trauma and mental illness) but I thought I could also bring up sad hockey stories to contribute to our Sex/Gender unit in Sociology. The links I’ve posted below challenge the ideas of hyper-masculinity and I wanted you as well as our classmates to think about it and check it out. These players are seen as aggressive (playing a sport) but by advocating about ending stigmas, they illustrate that we all have feelings, and should not socially construct labels. What do you think? Also in attempt to bring it back to ASTU (though I may just be restating your entire blog, or just not making sense), do you think these videos can be seen as parallel to Oskar and his healing through interaction? The idea that through awareness/social interaction, we could heal? It’s interesting to see how language plays a huge role in this process, be it fiction or not.
Hey Kendall!
I was glad to find that you wrote about some of the issues brought forth in Butler’s article in your blog post this week since I had my mind on the same issues but am the class blogger this week. You used some great quotes from the article to suggest that human beings are all capable of understanding each other despite obvious boundaries and I just wanted expand on that idea and ask you a bit more about your perspective. In the article Butler explains the fluid boundaries of the body or self and uses that concept of fluidity to explain that how people define themselves and where they create “others” they essentially carve themselves out and way from others. The “us” vs. “them” theme that has popped up in a few our classes now is so important to understanding how people, nations, and the world respond to conflict. When you posit in your post that because of the fluidity of the body people are capable of understanding I think Butler even goes beyond that in saying that the only thing that stops us from connecting to others is the act of marking them as “others”. I don’t know how possible it is for people to start connecting with everyone they meet on a basic human level since it’s never really happened before but I think this article is a step in the right direction because it creates a discourse on the bounds of the body that is missing in modern politics and conversation in general. I hope you’re having a great weekend, see you Tuesday!
Jacqueline DeSantis
Hey Dione!
It was interesting to read your last blog post. I liked how you put it as an answer to Saal’s main argument about ‘trauma transfer’. I agree with your argument and believe that traumas are not supposed to be compared or undermined.
People usually tend to generalize events and look at them from the one narrow perspective. Indeed, it is very easy to talk about terrorist attacks in general without a focus on a particular event and its significance. At the same time bringing two traumas into one conversation helps develop a connection between the victims and ease the pain by sharing and supporting each other.
One of the examples I would like to give is found in Butler’s article. She emphasizes the interconnection of everyone with everyone by talking about our mutual responsibility for each other’s lives. This makes me think about the importance of connection between different stories and traumas.
I do agree with your statement about the Paris attack and the attacks that happened in Beirut, Iraq and Syria. That’s true that they were viewed differently and Paris attack was talked about in the social media more than others. Nevertheless, I would argue that Paris attack brought other attacks into the global conversation. People started talking about Beirut, Iraq and Syria more, even though they looked at those events through the lenses of Paris attack.
I think each trauma is special and requires a particular response to it. However, sometimes this response lies in the interaction of two or more different traumas, as it helps overcome the consequences of an event more smoothly.
Hey Taylor!
I enjoyed reading your blog post! Your questions really got me thinking and I wanted to attempt to answer some of them.
In response to your questions, I think some deaths like a passing of a close loved one such as a family member or friend affects us more than others as we are closer to them and really know them on a personal level. In addition, we have so many memories with that person and they most likely had a strong impact on our life. Maybe there are some things that only the two of you would do or may have had an inside joke. I believe that for these reasons their passing affects us more than others. Personally, I grieve knowing that someone lost their life, no matter if I knew them or not because the passing of someone is absolutely horrible and every life is precious. I may not grieve as much as I would for someone who I knew on a personal level, but I would still feel sadness and empathy towards the person and their loved ones. After losing some loved ones of my own, I know how hard it is to lose someone and I am able relate to them in that way. I think many people can relate in this way and grieve for others. We may grieve in different ways and some may not show it like others do, which may be the reason why some think that some people may not be grieving for someone’s passing. As to your question of “how do you put a value on someone’s death?”, I believe that all lives are valuable and vulnerable and therefore I am not sure how to put a value on someone’s death as well.
As you stated, there is still much to be analyzed and debated in order to answer these questions.
This is just my take on it. What are your thoughts?
Anyways, I hope you are having a lovely day.
See you tomorrow!
I really enjoying reading your post and your reasoning of how trauma transfer really resonated with me. Your example on how people treated the Paris Attack differently compared to any other bombing served as a perfect example as the side effect of trauma transfer. People place attention onto events which they deemed as “more important”. This event perfectly display how Eurocentric today’s society can be. It sadden me to admit that society today put people of different nationality into ranks.
I believe traumatic event cannot be compared. There is no scientific way to calculate how similar two event is, nor is there a numerical equation to calculate people’s loss. I agree with your idea that personal experience and emotion must be put into account, solely relying on data is not valid to calculate the amount of pain the victim been through.
Thank you for your insightful post, I had a great time reading it.
When I was reading your blog, the part where you talked about being more sympathetic to our own nation really got me thinking. I totally agree with you that people usually feel more related to the issues that are happening to our own country and less emotions towards what is happening else where in the world. While you suggested that people are less emotional towards the other countries because it is an “challenge for each individual to leave their comfort zone”, I was thinking if media can also be another explanation to this cause.
There had always been a conflict between Mainland China and Hong Kong, as Hong Kongers believes that Mainland Chinese had been “taking away Hong Kong resources”. When I think about it more, I realized that maybe it was the way the media portrays the event that was happening, the media had always included a negative view of the mainland people. However, the news had always been avoiding to talk about the negative sides of Hong Kong, one main reason would be receiving complains from people. I guess the media is also a reason why people are more sympathetic to their own country as many people’s knowledge is being limited by what the news show.
I thoroughly enjoyed your reading your most recent blog post entitled “Blurred Lines Between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’”! This is such a sensitive topic around the world and requires a lot of soul searching as to where each one of us stand; however, I could not think of a better time to revisit the common rhetoric of “us” vs “them”. You bring about great questions that required me to stop and take a moment to reflect. In response to your question, “Do people differentiate themselves based on personal values, beliefs, culture, gender, or looks,” I posed a similar question in my own blog post and suggested that we should value life blindly. Do you see this is an effective strategy, or if the benefits outweigh the negative consequences by viewing all life on an equal playing field? Looking back, I too struggle and admit that the “us” and “them” are unavoidable in some situations, but thankfully, there can be a lot done moving forward.
Similarly, it was great that you addressed “how Butler discussed the idea that all bodies are vulnerable to each other as it is important to recognize that we are all human and have similar vulnerabilities”. I think the mere fact that that Judith Butler sees “our bodies [as] a social phenomenon: it is exposed to others, vulnerable by definition” is almost paradoxical in a sense. On one hand, I get the response of wanting to separate ourselves from other strangers, but in another way, we rely on the interdependence of each other to find social meanings. Can we have one without the other? Definitely some food for thought.
I read your blog and what you said at the end (the cliquish part) I think it’s really true – that you should be taking in every moment for what it’s worth because anything can happen! And even though I don’t follow this advice myself (enough), I think this also connects back to your experience of your Muslim roommate. I cannot imagine what it’s like going through airport discrimination just because a small group of my nationality has done something wrong, and now I would be one to suffer from their consequences. It’s really is hard to understand this, how people that you know or friends of friends experience anything like this because you always think – this won’t happen to me. While I’ll never be discriminated like your friend (which is really terrible), I have to say it did remind me of another story where my friend of Asian descent would always be thoroughly questioned at the border crossing to the US while he noticed that people who were of caucasian descent would be easily allowed through. Likewise, my caucasian high school teacher also experience the same thing because he noted that his experience with border control always went smoothly, while other minorities had a more bumpy experience.
On another note, I thought about how your idea of if communications weren’t as big and powerful as they are today existed was really interesting! I think it’s safe to say that in a lot of ways sharing and communicating easily with people from all over the world sort of amplifies anything major that happens. But then again, I don’t think I can live in a world without technology and communications if that were to happen!
Hi Kihan!
*super long post my apologies*
Thanks so much for the great post, it really got me thinking. I found it interesting the way you applied to a different situation Butler’s question of “who is grievable?” Especially because we are familiar with the Canadian treatment of First Nations through study in our sociology class. The thought that the settler Canadians never truly considered an aboriginal life as fully humanly lived and thus ungrievable is a depressing one, but an analysis that fits the history. We obviously seem to have drawn the line between ‘us’ and ‘them’ as soon as we arrived, and stuck to it tenaciously. It makes me think, what defines those two groups? Is it appearance? Culture? Population size, related to our ability to ignore them?
Also please forgive my generalized use of ‘we’. I can hardly say that the ‘we’ are white settlers of the past, not when you bring up the issue of the burial ground being constructed upon. It would seem that certain dominant influences in society still hold the belief that the First Nations history is not worth remembering. For a quick side note, in my town there are three massive apartment buildings on top of a First Nations burial site, so while it doesn’t make it any better, I’m glad that the project you’re talking about didn’t go through.
I think the question of who is grievable can also be thought of as who is hearable? (I know, not technically a word, but neither is unspeakability, and we use that all the time) You could say that society still finds the lives of the indigenous unlived, ungrievable, because of the very fact that the project was initiated. It comes into conflict with the uproar that followed, eventually leading to the dissociation. So we see that it is not an all-dominating assumption as it once was in Canadian history, but still unfortunately crops up.
One point that really got me thinking was your speaking about Mountain View Cemetery. Like an awful Vancouverite, I was only dimly aware that there was a cemetery there at all, let alone one with such symbolic (open for interpretation) centering in the middle of the city. So I decided to look into it through the Butlerian lens of who is grievable, and more especially, who is memorable? Because evidently, according to some, First Nations would not be among those worth remembering. What I found was fascinating, so thank you for sending me down this rabbit hole. I found that the cemetery is made up of different sections, largely for different groups of people. The first thing I realized was that there were tracts devoted to the victims of large scale accidental deaths. Trolley crashes, steamboats sinking, railroad explosions. Is one thing that makes death worth remembering the shocking, the unexpected? Was it, in that line of logic, expected that the First Nations should die out, unspectacularly? Is that part of what made them ungrievable?
There is also tracts for babies; mayors have their own land; firefighters and veterans have their place, and of course the rich are represented. These are memorable in a different way; the babies have their innocence, the mayors their power; theres heroism in those who serve, and the rich have their prestige. All these attributes commanded commemoration, and were grievable. There was no viewable section devoted to First Nations. However, this could be admittedly due to many other factors that I am unaware of. I also noticed that the Jewish section was grouped in with the Chinese section and the section where Japanese workers who died in the Rogers Pass Avalanche are buried. This collection of the marginalized may or may not have been a coincidence. What’s important to your point is in the Chinese and Japanese sections, groups traditionally marginalized, there were recent updates, with installations being brought in to honour their respective cultures. Across town, at around the same time as these installations were added, condos were being constructed over the c̓əsnaʔəm Musqueam burial site. It just so clearly highlights that even as we’ve supposedly moved on from our racist past, we still find the First Nations lives less grievable, even as we accept the humanity of other groups we marginalized. So, yes. What does make a life grievable?
Sorry for the long tangent, truly got very excited about this. http://blogs.ubc.ca/kihanyh/2016/01/27/when-is-life-grievable-a-judith-butler-account-of-c̓əsnaʔəm/#comment-3
I just read your post, ‘When is a Life Grievable? A Call to Value Life Blindly’ and you certainly raised some valuable points (BTW I must commend you on an aesthetically appealing blog!). What particularly interested me was your last paragraph when you wrap things up and raise your own rhetorics. I noticed you mentioned the theme of ‘all lives matter’ which I found particularly interesting considering our last classroom discussion. I remember Nicola stating that we shouldn’t be that person who say’s ‘All lives Matter’ and to acknowledge trauma driven movements like ‘Black Lives Matter’. I understand the Utilitarian perspective you bring forward but I’m interested in hearing your standing on the tagging of the precariousness of our lives with a certain socio and/or political group of people? Hope that makes sense!
-Kaveel
I really enjoyed your blog post from last week on the value of death, and I especially appreciate that you ended it with a slew of questions to continue the discussion! I’d like to share my thoughts on these questions, and especially on the broader issues that they imply. Your questions, which center around the wonderment of how one can place value on death, made me think about the political and social constructions of death—how a society can use death to generate . What I want to bring into this discussion is how death can be used politically and socially to promote certain cultures or groups in society. Thinking about this in terms of 9/11, one could make the conclusion that the deaths of innocent civilians in the attacks on that day became of value to American society beyond the individual, personal grief that so many experienced. Instead, death became valued as political—used to create the emotional state necessary for the next decade (an arguably, the present violence) in the Middle East. In this way, death is used to promote a political agenda. So, even though death is being valued—is it being valued for the right reasons? I know, another question to add to the debate…but I feel that this distinction is important—its something to think about!
Your post entitled “Tomatoes are Blue” is interesting. I enjoyed reading about your honesty regarding poetry and that although you typically despise its very existence, your favourite poem serves as an exception. Bill Bissett’s poem is unlike anything I have ever read — it most definitely contradicts many of the formal rules and regulations that poetry typically follows. You further this train of thought by stating that “the collection of poems in This Connection of Everyone With Lungs doesn’t necessarily break the rules, but it does break a certain taboo that surrounds 9/11”. I agree with this point, as breaking through social barriers and the memories associated with traumatic events can be challenging. However, I argue that you can take this idea further by looking at the effects of the language Spahr uses to break these “taboos”. In other words, how does she specifically do this? I would love to hear your thoughts on the answers to these questions.
hey Sam!
I just read your last blog post: “Juliana Spahr: the Geographical Imagination”… super impressed with your ability to clearly and effectively bring together so many of the ideas we have discussed in all of our classes about solidarity, individuality, collective, responsibility, and action. you really solidified some of the arguments and readings we have studied through precise and fitting citation. I’m so happy you brought the sociological imagination into the conversation! Stepping back and understanding oneself and ones experiences within the context, of time, space, and society is defiantly at the heart of understanding our separations and collectivity, and i think bringing this lens, and approach up was very appropriate, and constructive. furthermore, by adapting the sociological imagination to a “geographical imagination”, you brought up the extremely important factors geography play in our developments of self, and our motivations of actions especially as our world continues to become more and more interdependant… awesome job, super insightful! I read it twice!
Really happy to read your stuff!
Isabelle 🙂
I thought your blog post on This Connection of Everyone with Lungs was really interesting given the fact that I have never thought about how the military industrial complex is so integral to Seattle’s existence. I think your reflection on your own complicity in the U.S. military’s actions given your spatial and intimate connection to Seattle, is exactly what Spahr was trying to encourage her readers (or her “beloveds”) to do as she too had to “think about my intimacy with things I would rather not be intimate with” (13). Spahr seems to strip the word “intimacy” of its typically positive connotations and rather redefine it in terms of responsibility – when we are intimate with something it seems ridiculous to act as if we have no part in its actions. Anyways, really interesting post, it has made me want to think more critically about the ways in which my own intimacy with my own city has global effects that I may not currently take responsibility for or even acknowledge.
I really enjoyed reading your blog post “Understanding the Deeper Impacts of Trauma”. I thought it was really provocative, and nicely analyzed all that we have been discussing in class. You talked about most of the novels we have read in ASTU 100, including Obasan, Persepolis, and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. It was only after you pointed it out in your blog post that I realized that they all centered on a child narrator. That is something that isn’t too common in literature; I wonder why it’s a recurring theme in our ASTU class… What are your thoughts? Do you think this is a more accurate way to view trauma? That is, through the lens of a child’s perspective?
You go on to describe “the deeper impact of these traumatic event on the private life of an individual”, specifically, as they “showcase how these events bring instability and hinder many aspects of in depth personal relationships”. This line jumped out at me straight away, as it is what I am choosing to pursue as my ASTU research paper topic. I found your analysis very insightful and would love to hear more of your thoughts on this subject!
Thank you for your appreciation. I am glad that you enjoyed reading my blog post and pointed out all the important points and views that I was trying to convey. Firstly, to answer your question about , if the ‘lens of a child’s perspective’ is a more accurate way of viewing trauma, I would say I am not sure about ‘accurate’ but it definitely presents us a “raw” form of impacts trauma has on us. As an adult when we face problems or trauma, we often suppress our emotions and feelings in order to move on and survive in the real world. We, adults often don’t express what we really feel in the ‘purest’ and ‘truest’ way. Maybe that is one of the reason most of the texts we have read about trauma and war have child narrators as they help in bringing the real insight of trauma because of their innocence and incapability to suppress their emotions. I think that the use of child perspective provides an unadulterated perspective and raw feelings and emotion. For example- Oskar’s mothers loss wasn’t less painful than Oskar’s but she handled it in a more mature way keeping her feelings to herself and staying strong whereas Oskar was vulnerable and showed us how deeply the trauma has affected him and his family and how much does it take to heal from the loss he suffered. He started hurting himself, lying to his mother and went through so many changes on a personal level. The intensity, fluctuations, complexity and pureness of a 9 year old child made the readers like you and I connect and understand more about not only what he went through but what his family and other people he met in his journey of recovery went through.
To answer your second question, I personally think that my own perspective has changed a lot after reading these books. Earlier, as I mentioned in my blog, I always thought of traumatic incidents affecting a country or public as a whole. But after reading all the texts I realized the idea is not how collective trauma adds to the individual trauma and affects the large population but in fact the idea is how the sufferings of individuals and their respective family adds on to the larger impacts of trauma. How changing relationships on a personal level, losing your identity and your loved ones and all the changes you encounter gives rise to the ‘collective trauma’ .
I am really happy that you chose such an interesting topic as I personally believe that it is very important to understand trauma on a personal and intimate level in order to relate it to the larger public.
Hi Jaqueline,
I really enjoyed reading your blog from early February, as I think you made a connection to something that I find really interesting about Juliana Spahr’s poetry, and that I am discussing in my essay. In my own blog I talked about this idea of the “Geographical Imagination” that Spahr uses in illustrating and encouraging readers to understand this paradoxical idea of being so close to some people, but yet so separated from everyone due to the exceptionalist construction of our world. I think your sentence “She makes a greater statement about our individual connections to outside world by contrasting those intimate and human moments with the experiences that we’d much rather forget.” illustrates this well and also shows how Spahr uses trauma as a way to ignite this understanding. In researching for my essay topic, I was looking into global figures (I don’t know why, just thought they were some fun facts) and found this world population site: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ . While I have no idea how they calculate it it’s an awesome example of how information and communications technologies can visually show us this connection we have. While the site does not intimately breakdown exceptionalist frames, I found it really cool to see the whole world’s accumulation of human narratives represented in front of me as numbers on a screen, and brought me back to this idea expressed in Spahr’s work. Anyways I just thought I’d share that with all of you, feel free to check it out.
– Sam
Hey Diego!
I really enjoyed reading your blog as you compared Wislawa Szymborkska’s and Billy Collins poems. You discussed how Symborkska’s exemplified how individuals can be visualized leaping away from burning buildings and towards the end only to be held in their places by photograph which you portrayed very nicely. As well, you referred to Collins poem as more uplifting due to the A-Z patterns that were present. Your interpretations towards both poems led to you questioning of those lives that are worth identifying. With this meaningful question your analysis of both poems became very insightful and an interesting read. When you concluded with how both the graphic aspect and text are a narration that allows the authors to put more emphasis on the significant narration and the plot was a great point to bring up in your blog. Likewise, you did a wonderful job depicting the importance of an incomplete identification within both poems, which made me look at the poems with different perspective. Well done!
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your most recent blog post, “Spahr’s Great Contrast: Lungs, Skins, and Beds.” You talked about how in a sense, we’re all ultimately connected to each other based off of Butler’s ideas, and furthering this conversation through our recent topics in our Sociology classes. You end your blog off with the idea of agency, and the larger topic of local-global relations. You ask us, “Do you see internet activism as an effective method to raise awareness, or does it harmfully dislocate our perspective from the real upfront truth?” The way I see it, living in the 21st century with increased globalization and use of the media, it is an effective method; however, only to an extent. Today, the use of media has subsided to a commodity we use in routine. For example, we may scroll down, read a caption and observe and like a picture on say, Instagram, but hours later, are we really going to remember what we minimally acknowledged? Chances are that we’ll forget until the same topic comes up again on our feeds. I would argue that it does dislocate our perspective unless we ourselves do something about it. If we want to become engaged and involved in various issues, media has the capacity to get the word out. Humanity still possesses the agency required to make changes in the world. This agency is what would bring us to the upfront truth. Minimal acknowledgements aren’t enough, and it’s the initiatives we take that would bring us closer.
Your most recent blog entitled “Incomplete // Identification” really piqued my interest and I found it to be quite thought-provoking! It was great that you were able to contrast both the Szymborska and Collins poems, analyzing what they both bring to the table in regards to identification. In regards to “Photograph from September 11”, I am in agreeance with you that, “Szymborska never gave them a label – a ‘name’…suggesting that it is up to the reader to find their own ‘conclusion’” with those remaining bodies held in the air. Further, Collins’ A-Z pattern of names challenges the void left by Szymbroska, “putting a name to a face” as you have pointed out.
Along the notion of memorialization and who we choose to be remembered, I was wondering what your thoughts would be regarding this topic. Contrasting areas dedicated to individuality, names, and agency are seen in the National September 11 Memorial/Museum versus various “Tomb[s] of the Unknown Soldier” who allow the viewer to fill in the blank. Do you see one way as more effective than the other? Further, I feel as if there is still a sense of collectivity in both ways we choose to memorialize and commemorate those who have fallen, but there can also be a perspective of authority in “Stuff that Happened to Me” we can express in our various “interpretive communities” – Shahzad throwback! Are there any dangers in trying to sympathize with events that have occurred halfway across the world or is “trauma transfer” successful in building bridges? Would be great to hear your thoughts on this. Thanks for a great blog post, Diego.
“Death leaves a heartache no one can heal, love leaves a memory no one can steal…” – Richard Puz
** Regarding the use of the word “piqued” **
I was DEFINITELY going for the “stimulate (interest or curiosity)” and not the contrasting definition “feel irritated or resentful”. How paradoxical… oops. I enjoyed reading your blog!
Hey Nicola!
Thanks for your blog post, “Art in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close”! I wanted to comment on your blog because I find Foer’s integration of art and text throughout the novel one of the most compelling and original parts of this work. I especially appreciate that you analyzed the artwork as functioning to develop the characters of Oskar and Grandpa; interpreting the images and graphic elements of the novel this way places the focus on the character as a vessel for the development of this discourse on trauma. With this focus on individual characters, the significance of Foer’s multimedia approach points to the personal aspect of trauma: that it is an individual experience, and while there are many continuities in the way individuals handle trauma, there are many personal differences as well. To me, this signals a chaotic aftermath of a traumatic event. So, this understanding aids in our unpacking of the complexities of the real-life event of 9/11. The incorporation of the historical facts with Foer’s fictional storyline—for example, the artwork as characterization, but also as representative of the 21st century technological and multimedia news coverage of the event—is significant. Through this, we are brought back to think about the devastation that 9/11 caused: the chaos of a million conflicting heartbreaks and traumas from the loss of loved ones. Especially as one of Foer’s purposes in his novel is to explore how 9/11 impacted individuals, recognition of the novel as part of a larger discourse on the real-life effects of trauma is crucial.
Thanks again!
Kristen Lew
Hello Rachel!
Your latest blog entry, ‘Survivor of War” about the experience of your grandparents caught my attention as the story sounds very familiar, as I have heart similar stories from my grandparents as well. As a kid, I have heard my grandfather telling me about stories of how the Japanese soldiers killed his brother and his hatred towards them. You mentioned that your grandparents till this day still holds negative feelings towards the Japanese government, and this is still an existing problem within the Hong Kong and China population. However, I realized something interesting, which is that there seem to be a change in the over all attitude towards the Japanese in the recent generation. In the recent years, Japanese culture have been rushing in to China and Hong Kong, no matter if it is music, food, comic, or culture, the new generation seems to be in love with the Japanese culture. This reminds me about the concept of “globalization” that we learned in Geography. This process of globalization seem to have taken out the hate within the population, I believe in a few more decades, the existing negative feelings towards the Japanese will disappear.
Thank you for sharing your story!
Dione
Hello Kristen Ylo! This is a response to your post “A Disconnected Connection.” In the blog post, you brought the poem “Photograph from September 11,” (by Wisława Szymborska) and the authority she has. You wrote that the “authors know the information as they had done the research, to have the authority to talk about the facts”… but do they truly have the authority? When the topic of authority comes about, I struggle to answer it whole. The questions of: do they have the facts? Who is “they” to begin with?? The facts according to whom? I somewhat agree with you that Wisława Szymborska has some authority: she can speak on the subject, but she will never have the authority to act as a witness, no matter how much she knows on the topic. You also brought up her last line of the poem: “I can do only two things for them – describe this flight and not add a last line,” saying that you saw it as “proof of drawing the line between Us vs. Them.” My thoughts differ. I’d like to think that the last line is her paying homage/respect to the people jumping. Through her poem, she freezes them in time. She allows them to survive in this timeless zone, never hitting the ground. But I’m not sure if this limbo zone is meant to make them immortal, or stop the closure. By never letting people hit the ground, there will never be a chance to heal. The people will stay frozen forever.
– Carolina
After reading Raphael’s blog post on Juliana Spahr’s This Connection of Everyone with Lungs, I realize his idea and mine is drastically different. Raphael expressed his confusion and questioned Spahr’s idea that everyone shares the same space and we all inhabit the same planet yet we’re so far away from one another, but I myself find this idea very apparent and clear. We now live in an age where we no longer have to communicate verbally in person in order to get our message across. The gap between people is only ever going to get wider. It is common that we add someone on Facebook as a friend and have never actually talked to them before. The fact that people are getting more and more disconnected is due to our reliance on social media and the thought that “if i want to talk to him, I will send him a message”. Raphael’s blog really resonated with me and kept me thinking, go check it out!
I really liked your blog post about the use of language and how it affects the meaning of trauma/ war in the sense that humans just become a part of texts and numbers. I think it would be really beneficial if our school system discussed about the effect of language and how powerful it is earlier (possibly as early as elementary school because I think students at that age would be able to understand the significance of it) because I had completely bypassed the importance of language when I was younger. Reading the news and such when I was younger and unaware about the effect of language has made me skim by events where people have died in wars or attacks as a separate and distant reader who just took in the news as plain facts and statistics. I didn’t really understand that they were real people like me because they were just “casualties of war”. In a sense I found that this issue was also addressed in the second poem by Juliana Spahr, and how she elaborates that people who died in wars or disasters are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters etc.
Do you think there are any other ways to help people understand the significance of language and how powerful it is in shaping what we know and understand the world?
For this month’s comment I decided to write a response to your most blog post ( http://blogs.ubc.ca/iamglobalcitizen/2016/02/11/line-or-cirle/ ) based on Spahr’s book in which you wrote about comfort and vulnerability. For the most part I feel like I focus the majority of my thoughts to personal life rather than worldly issues, but reading Spahr’s book and your post just cemented in my mind the point that despite how isolated we might think we are, there’s always ways in which greater societal happenings can be linked to us. It’s kind of like that realisation that everyone you interact with or even just see for a moment has their own web of social and other relations. While I personally don’t think it’s too much of an issue to be more absorbed in your own affairs rather than those happening on a greater scale, I do think that a complete lack of interest is a fault on the part of the individual. Especially in the current world in which global connections are so incredibly common. I think the comparison you used of a circle and a line was pretty interesting, that we feel like everyone is disconnected on their own line, yet if you go far enough in a certain direction that line is likely to intersect with another in some way. I also liked your last point where you emphasised that not everyone’s global presence has to be equal or even particularly prominent, as long as it becomes recognised it might be enough to make some kind of change.
It was very interesting to read your last post about different perspectives on the definition of witness. It really stood out to me how you compared two most common views on witness. Here I would like to bring to the conversation an article I have read recently. (http://nyti.ms/1LeLoWq) The author writes that second kind of witness – the people who listen to the stories of those, who went through trauma and shared their deepest fears and pain.
The article made me wonder whether by reading and learning more about a particular event a person can call themselves a witness, as they gather the information from primary sources and acquire the same perspective as those, who actually saw the event with their eyes. In the age of media people have an access to unlimited information from all over the globe and they can become witnesses to what they choose to witness.
At the same time, I realize that people, who haven’t experienced something by themselves cannot embrace the role of witness to the full extend. There will always be something left behind, the feeling that was unspoken, the detail that was missed. However, it should not stop one from witnessing a trauma even through a reading or a conversation with someone who was physically present there.
Thank you for choosing to write on this topic. It helped me understand the idea of witness itself in a more compound way.
Hi Sania!
I had a pleasure reading your most recent blog post and you certainly raised some valid points on how media is constructed to value certain lives over others. I’ve always had an issue understanding why people glamourize certain events while ignoring others that may be just as traumatic and impactful; these feelings were especially prevalent during the attack on Paris most recently as you mentioned in your blog. I noticed you chose to conclude with a ‘pessimistic’ view towards the future of how we value lives and as much as I want to disagree with you I have to agree. I feel like as a western society, we are making progress by becoming more globally aware of the traumatic experiences others have to go through however we still have the us/them classifications. Despite becoming more unified as ‘global citizens’ disregarding national borders, I feel like we will always value the lives of the ‘good/ innocent” people (us) over the ‘bad’ people (them). Perhaps those will the only classifications as to how we value lives in the future?
I wanted to start by saying I really enjoy reading all your blog posts. I find myself nodding as I am reading along. Your thoughts and ideas always get me thinking!
Today, I wanted to comment on your recent blog post: INCOMPLETE // IDENTIFICATION. Although I have to agree the course material have been emotionally heavy, I like the point you make at the end where “instead of a call for arms, there should be a call for peace.” This is so true. I find that society has been so concerned about protection and extra security when we should be making ways for peace. I find that the presence of extra security and weapons may actually put people more in danger as they are threatening in a way. I feel that it is as if one starts to “protect” themselves with arms, another person would notice and do the same and it would keep escalating.
After wars and attacks such as the 9/11 attack, there were some who were furious and screamed revenge. I find that some people may act abruptly with their instant emotions which is a very scary thing. When one is angry, they may act or say things they would not have otherwise. With the presence of weapons such as guns for “protection” may actually put people in danger. For example, if someone is angry enough, they may pick up the weapon and potentially harm someone. What I am trying to get at is your point of “hatred breeds more hatred” which made me think this may be the same for arms, that “arms breeds for more arms.” Although we may need some arms, I thought that if we reduced the arms we had, it would actually create a safe community.
Also in response to your point of “doesn’t it work the same for love,” in the way of love breeds for more love, I think by creating a community where there is more education on different cultures and acceptance of peoples difference and attempts to understand each other could help. In relation to this, I believe the poems that circulated after the 9/11 attacks allowed for people all around the world to connect, understand, and sympathize one another. There were more movements for peace than thoughts of war.
I know this may sound naive but what I never really understood is why there is war. If the leader or group has a problem with another group and vice versa, why can’t they personally figure it out instead of sending innocent people, who have nothing to do with it, to get involved and kill other innocent people who had nothing to do with it? The problem is with the two groups/leaders, not the others. In the case for 9/11, the attackers were from the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda, from Saudi Arabia as well as other Arabian nations, BUT what many seem to have difficulty with distinguishing that those attackers DO NOT represent the rest of the Arabian people. I understand the hatred toward the Islamic extremist group who made this attack BUT there should be absolutely no hatred to other Arabian people who were not even a part of this.
This goes for other wars and attacks; just because one group did something, it does not mean the rest of the people from the same area agrees with them.
I’m sorry I went on a little rant there but I would really love it if you could give me some feed back on your thoughts!
Hope you are having a great day and see you tomorrow! Keep up with the great blog posts! 🙂
Hey Kaveel!
I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on poetry interpretation! You asked the question, is poetry supposed to be interpreted freely, or is it supposed to be read through a contextualized lens? I think that there’s no hard and fast answer explanation to that question. However, there’s definitely an element of trust when poetry is written; trust that what you’re writing will evoke in the reader the same general emotions and events that you’re pouring into it. I think that a poet takes the events that s/he is specifically talking about, and they transfer them into emotions and reactions, and thats what can come through and be reinterpreted on the reader’s side, regardless of why specific references are being made. I think that poetry has a slightly different function than other more explicit types of literature; perhaps poetry, like Auden’s “September 1st, 1939”, is meant to be shared, reinterpreted, and eventually re-contextualised. He chose that medium, he accepted the type of expression that left more up to the reader. For us on our end, it makes for a far less specifed analysis mission, but there’s also a freedom to poetry scholarship that I haven’t been feeling as much recently, with other academic projects. I think that poetry is so different and persistent and championed (especially after trauma, as we saw with the post 9/11 poetry boom) because of the very ambiguity you are concerned over. I’ve always enjoyed the slippage between references and emotions and experiences that comes with reading poetry, but thats just me. Anyway, I hope you come to enjoy poetry as much as I do one day! In the meantime, the unit’s over, so you’re all good! Thanks for the post!
Nicola
Dear Rachel,
Thank you for sharing your recent personal experience with racial discrimination in your last blog “Race Between Races”. I am sorry that you experienced that, and I am sorry that you face challenges in your daily life due to your perceived ethnicity. The story you shared exhibits so many personal violations, concerning, age, ethnicity, and gender. I am always deeply saddened and motivated to work towards change when I hear examples of people exploiting their social power to threated or disempower someone else, in your example, his being older than you, his being male, his coming into your personal space on public transit, his persistence, his racial discrimination towards you come together to create a very inappropriate and intolerable interaction. I was wondering how other passengers and the transit conductor reacted to witnessing this. Do you have any advice for what witnesses should do to support and protect people who are targeted in this way, and to help end this kind of discriminatory and threatening behavior all together? I know that sharing personal anecdotes can be emotionally upsetting and can be challenging at times so I appreciate the clarity and honesty I saw in your account. The insights you gave about the experience of moving here from Hong Kong was also very interesting and valuable, thank you for sharing, I hope that through continuing to open the conversation about ethnicity, identity and discrimination people including you do not have to face these sort of challenges in your daily life.
Best,
Isabelle
First off, I want to commend you for such for an analytical and engaging blog post in ‘Unspeakability: the Soldier Versus the Civilian — By: Taylor Khatkar’. You raised some interesting distinctions in the trauma suffered by the civilian versus the trauma suffered by the soldier. Both of them experience traumatic experiences differently however its certainly interesting that the aspect of ‘unspeakability’ is prevalent in many victims of trauma. You drew such a distinction by contrasting Oskar and his grandparents as portrayed as the civilians in addition to Sgt. Price as the soldier. In the conclusion of your blog post you posed the question: is unspeakability inevitable with regards to trauma and war?. This prompted me think about the stigma around mental health of victims and soldiers of war. In regards to your question, I think that unspeakability is becoming lesser of an issue as we as a society are evolving to understand mental health and are starting more conversations regarding it. As such, more resources are available to trauma victims to ultimately heal and ‘speak’ about there problems and trauma. This made me think of Canadian Senator Roméo Dallaire who suffered a great deal of trauma following his involvement in the Somali War and how he used literature to write about his ordeal, another form of speakability. Perhaps although verbally ‘unspeakable’ maybe we should consider ‘writing’ as a form of speakability as Oskars grandparents and Sgt. Price had done? Should we consider writing as a form of ‘speakability’?
I really enjoyed reading your final blog post about Peter Morey’s article, as well as Hamid’s The Reluctant Fundamentalist. I found your thoughts intriguing, and as I continued reading, I found myself aligning with your position and your thoughts.
I especially enjoyed how you depicted your initial thoughts on Hamid’s novel, and depicted how your interpretation changed over time. (I found your comparison of Hamid’s novel to “the white washed Arabic narrator of Disney’s classic and only middle eastern based movie” to be especially compelling, as I, too, felt this way when I first read the novel.)
After analyzing the novel in lecture—and reading Morey’s article—I agree that there was more calculation and intention to this dramatic monologue style of the novel than we originally thought. I found that your Butlerian critique of the “us vs them” mindset worked well to prove your point. Essentially, it is the job of all readers to remain active, not passive when reading novels of this genre. It is as you say: the form is an “affective tool for forcing the reader to check their own presuppositions that they bring to the novel”.
Thanks for writing such a great blog post! I’d love to discuss it more with you in person!
Your blog post entitled “‘YOUR PRIVILEGE (WHAT’S UP WITH THAT?)’: ‘BORDERS’ BY MIA & MOSHIN HAMID’S THE RELUCTANT FUNDAMENTALIST” is insightful. I enjoyed reading about the connections you drew between MIA’s song and Hamid’s novel. I agree with your point about MIA suggesting “that as a global body we should all be involved in resolving the migrant crises”. As global citizens, we need to come together in order for change to occur for the better. It seems as though Changez would agree with this point, too — as a global attitude may have prevented the prejudice that he experienced as a Pakistani living in New York City. However, I find that after analyzing the parallels that you drew between these two narratives, I am left with some questions: in her song, did MIA intended to “destabilize” our assumptions about refugees in a similar manner to how literary scholar Peter Morey suggests Hamid does in The Reluctant Fundamentalist? If so, which form was more effective in emphasizing this destabilization — the song or the dramatic monologue? I would love to hear your thoughts on the answers to these questions.
— Taylor Khatkar
Link to Kihan’s blog post “YOUR PRIVILEGE (WHAT’S UP WITH THAT?)”: “BORDERS” BY MIA & MOSHIN HAMID’S THE RELUCTANT FUNDAMENTALIST: http://blogs.ubc.ca/kihanyh/
Hey Sania!
When you focus on Hamid and how he struggles between the identities of being from Lahore and New York was very interesting. It was more significant as it really connected to you. The fact that from a very young age you have “hybrid identity” shows your true understanding of the concept. It must be hard for you to always feel confused about what identity you feel you must pick or choose. I like how you portrayed the obstacles you have to face when seeing the differences in the cultures and societies. Having to question yourself and question how you should represent yourself really made your blog very engaging. Additionally by questioning whether you are suppose to present one group over the other extended the struggle you had to keep with both groups because it was so “dynamic fluid”. I really like when you emphasized all the encounters and obstacles you had to face in your life; it was a really good connection for the blog. The way you associated the Reluctant Fundamentalist as being conflicted with identifies as it serves to “integrate the multiple identities and forming his own identity and character” was very noteworthy. Lastly, when you explained how identity doesn’t need to be black and white was very nicely put and you further emphasized this point in your blog. Overall, your blog was well written, very eloquent, and a very attention-grabbing read.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your last blog post entitled “Final Blog Post!!!” (haha). In regards to the form of the dramatic monologue found in Hamid’s novel, I too felt the same sentiment where, “it felt so unauthentic [like] a one sided conversation loaded with innuendos”. Likewise, I must admit that Peter Morey’s analysis of The Reluctant Fundamentalist gave me a new methodological lens to see Hamid’s intricate choice of style as extremely “calculated and intentional”.
Further, as we have also discussed a bit in class, what really stuck out to me is the way in which Hamid becomes “so successful [in] forcing the reader to see their own dichotomies and ideas of East and West…that he constantly makes you wonder if what you’re assuming is happening because of your own presuppositions”. Through the notion of this novel being a thriller because we are “already scared”, this novel made me conscious of the bias we as readers carry, but also the intention the writer has in their work. Moreover, I am reminded by one of our first lectures in sociology where we discussed ethnocentrism, but more in specific, “reflexivity” – “the process of examining both oneself as researcher, and the research relationship. Self-searching involves examining one’s ‘conceptual baggage,’ one’s assumptions and preconceptions, and how these affect research decisions” (Hsiung, 2010). After reading The Reluctant Fundamentalist, discussing the various motifs in class, and having Morey’s article as an aid, it has definitely challenged the ways in which I had initially interpreted the dramatic monologue, overall plot, and persona of Changez as a whole.
Just read your final blog post titled “YOUR PRIVILEGE (WHAT’S UP WITH THAT?)”: “BORDERS” BY MIA & MOSHIN HAMID’S THE RELUCTANT FUNDAMENTALIST. I think the parallels that you draw between Hamid’s Novel and MIA’s song operate in a very interesting way. In both artifacts (I find I must describe them this way in order to approach them from a culturally historic perspective) we see these separation of “us” and “them” being broken down; thus not only do they operate to destabilize our western understanding of a political topic, but through the different art forms we can gain an understanding of the shifting social and cultural milieu which operate to affect the political sphere of the world. In this sense I find your connection of the two artifacts to be really interesting. As I noted above however, Taylor has also responded to your blog post and asks which source; Hamid’s novel or MIA’s song to be more effective at destabilizing our assumptions of immigrants, whether in the context of 9/11 or of the Syrian refugee crisis. To me this is an interesting question, and in connection to the parallels you make in your blog, I think that in looking at just how an art form achieves this destabilization is important in analyzing the power you argue that MIA’s work has in changing peoples viewpoint. What stood out to me after watching MIA’s video is her sense of duality in her art. I’m not going to pretend like I know a lot about MIA and her history, but from watching her video it was interesting seeing her diss popular culture and the slang, mediatized language that goes along with it, for example she says “livin it (whats up with that)… being lit (whats up with that)”. Yet, at the same time she uses that platform of popular culture to present her art in a attempt to break these same trends. The beat of her song is also very up to date with the hip-hop/trap scene; in an era where hip-hop is melody, bass focused I find it interesting that she combines this with poignant lyrics to meet the youth scene “halfway” from popular culture to art activism. I’m still a bit wary of this as it is still operating inside of the sphere that is popular culture; i find it to be troubling in that regard and I still cant answer whether MIA or Hamid operate to achieve a more accessible message of destabilization. However, I found your blog to be really interesting, and I through-roughly enjoyed the song.
Hey Kihan!
After reading your blog post about the connections between MIA’s most recent music video and The Reluctant Fundamentalist I really started thinking about all the different connections I’ve made between content from our CAP classes and the media. Your post made me think about how grateful I am to have chosen the Global Citizens stream because I’ve really felt like the material we’ve learned this year has been meaningful and applicable to real life. I’ve managed to quote Kanye West in three different assignments so far which I think attests to how real the stuff we’re learning is. I think part of being a global citizen is forming those connections between the academic and the theoretical with the real world. I’d like to think we don’t just exist in the vacuum of academia just yet. Anyway thanks for the great post!
Jacqueline
First off, I just wanted to say that you made an excellent choice regarding the opening quote. I wholeheartedly agree with you that Ferris Bueller’s Day Off is an excellent movie. Anyways, onto the blog post itself… in your post you write that the transition from high school to university “has come to be something else,” with you encountering many things you thought you wouldn’t have. Which for me, raises several questions: what were you expecting to experience coming into UBC? Have you experienced what you expected to? What experiences did you have, but not expect to? Honestly, I remember coming to Imagine Day absolutely terrified: the campus is absolutely gigantic, I had zero friends on that went to UBC, and I had no idea what to expect. Scary stuff, man.
You also address lenses and scholarly form in your blog post. The concept of lenses itself wasn’t something brand new to me. However the indepth-edness of the use of lenses in Sociology, Political Science, Geography, and ASTU was new and difficult to get into. The form aspect of ASTU is definitely something I’ve had to work on. The idea that we have been taught to write a final paper, in the appropriate scholarly form, is pretty mind-boggling.
-Carolina
Hey Nico,
I found your final blog post to not only be sincerely moving (I teared up a little at your final thoughts on CAP Global Citizens), but also extremely though provoking. I thought it was really insightful of you to use the concept of trauma transfer to problematize the #alllivesmatter campaign. I agree with you that taking trauma out of context, as #alllivesmatter and trauma transfer can do, can be extremely detrimental to the victims of specific traumas (such as race related police violence). Relating this to my own blog on MIA’s “borders” music video, where do you place MIA’s use of trauma transfer? Do you think that her transfer of her experience as an immigrant from Sri Lanka to the experience of Syrian refugees is powerful or problematic? I seem to think the former, but I would love to hear your opinion.
– Kihan
Hey Sania!
Thank you for sharing your personal experience in your latest blog, the post caught my attention as I actually feel the same way as you do, and especially the quote that you posted in the end, “so here you are, too foreign for home, too foreign for here, never enough for both”.
I was born in Hong Kong, later moved to Shanghai, attended an international school, then moved to Beijing, and now Vancouver. All these three places I didn’t spend that long of my life at. Every time when someone asks me where I am from, my first answer would be Hong Kong, but then later I ask myself, is this actually the place I am from? I spend my childhood there but after moving away for so long, I no longer feel connected to this place. In Shanghai, there is no set culture, my friends all have different cultural background, living in a city that is so internationalized, I find it hard to understand my own background in this place. And now I am in the process of finding out whether Vancouver is a place to call “my home land”.
It is confusing whether “home” is where your family is, where you grew up, or where you feel culturally connected to. At this point, I feel like the only acceptable answer when people ask me where I am from, is to say I am “international”. It may sound funny, but at this point, I have not yet figure out where I am from, or maybe someday, “international” would become its own culture!
Thanks for sharing Sania!
blog post: http://blogs.ubc.ca/saniaastu100a/2016/03/10/hybrid-identity/
I read your most recent blog “Curiosity over fear” and I must say that I was really impressed with some of the interesting points you made. I liked that you talked about how we as a ‘society’ make divisions and create the whole “us” vs “them” scenario by not accepting diversity as we claim to do. I also loved the point were you suggested the beauty that lies in embracing and accepting diversity. I was able to connect your recent post with one of the blog posts I posted a while ago. ” So now you can evaluate the value of life” where I talked about the how some lives are more valuable than the others and gave an example of 9/11 where the American lives were considered more valuable than those of the innocent Iraqis and muslims. It makes me think how the divisions made by the society that you mentioned in your blog contribute in evaluating the lives we consider valuable.We value people and the lives of people we consider as “our” people and often do not hold the same importance for the people who fall under the “other ” category . The mere presence of differences in the value of lives takes me back to the question which we have discussed in our CAP stream in almost every course- Does these divisions and wall we have within society hinder our path to being a “global citizen” ? I believe we still have to work on being a complete “global” citizen and that can be done through , as you said “learning the ability to accept – accept the diversity and people around.”
I really liked your last blog post where you (like many of our other classmates) brought back a lot of the theory that we studied in ASTU but also made links to the frameworks of our other classes like Sociology. It’s a bit odd to think that it will be over soon, that all the professors and students that we’ve gotten accustomed to seeing will be moving on, but that’s beside the point. I feel like a lot of us weren’t entirely sure how all the classes we enrolled in would be connected, apart from a vague overarching theme of “global citizens”. Your post brings back thoughts of the first time we were asked to define Global Citizenship, and how unsure some of us felt about the term, but throughout the year, especially in the theme “us vs them” we were slowly opened up to the complexities of the scholarly mind-set of what being global really meant -particularly in the close readings of Butler and Spahr’s works. I thought it was a particularly good show of your own personal global awareness to take what we learned as theories of literature in class and apply it critically to current, real social trends/issues.
On a general note to anyone who might read this: while the year might not have been smooth sailing for all of us in every course, I get the feeling that everyone found something that drew them in at some point in the year and I hope that we’ve all had our horizons widened by the Global Citizens CAP stream.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your recent blog post “Curiosity over fear.”
First of all, I found the readings and the discussions really open up and broaden my mind. I find myself being more aware of certain things such as how I say things and how I think about certain things. I definitely noticed and caught myself looking at different situations and ideas with more of an open mind by incorporating different perspectives.
I love how you mentioned how we look at people who are different from us and how we respond to other’s differences. This is something that is constantly on my mind. I have thought about your question of whether we have the authority to identify others as “‘Middle Eastern’, ‘Eastern European’, ‘Chinese’ or ‘American’” and I find it almost unavoidable to not identify the differences. I believe that without identifying ourselves in this way, (for example) we would not be able to say that Canada is multicultural because in order to be able to say that we are multicultural, we need to be able to identify the different cultures. Without these differences between the different cultures, we would not have the variety that we do now and we would not be able to share our different traditions and knowledge. Like you have said, it really is these differences that make us unique and more interesting.
In somewhat relation to this, as I also mentioned in my blog post, “Blurred Lines Between “Us” and “Them””, I believe there will always be an unavoidable blurred line between “Us” vs “Them.” However, I do believe it is important to try to almost eliminate that line and create a sense of community and equality and connectedness. I love how you used The Reluctant Fundamentalist to talk about the importance to replace fear with curiosity to learn more about each person, their nations, culture, and religion. It will definitely help with creating a better connected, understand and accepting community.
Also, thank you for sharing the TED talk! It sounds very interesting!! I will go watch that later! 🙂
And yes, I completely agree with you how we should all stay open to the diversity around us and be inspired by them!!
Thank you so much for sharing again! It is always such a great pleasure to read your blog posts! I will miss them!
Hope you have a lovely week and take care! <3
-Ina de Weerdt
Hey Kristen Ylo,
I really enjoyed reading your last blog! You summarized all the experiences that happen this year so nicely and I agree with you on a lot of things. I also liked that you mentioned the role of the child’s narrative in the texts we read. You are so right in saying that this gives a completely different perspective on the trauma and the story itself. Today in class Ina mentioned that this can be a way to express emotions and feelings some adults struggle to communicate.
I think back about the first book we read – Persapolis and remember how different and thrilling it was to read a story about national trauma from the perspective of a small girl. The development of her character was another thing that stood out to me. I feel like it also can be a way to show how people change after trauma – give up their hopes and look for a deeper meaning and cause for the traumatic events.
I wanted to quickly address your blog on “Reflection and Narratives of a Global Citizen,” specifically addressing the last two paragraphs on the importance of the act of ‘acknowledgement.’ But first, your analysis and examples on vulnerability and how we don’t really know as much as we thought (citing Einstein), I wholeheartedly agree with your stance on them. After reading the introductory paragraphs, the last two really resonated with me because it’s very applicable to our contemporary globalized world. “The more [we] learn, the more [we] realize much [we] don’t know.” Is globalization the cure towards the disease known as prejudice? By understanding and recognizing different cultures and beliefs, does that really build bridges or only fuel the fire? These were the questions that really came to me as I read those last two paragraphs, and I would love to hear your thoughts on them!
Thanks, and hopefully we see each other again next year!
Diego
Hey Sam
Thank you for your thoughtful reflection about our first year as CAP students! I enjoyed your points about the mutual absurdity that everyone lives in, in the moment. It’s a good perspective to keep in mind, when you’re wondering whether or not to put up your hand in class, or talk to someone, or really do anything involving others. We are all existing in the same absurd moment, which in and of itself is an insane feat of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and chance and decisions. When you consider that, the very fact that somehow the specific sample of people in our stream gathered together in all those separate moments that we had throughout the year, and are now thinking an interacting together, its amazing. The idea that we are trapped in this curve of time unavoidable is sort of daunting, but, I also feel it adds weight to the seize-the-moment theme.
In a slightly related tangent, this is what your post made me think of. You spoke about the ideas of everyones existence ebbing an absurd thing; an amazing thing, when that is grasped. I think that this perspective of how baffling and amazing the life that you’re experiencing in that moment is an important one. It reminds me of when you’re in an airplane, and people close the windows, watch movies, and best of all, complain about the flight. But when you step back and think about it, you’re a person, flying, in a seat, at 900 kilometres an hour, 40 000 feet up in the air, and you can get across the globe in the same time it would take to binge watch a season on netflix. Thats absurd! I like the idea that its not just that thats amazing and absurd, but every moment. Perhaps this is an oversimplification of what you wrote about, but this was my impression! Thanks for the thoughts and have a good summer,
Nicola
Hi Sam!
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your blog post “Bridging the Gap of Unspeakability: Art and Trauma”. If I am understanding you correctly, art, as a technology of memory, cannot possibly fully represent everyone’s trauma collectively. Everyone views and reacts to trauma differently. I agree. I wholly support your idea of “bridging the gap” as you say, but I have trouble agreeing with your stance of being able to understand one another “without having to discuss…” Art is a wonderful symbol that can cause connection and unity among victims and those who have experienced trauma, however I believe no one can truly understand another person without verbal or written communication. Communication of some kind needs to be exchanged in order for one human being to understand another. That’s just my opinion. Let me know your thoughts; I’d love to discuss this more with you.
-Kendall Manifould
Hey Kendall,
First off, thanks for commenting on my blog, I’m glad it resonated with you! To reply to what you said about art in relation to trauma, I would agree that communication is necessary for one human to understand each other. Maybe my blog was misleading in its wording, I hoped more just to make the point that through art we are able to bridge the gap of unspeakability through a collective experience more than a direct communication or understanding. For example, in our ASTU class we as a community are communicating with each other in discussion of art, in order to understand better how that art works towards dealing with trauma. I totally agree with you that as a group, through communication we create understanding of each other and of the book. However, I more meant in terms of just the art, that our collective experience of Foer’s novel, irrespective of communication with one another serves as a point of connection through our combined experience of it. I like how you took my blog even further though in talking about the need for communication, as I did not even think of adding that as a topic, and I recognize its cornerstone importance in understanding each others experience and therefore each others narratives of trauma in relation to the art.
– Sam Tuck
Hey Isabelle!
I thought your blog post was really interesting and thought provoking, especially reading it in the context of the IIka Saal essay that we were discussing in class today. You discussed in your blog the power of literature to give the reader an elevated perspective of being able to see another person’s inner thoughts and motives, a perspective that is unattainable in real life. As you pointed out, this elevated perspective is incredibly important to novels like Extremely Close & Incredibly Loud because there is such a lack of communication between the characters themselves – in a sense it seems that by piecing together the different narratives in the story, the reader has a more intimate understanding of the novel’s characters than these characters’ very loved ones do. But, in reference to IIka Saal’s essay, do you think that Foer depends too heavily on the reader piecing together the nuances of each of the narratives in the novel? Do you think that by Foer depending on the reader to make the connections between the traumas experienced by each of the characters, instead of the characters doing so themselves, that Foer contributes to a unilateral framing of 9/11? Anyways, just some thoughts. I would love to know what you think!
http://blogs.ubc.ca/isabellesemmalhack/2016/01/13/write-what-you-know/
Hey Taylor!
just read your most recent blog:The Result of Trauma: A Sporadic Mindset. I hadn’t noticed that the photographs were not in colour while the image of the names in the art store were. Your blog reminded me of the discussion we had in class about why images are included in this novel, why some are hand written while many others are typed though described as hand written. To be honest I payed little attention to these details while reading the novel, but after reading your blog i began to think more deeply about it. You suggest that the images work to create a reading experience of disorientation, slight discomfort and to emphasize how nonsensical times of trauma feel. I wonder if this book is meant to act similarly to a scrapbook. Perhaps this book is actually Oskar’s book of “Stuff that happened to me”. maybe these images are included so that we as readers don’t have to “invent” Oskar and his grandparents stories, the evidence, and ‘truth’ the book is dedicated to trying to find.
best,
Isabelle
Hey Kihan,
I loved reading your blog post (or should I call it an essay, it was really long) about the postmodern nature of Foer’s novel Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. I thought it was really interesting that you felt dissatisfied after reading the novel. In someways I resonate with you, but in other ways I was happy with the way that the novel was concluded. In your blog you talk about the “Flip Flopping” of the non-diegetic information, specifically the narratives. I found this was true as well and it seemed to me, to fully understand how the flip flopping connects all of them in relation to trauma you would have to really analyze the novel and read it multiple times (as we are doing through reading Saal’s article). However, i thought that even though the post-modern, artistic elements were confusing at the beginning of the novel, they were also what drew me in, and motivated the plot for the reader. Going back to the point of the books conclusion, I thought that the ending definitely did conclude the plot lines and complex narratives of the story. As I was reading it I thought the end really brought together a lot of the story for me, which helped me make a few connections as to the relationships of the different narratives in the novel. However, after reading Saal and thinking about it, that sense of conclusion is really only focused on the conclusion of Oskars motivating journey throughout the novel, and while this may serve the author well in trying to solve the problem of trauma simply through a stock narrative I would agree with Saal in that this leaves out the powerful messages that come through in connection with the other narratives, by only showing Oskar’s as a conclusion. Anyway, i’m just summarizing what we said in class now, I thought your blog was really cool, and it definitely made me think about the nature of what a novel is these days or if in fact Foer’s is an exception by creating a post-modern twist to literature. Personally, after reading your blog, Saal, and the novel itself i would tend to agree with you that it Foer’s creation is not postmodern in its meaning. While its form may hold elements that could lead to a post-modern interpretation of the novel, because of the novels conclusion surrounding only one master narrative it leaves the everyday reader still stuck in a modern view point about the extent of trauma. However, the form of Foer’s novel definitley leaves there to be something to be asked of the way novels, and art in general could possibly, through a post-modern lens, lead to a discussion of the power of multi narratives in discussing trauma.
– Sam Tuck
Hey Carolina,
I really enjoyed your blog post (title was spot on as well) about fear culture and how its effects can vary depending on the situation and on the individual. After having a few chuckles due to your blatantly unique, writing style, something that I was left with me was quite a bit of negativity – which got me thinking.
Why is the concept of ‘fear’ linked with negative connotations? In a ‘fight or flight’ situation triggered by fear, why does it usually result with ‘bad decision making?’ Isn’t there a way to utilize fear in a way to make individuals more aware of the “shit” that needs to be fixed and provoke productive action, rather than discouraging them and causing more distress? An example of productive fear would probably be the video we watched in Sociology about the financial inequalities in Canada, where the video inspires us despite of how terrifying the reality is.
Thoughts?
-Diego
(link to original blog post: http://blogs.ubc.ca/holaastu100a/2016/01/28/buy-this-itll-make-you-feel-better-watch-this-shut-up/)
Hi Diego!
I think fear has negative connotations because fear is uncomfortable. Basic human instincts dictate a “fight or flight” response, leading to a massive increase in Adrenaline. This makes your palms sweaty and your knees weak. (Mom’s spaghetti) Fear isn’t just physical; a large component of fear is mental. Anxiety and phobias can cloud judgement, leading to terrible decisions. That being said, there are definitely ways to use fear as a means to promote positive impacts. The video we watched in Sociology is a great point! It tries to use our fear of inequality in hopes that we actually do something about it. I’m actually unconvinced that it’ll work. And I’m even less sure if it’s fair to use “productive fear” in the first place… what do you think?
-Carolina
Hey Diego!
I’m really digging your last blog post, especially the last sentence:“Like aiming before firing, think before you speak.” Anyways, onto the post. Your argument of control over language: “Elements of trauma, loss, and fear may provoke irrational and hurtful language that never would have materialized otherwise…” plus your driving example are 100% spot-on. When someone cuts me off, I can come up with some pretty colourful language that I don’t have complete control over. If the person who cut me off heard what I had called them, they would probably be offended.
I agree that words have an incredible amount of power and that you should watch your language… but here’s where my thoughts differ from yours. I appreciate Oskar’s bluntness. (Even though I didn’t like him either: he seemed stuck-up and unaware of the sheer amount of annoyance he radiated.) It has become popular to use flowery language to avoid hurting someonelse’s feelings. But if we didn’t use precise language, no one would know what was going on half the time. Has implementation of self-censorship has become necessary in our contemporary Western society? I’d like to hear your thoughts on this.
-Carolina
Hello Diego!
You post entitled “C**EFUL LA**UAGE // WELCOME BACK” is intriguing. I found myself noting the use of language while reading Foer’s Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close as well. I am really glad that you brought up the point about our automatic reactions to certain events and the emotions triggered when said events occur. These emotions may be related to “trauma, loss, fear, and revenge”, as you mentioned. Your example of the media influencing our perceptions of people who we should consider “bad drivers” exemplifies this point well. I agree with your thoughts on the effects of being misguided by these perspectives. However, I argue that you can further this analysis by looking at who gets to decide what kind of rhetoric is used. For example, who controls the media? Which source of information is therefore unbiased with regards to their use of language? Is there such a thing as unbiased language? Is unbiased language desirable? I would love to hear your thoughts on the answers to these questions.
— Taylor Khatkar
Link to Diego’s blog post “C**EFUL LA**UAGE // WELCOME BACK”: http://blogs.ubc.ca/ramenislove/
Hi Kristen Y,
With the novel demonstrating absence you took a good perspective on this theme. I like how you connected Oskar and Thomas Sr. from the novel to show personal loss. This nicely reflected with the way you feel about personal loss. By demonstrating how readers open themselves to optimism even though there is so much suffering was very exciting to read. When you were analyzing why the book came from a child protagonist I like how you emphasized how a child only understands story they know how to tell. Which furthers demonstrates how they are still learning about the world they live in because they are still children. This outlook was very intriguing and you extended to illustrate how the interpretations of traumatic events they experience are being experienced for the first time. When you brought in your own experiences into your blog is what made the connection to absence very evident because you had that sense of loss with your family members and some of your friends. Overall, your blog had many key points and I thoroughly relished reading it!
-Imaan
Hey Kristen Lew,
I found your most recent blog post “Healing Through Narratives of Trauma” quite unique and interesting to read as I too, reflected on UBC’s Mental Health Week. In addition to the university’s awareness, Bell Let’s Talk and Mind Check are also initiatives that encourage people to talk about stigmas associated with mental illnesses. From personal experiences , I know for a fact that this shouldn’t just be thought about for just a day, or just a week, as it should be recognized everyday. I know this strays away from our ASTU conversation (I enjoyed reading about the connections between loneliness, trauma and mental illness) but I thought I could also bring up sad hockey stories to contribute to our Sex/Gender unit in Sociology. The links I’ve posted below challenge the ideas of hyper-masculinity and I wanted you as well as our classmates to think about it and check it out. These players are seen as aggressive (playing a sport) but by advocating about ending stigmas, they illustrate that we all have feelings, and should not socially construct labels. What do you think? Also in attempt to bring it back to ASTU (though I may just be restating your entire blog, or just not making sense), do you think these videos can be seen as parallel to Oskar and his healing through interaction? The idea that through awareness/social interaction, we could heal? It’s interesting to see how language plays a huge role in this process, be it fiction or not.
https://review.bellmedia.ca/view/327619957
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3ceFkAgg4
Hey Kendall!
I was glad to find that you wrote about some of the issues brought forth in Butler’s article in your blog post this week since I had my mind on the same issues but am the class blogger this week. You used some great quotes from the article to suggest that human beings are all capable of understanding each other despite obvious boundaries and I just wanted expand on that idea and ask you a bit more about your perspective. In the article Butler explains the fluid boundaries of the body or self and uses that concept of fluidity to explain that how people define themselves and where they create “others” they essentially carve themselves out and way from others. The “us” vs. “them” theme that has popped up in a few our classes now is so important to understanding how people, nations, and the world respond to conflict. When you posit in your post that because of the fluidity of the body people are capable of understanding I think Butler even goes beyond that in saying that the only thing that stops us from connecting to others is the act of marking them as “others”. I don’t know how possible it is for people to start connecting with everyone they meet on a basic human level since it’s never really happened before but I think this article is a step in the right direction because it creates a discourse on the bounds of the body that is missing in modern politics and conversation in general. I hope you’re having a great weekend, see you Tuesday!
Jacqueline DeSantis
Hey Dione!
It was interesting to read your last blog post. I liked how you put it as an answer to Saal’s main argument about ‘trauma transfer’. I agree with your argument and believe that traumas are not supposed to be compared or undermined.
People usually tend to generalize events and look at them from the one narrow perspective. Indeed, it is very easy to talk about terrorist attacks in general without a focus on a particular event and its significance. At the same time bringing two traumas into one conversation helps develop a connection between the victims and ease the pain by sharing and supporting each other.
One of the examples I would like to give is found in Butler’s article. She emphasizes the interconnection of everyone with everyone by talking about our mutual responsibility for each other’s lives. This makes me think about the importance of connection between different stories and traumas.
I do agree with your statement about the Paris attack and the attacks that happened in Beirut, Iraq and Syria. That’s true that they were viewed differently and Paris attack was talked about in the social media more than others. Nevertheless, I would argue that Paris attack brought other attacks into the global conversation. People started talking about Beirut, Iraq and Syria more, even though they looked at those events through the lenses of Paris attack.
I think each trauma is special and requires a particular response to it. However, sometimes this response lies in the interaction of two or more different traumas, as it helps overcome the consequences of an event more smoothly.
Mariana
Hey Taylor!
I enjoyed reading your blog post! Your questions really got me thinking and I wanted to attempt to answer some of them.
In response to your questions, I think some deaths like a passing of a close loved one such as a family member or friend affects us more than others as we are closer to them and really know them on a personal level. In addition, we have so many memories with that person and they most likely had a strong impact on our life. Maybe there are some things that only the two of you would do or may have had an inside joke. I believe that for these reasons their passing affects us more than others. Personally, I grieve knowing that someone lost their life, no matter if I knew them or not because the passing of someone is absolutely horrible and every life is precious. I may not grieve as much as I would for someone who I knew on a personal level, but I would still feel sadness and empathy towards the person and their loved ones. After losing some loved ones of my own, I know how hard it is to lose someone and I am able relate to them in that way. I think many people can relate in this way and grieve for others. We may grieve in different ways and some may not show it like others do, which may be the reason why some think that some people may not be grieving for someone’s passing. As to your question of “how do you put a value on someone’s death?”, I believe that all lives are valuable and vulnerable and therefore I am not sure how to put a value on someone’s death as well.
As you stated, there is still much to be analyzed and debated in order to answer these questions.
This is just my take on it. What are your thoughts?
Anyways, I hope you are having a lovely day.
See you tomorrow!
-Ina de Weerdt
Hey Dione,
I really enjoying reading your post and your reasoning of how trauma transfer really resonated with me. Your example on how people treated the Paris Attack differently compared to any other bombing served as a perfect example as the side effect of trauma transfer. People place attention onto events which they deemed as “more important”. This event perfectly display how Eurocentric today’s society can be. It sadden me to admit that society today put people of different nationality into ranks.
I believe traumatic event cannot be compared. There is no scientific way to calculate how similar two event is, nor is there a numerical equation to calculate people’s loss. I agree with your idea that personal experience and emotion must be put into account, solely relying on data is not valid to calculate the amount of pain the victim been through.
Thank you for your insightful post, I had a great time reading it.
Hey Mariana!
When I was reading your blog, the part where you talked about being more sympathetic to our own nation really got me thinking. I totally agree with you that people usually feel more related to the issues that are happening to our own country and less emotions towards what is happening else where in the world. While you suggested that people are less emotional towards the other countries because it is an “challenge for each individual to leave their comfort zone”, I was thinking if media can also be another explanation to this cause.
There had always been a conflict between Mainland China and Hong Kong, as Hong Kongers believes that Mainland Chinese had been “taking away Hong Kong resources”. When I think about it more, I realized that maybe it was the way the media portrays the event that was happening, the media had always included a negative view of the mainland people. However, the news had always been avoiding to talk about the negative sides of Hong Kong, one main reason would be receiving complains from people. I guess the media is also a reason why people are more sympathetic to their own country as many people’s knowledge is being limited by what the news show.
And thanks for sharing your ideas Mariana!
http://blogs.ubc.ca/iamglobalcitizen/
Hey Ina!
I thoroughly enjoyed your reading your most recent blog post entitled “Blurred Lines Between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’”! This is such a sensitive topic around the world and requires a lot of soul searching as to where each one of us stand; however, I could not think of a better time to revisit the common rhetoric of “us” vs “them”. You bring about great questions that required me to stop and take a moment to reflect. In response to your question, “Do people differentiate themselves based on personal values, beliefs, culture, gender, or looks,” I posed a similar question in my own blog post and suggested that we should value life blindly. Do you see this is an effective strategy, or if the benefits outweigh the negative consequences by viewing all life on an equal playing field? Looking back, I too struggle and admit that the “us” and “them” are unavoidable in some situations, but thankfully, there can be a lot done moving forward.
Similarly, it was great that you addressed “how Butler discussed the idea that all bodies are vulnerable to each other as it is important to recognize that we are all human and have similar vulnerabilities”. I think the mere fact that that Judith Butler sees “our bodies [as] a social phenomenon: it is exposed to others, vulnerable by definition” is almost paradoxical in a sense. On one hand, I get the response of wanting to separate ourselves from other strangers, but in another way, we rely on the interdependence of each other to find social meanings. Can we have one without the other? Definitely some food for thought.
Thank you for an awesome blog post, Ina!
Nico Jimenez
Hey Rachel!
I read your blog and what you said at the end (the cliquish part) I think it’s really true – that you should be taking in every moment for what it’s worth because anything can happen! And even though I don’t follow this advice myself (enough), I think this also connects back to your experience of your Muslim roommate. I cannot imagine what it’s like going through airport discrimination just because a small group of my nationality has done something wrong, and now I would be one to suffer from their consequences. It’s really is hard to understand this, how people that you know or friends of friends experience anything like this because you always think – this won’t happen to me. While I’ll never be discriminated like your friend (which is really terrible), I have to say it did remind me of another story where my friend of Asian descent would always be thoroughly questioned at the border crossing to the US while he noticed that people who were of caucasian descent would be easily allowed through. Likewise, my caucasian high school teacher also experience the same thing because he noted that his experience with border control always went smoothly, while other minorities had a more bumpy experience.
On another note, I thought about how your idea of if communications weren’t as big and powerful as they are today existed was really interesting! I think it’s safe to say that in a lot of ways sharing and communicating easily with people from all over the world sort of amplifies anything major that happens. But then again, I don’t think I can live in a world without technology and communications if that were to happen!
– Peijia Ding
Hi Kihan!
*super long post my apologies*
Thanks so much for the great post, it really got me thinking. I found it interesting the way you applied to a different situation Butler’s question of “who is grievable?” Especially because we are familiar with the Canadian treatment of First Nations through study in our sociology class. The thought that the settler Canadians never truly considered an aboriginal life as fully humanly lived and thus ungrievable is a depressing one, but an analysis that fits the history. We obviously seem to have drawn the line between ‘us’ and ‘them’ as soon as we arrived, and stuck to it tenaciously. It makes me think, what defines those two groups? Is it appearance? Culture? Population size, related to our ability to ignore them?
Also please forgive my generalized use of ‘we’. I can hardly say that the ‘we’ are white settlers of the past, not when you bring up the issue of the burial ground being constructed upon. It would seem that certain dominant influences in society still hold the belief that the First Nations history is not worth remembering. For a quick side note, in my town there are three massive apartment buildings on top of a First Nations burial site, so while it doesn’t make it any better, I’m glad that the project you’re talking about didn’t go through.
I think the question of who is grievable can also be thought of as who is hearable? (I know, not technically a word, but neither is unspeakability, and we use that all the time) You could say that society still finds the lives of the indigenous unlived, ungrievable, because of the very fact that the project was initiated. It comes into conflict with the uproar that followed, eventually leading to the dissociation. So we see that it is not an all-dominating assumption as it once was in Canadian history, but still unfortunately crops up.
One point that really got me thinking was your speaking about Mountain View Cemetery. Like an awful Vancouverite, I was only dimly aware that there was a cemetery there at all, let alone one with such symbolic (open for interpretation) centering in the middle of the city. So I decided to look into it through the Butlerian lens of who is grievable, and more especially, who is memorable? Because evidently, according to some, First Nations would not be among those worth remembering. What I found was fascinating, so thank you for sending me down this rabbit hole. I found that the cemetery is made up of different sections, largely for different groups of people. The first thing I realized was that there were tracts devoted to the victims of large scale accidental deaths. Trolley crashes, steamboats sinking, railroad explosions. Is one thing that makes death worth remembering the shocking, the unexpected? Was it, in that line of logic, expected that the First Nations should die out, unspectacularly? Is that part of what made them ungrievable?
There is also tracts for babies; mayors have their own land; firefighters and veterans have their place, and of course the rich are represented. These are memorable in a different way; the babies have their innocence, the mayors their power; theres heroism in those who serve, and the rich have their prestige. All these attributes commanded commemoration, and were grievable. There was no viewable section devoted to First Nations. However, this could be admittedly due to many other factors that I am unaware of. I also noticed that the Jewish section was grouped in with the Chinese section and the section where Japanese workers who died in the Rogers Pass Avalanche are buried. This collection of the marginalized may or may not have been a coincidence. What’s important to your point is in the Chinese and Japanese sections, groups traditionally marginalized, there were recent updates, with installations being brought in to honour their respective cultures. Across town, at around the same time as these installations were added, condos were being constructed over the c̓əsnaʔəm Musqueam burial site. It just so clearly highlights that even as we’ve supposedly moved on from our racist past, we still find the First Nations lives less grievable, even as we accept the humanity of other groups we marginalized. So, yes. What does make a life grievable?
Sorry for the long tangent, truly got very excited about this.
http://blogs.ubc.ca/kihanyh/2016/01/27/when-is-life-grievable-a-judith-butler-account-of-c̓əsnaʔəm/#comment-3
Hi Nico!
I just read your post, ‘When is a Life Grievable? A Call to Value Life Blindly’ and you certainly raised some valuable points (BTW I must commend you on an aesthetically appealing blog!). What particularly interested me was your last paragraph when you wrap things up and raise your own rhetorics. I noticed you mentioned the theme of ‘all lives matter’ which I found particularly interesting considering our last classroom discussion. I remember Nicola stating that we shouldn’t be that person who say’s ‘All lives Matter’ and to acknowledge trauma driven movements like ‘Black Lives Matter’. I understand the Utilitarian perspective you bring forward but I’m interested in hearing your standing on the tagging of the precariousness of our lives with a certain socio and/or political group of people? Hope that makes sense!
-Kaveel
Hey Taylor!
I really enjoyed your blog post from last week on the value of death, and I especially appreciate that you ended it with a slew of questions to continue the discussion! I’d like to share my thoughts on these questions, and especially on the broader issues that they imply. Your questions, which center around the wonderment of how one can place value on death, made me think about the political and social constructions of death—how a society can use death to generate . What I want to bring into this discussion is how death can be used politically and socially to promote certain cultures or groups in society. Thinking about this in terms of 9/11, one could make the conclusion that the deaths of innocent civilians in the attacks on that day became of value to American society beyond the individual, personal grief that so many experienced. Instead, death became valued as political—used to create the emotional state necessary for the next decade (an arguably, the present violence) in the Middle East. In this way, death is used to promote a political agenda. So, even though death is being valued—is it being valued for the right reasons? I know, another question to add to the debate…but I feel that this distinction is important—its something to think about!
Thanks for your contributions, Taylor!
Kristen Lew
Hello Carolina!
Your post entitled “Tomatoes are Blue” is interesting. I enjoyed reading about your honesty regarding poetry and that although you typically despise its very existence, your favourite poem serves as an exception. Bill Bissett’s poem is unlike anything I have ever read — it most definitely contradicts many of the formal rules and regulations that poetry typically follows. You further this train of thought by stating that “the collection of poems in This Connection of Everyone With Lungs doesn’t necessarily break the rules, but it does break a certain taboo that surrounds 9/11”. I agree with this point, as breaking through social barriers and the memories associated with traumatic events can be challenging. However, I argue that you can take this idea further by looking at the effects of the language Spahr uses to break these “taboos”. In other words, how does she specifically do this? I would love to hear your thoughts on the answers to these questions.
— Taylor Khatkar
Link to Carolina’s blog post “Tomatoes are Blue”: http://blogs.ubc.ca/holaastu100a/
hey Sam!
I just read your last blog post: “Juliana Spahr: the Geographical Imagination”… super impressed with your ability to clearly and effectively bring together so many of the ideas we have discussed in all of our classes about solidarity, individuality, collective, responsibility, and action. you really solidified some of the arguments and readings we have studied through precise and fitting citation. I’m so happy you brought the sociological imagination into the conversation! Stepping back and understanding oneself and ones experiences within the context, of time, space, and society is defiantly at the heart of understanding our separations and collectivity, and i think bringing this lens, and approach up was very appropriate, and constructive. furthermore, by adapting the sociological imagination to a “geographical imagination”, you brought up the extremely important factors geography play in our developments of self, and our motivations of actions especially as our world continues to become more and more interdependant… awesome job, super insightful! I read it twice!
Really happy to read your stuff!
Isabelle 🙂
Hi Tzur!
I thought your blog post on This Connection of Everyone with Lungs was really interesting given the fact that I have never thought about how the military industrial complex is so integral to Seattle’s existence. I think your reflection on your own complicity in the U.S. military’s actions given your spatial and intimate connection to Seattle, is exactly what Spahr was trying to encourage her readers (or her “beloveds”) to do as she too had to “think about my intimacy with things I would rather not be intimate with” (13). Spahr seems to strip the word “intimacy” of its typically positive connotations and rather redefine it in terms of responsibility – when we are intimate with something it seems ridiculous to act as if we have no part in its actions. Anyways, really interesting post, it has made me want to think more critically about the ways in which my own intimacy with my own city has global effects that I may not currently take responsibility for or even acknowledge.
http://blogs.ubc.ca/tzur/
Hey Priya!
I really enjoyed reading your blog post “Understanding the Deeper Impacts of Trauma”. I thought it was really provocative, and nicely analyzed all that we have been discussing in class. You talked about most of the novels we have read in ASTU 100, including Obasan, Persepolis, and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. It was only after you pointed it out in your blog post that I realized that they all centered on a child narrator. That is something that isn’t too common in literature; I wonder why it’s a recurring theme in our ASTU class… What are your thoughts? Do you think this is a more accurate way to view trauma? That is, through the lens of a child’s perspective?
You go on to describe “the deeper impact of these traumatic event on the private life of an individual”, specifically, as they “showcase how these events bring instability and hinder many aspects of in depth personal relationships”. This line jumped out at me straight away, as it is what I am choosing to pursue as my ASTU research paper topic. I found your analysis very insightful and would love to hear more of your thoughts on this subject!
-Kendall Manifould
Hey Kendall,
Thank you for your appreciation. I am glad that you enjoyed reading my blog post and pointed out all the important points and views that I was trying to convey. Firstly, to answer your question about , if the ‘lens of a child’s perspective’ is a more accurate way of viewing trauma, I would say I am not sure about ‘accurate’ but it definitely presents us a “raw” form of impacts trauma has on us. As an adult when we face problems or trauma, we often suppress our emotions and feelings in order to move on and survive in the real world. We, adults often don’t express what we really feel in the ‘purest’ and ‘truest’ way. Maybe that is one of the reason most of the texts we have read about trauma and war have child narrators as they help in bringing the real insight of trauma because of their innocence and incapability to suppress their emotions. I think that the use of child perspective provides an unadulterated perspective and raw feelings and emotion. For example- Oskar’s mothers loss wasn’t less painful than Oskar’s but she handled it in a more mature way keeping her feelings to herself and staying strong whereas Oskar was vulnerable and showed us how deeply the trauma has affected him and his family and how much does it take to heal from the loss he suffered. He started hurting himself, lying to his mother and went through so many changes on a personal level. The intensity, fluctuations, complexity and pureness of a 9 year old child made the readers like you and I connect and understand more about not only what he went through but what his family and other people he met in his journey of recovery went through.
To answer your second question, I personally think that my own perspective has changed a lot after reading these books. Earlier, as I mentioned in my blog, I always thought of traumatic incidents affecting a country or public as a whole. But after reading all the texts I realized the idea is not how collective trauma adds to the individual trauma and affects the large population but in fact the idea is how the sufferings of individuals and their respective family adds on to the larger impacts of trauma. How changing relationships on a personal level, losing your identity and your loved ones and all the changes you encounter gives rise to the ‘collective trauma’ .
I am really happy that you chose such an interesting topic as I personally believe that it is very important to understand trauma on a personal and intimate level in order to relate it to the larger public.
Good luck with your essay 🙂
-Priya
Hi Jaqueline,
I really enjoyed reading your blog from early February, as I think you made a connection to something that I find really interesting about Juliana Spahr’s poetry, and that I am discussing in my essay. In my own blog I talked about this idea of the “Geographical Imagination” that Spahr uses in illustrating and encouraging readers to understand this paradoxical idea of being so close to some people, but yet so separated from everyone due to the exceptionalist construction of our world. I think your sentence “She makes a greater statement about our individual connections to outside world by contrasting those intimate and human moments with the experiences that we’d much rather forget.” illustrates this well and also shows how Spahr uses trauma as a way to ignite this understanding. In researching for my essay topic, I was looking into global figures (I don’t know why, just thought they were some fun facts) and found this world population site: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ . While I have no idea how they calculate it it’s an awesome example of how information and communications technologies can visually show us this connection we have. While the site does not intimately breakdown exceptionalist frames, I found it really cool to see the whole world’s accumulation of human narratives represented in front of me as numbers on a screen, and brought me back to this idea expressed in Spahr’s work. Anyways I just thought I’d share that with all of you, feel free to check it out.
– Sam
Hey Diego!
I really enjoyed reading your blog as you compared Wislawa Szymborkska’s and Billy Collins poems. You discussed how Symborkska’s exemplified how individuals can be visualized leaping away from burning buildings and towards the end only to be held in their places by photograph which you portrayed very nicely. As well, you referred to Collins poem as more uplifting due to the A-Z patterns that were present. Your interpretations towards both poems led to you questioning of those lives that are worth identifying. With this meaningful question your analysis of both poems became very insightful and an interesting read. When you concluded with how both the graphic aspect and text are a narration that allows the authors to put more emphasis on the significant narration and the plot was a great point to bring up in your blog. Likewise, you did a wonderful job depicting the importance of an incomplete identification within both poems, which made me look at the poems with different perspective. Well done!
– Imaan Punja
Hi Nico!
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your most recent blog post, “Spahr’s Great Contrast: Lungs, Skins, and Beds.” You talked about how in a sense, we’re all ultimately connected to each other based off of Butler’s ideas, and furthering this conversation through our recent topics in our Sociology classes. You end your blog off with the idea of agency, and the larger topic of local-global relations. You ask us, “Do you see internet activism as an effective method to raise awareness, or does it harmfully dislocate our perspective from the real upfront truth?” The way I see it, living in the 21st century with increased globalization and use of the media, it is an effective method; however, only to an extent. Today, the use of media has subsided to a commodity we use in routine. For example, we may scroll down, read a caption and observe and like a picture on say, Instagram, but hours later, are we really going to remember what we minimally acknowledged? Chances are that we’ll forget until the same topic comes up again on our feeds. I would argue that it does dislocate our perspective unless we ourselves do something about it. If we want to become engaged and involved in various issues, media has the capacity to get the word out. Humanity still possesses the agency required to make changes in the world. This agency is what would bring us to the upfront truth. Minimal acknowledgements aren’t enough, and it’s the initiatives we take that would bring us closer.
-Kristen Ylo
Hey Diego!
Your most recent blog entitled “Incomplete // Identification” really piqued my interest and I found it to be quite thought-provoking! It was great that you were able to contrast both the Szymborska and Collins poems, analyzing what they both bring to the table in regards to identification. In regards to “Photograph from September 11”, I am in agreeance with you that, “Szymborska never gave them a label – a ‘name’…suggesting that it is up to the reader to find their own ‘conclusion’” with those remaining bodies held in the air. Further, Collins’ A-Z pattern of names challenges the void left by Szymbroska, “putting a name to a face” as you have pointed out.
Along the notion of memorialization and who we choose to be remembered, I was wondering what your thoughts would be regarding this topic. Contrasting areas dedicated to individuality, names, and agency are seen in the National September 11 Memorial/Museum versus various “Tomb[s] of the Unknown Soldier” who allow the viewer to fill in the blank. Do you see one way as more effective than the other? Further, I feel as if there is still a sense of collectivity in both ways we choose to memorialize and commemorate those who have fallen, but there can also be a perspective of authority in “Stuff that Happened to Me” we can express in our various “interpretive communities” – Shahzad throwback! Are there any dangers in trying to sympathize with events that have occurred halfway across the world or is “trauma transfer” successful in building bridges? Would be great to hear your thoughts on this. Thanks for a great blog post, Diego.
“Death leaves a heartache no one can heal, love leaves a memory no one can steal…” – Richard Puz
Nico Jimenez
** Regarding the use of the word “piqued” **
I was DEFINITELY going for the “stimulate (interest or curiosity)” and not the contrasting definition “feel irritated or resentful”. How paradoxical… oops. I enjoyed reading your blog!
Hey Nicola!
Thanks for your blog post, “Art in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close”! I wanted to comment on your blog because I find Foer’s integration of art and text throughout the novel one of the most compelling and original parts of this work. I especially appreciate that you analyzed the artwork as functioning to develop the characters of Oskar and Grandpa; interpreting the images and graphic elements of the novel this way places the focus on the character as a vessel for the development of this discourse on trauma. With this focus on individual characters, the significance of Foer’s multimedia approach points to the personal aspect of trauma: that it is an individual experience, and while there are many continuities in the way individuals handle trauma, there are many personal differences as well. To me, this signals a chaotic aftermath of a traumatic event. So, this understanding aids in our unpacking of the complexities of the real-life event of 9/11. The incorporation of the historical facts with Foer’s fictional storyline—for example, the artwork as characterization, but also as representative of the 21st century technological and multimedia news coverage of the event—is significant. Through this, we are brought back to think about the devastation that 9/11 caused: the chaos of a million conflicting heartbreaks and traumas from the loss of loved ones. Especially as one of Foer’s purposes in his novel is to explore how 9/11 impacted individuals, recognition of the novel as part of a larger discourse on the real-life effects of trauma is crucial.
Thanks again!
Kristen Lew
Hello Rachel!
Your latest blog entry, ‘Survivor of War” about the experience of your grandparents caught my attention as the story sounds very familiar, as I have heart similar stories from my grandparents as well. As a kid, I have heard my grandfather telling me about stories of how the Japanese soldiers killed his brother and his hatred towards them. You mentioned that your grandparents till this day still holds negative feelings towards the Japanese government, and this is still an existing problem within the Hong Kong and China population. However, I realized something interesting, which is that there seem to be a change in the over all attitude towards the Japanese in the recent generation. In the recent years, Japanese culture have been rushing in to China and Hong Kong, no matter if it is music, food, comic, or culture, the new generation seems to be in love with the Japanese culture. This reminds me about the concept of “globalization” that we learned in Geography. This process of globalization seem to have taken out the hate within the population, I believe in a few more decades, the existing negative feelings towards the Japanese will disappear.
Thank you for sharing your story!
Dione
Hello Kristen Ylo! This is a response to your post “A Disconnected Connection.” In the blog post, you brought the poem “Photograph from September 11,” (by Wisława Szymborska) and the authority she has. You wrote that the “authors know the information as they had done the research, to have the authority to talk about the facts”… but do they truly have the authority? When the topic of authority comes about, I struggle to answer it whole. The questions of: do they have the facts? Who is “they” to begin with?? The facts according to whom? I somewhat agree with you that Wisława Szymborska has some authority: she can speak on the subject, but she will never have the authority to act as a witness, no matter how much she knows on the topic. You also brought up her last line of the poem: “I can do only two things for them – describe this flight and not add a last line,” saying that you saw it as “proof of drawing the line between Us vs. Them.” My thoughts differ. I’d like to think that the last line is her paying homage/respect to the people jumping. Through her poem, she freezes them in time. She allows them to survive in this timeless zone, never hitting the ground. But I’m not sure if this limbo zone is meant to make them immortal, or stop the closure. By never letting people hit the ground, there will never be a chance to heal. The people will stay frozen forever.
– Carolina
After reading Raphael’s blog post on Juliana Spahr’s This Connection of Everyone with Lungs, I realize his idea and mine is drastically different. Raphael expressed his confusion and questioned Spahr’s idea that everyone shares the same space and we all inhabit the same planet yet we’re so far away from one another, but I myself find this idea very apparent and clear. We now live in an age where we no longer have to communicate verbally in person in order to get our message across. The gap between people is only ever going to get wider. It is common that we add someone on Facebook as a friend and have never actually talked to them before. The fact that people are getting more and more disconnected is due to our reliance on social media and the thought that “if i want to talk to him, I will send him a message”. Raphael’s blog really resonated with me and kept me thinking, go check it out!
Hey Nicola!
I really liked your blog post about the use of language and how it affects the meaning of trauma/ war in the sense that humans just become a part of texts and numbers. I think it would be really beneficial if our school system discussed about the effect of language and how powerful it is earlier (possibly as early as elementary school because I think students at that age would be able to understand the significance of it) because I had completely bypassed the importance of language when I was younger. Reading the news and such when I was younger and unaware about the effect of language has made me skim by events where people have died in wars or attacks as a separate and distant reader who just took in the news as plain facts and statistics. I didn’t really understand that they were real people like me because they were just “casualties of war”. In a sense I found that this issue was also addressed in the second poem by Juliana Spahr, and how she elaborates that people who died in wars or disasters are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters etc.
Do you think there are any other ways to help people understand the significance of language and how powerful it is in shaping what we know and understand the world?
– Peijia Ding
Hey Mariana,
For this month’s comment I decided to write a response to your most blog post ( http://blogs.ubc.ca/iamglobalcitizen/2016/02/11/line-or-cirle/ ) based on Spahr’s book in which you wrote about comfort and vulnerability. For the most part I feel like I focus the majority of my thoughts to personal life rather than worldly issues, but reading Spahr’s book and your post just cemented in my mind the point that despite how isolated we might think we are, there’s always ways in which greater societal happenings can be linked to us. It’s kind of like that realisation that everyone you interact with or even just see for a moment has their own web of social and other relations. While I personally don’t think it’s too much of an issue to be more absorbed in your own affairs rather than those happening on a greater scale, I do think that a complete lack of interest is a fault on the part of the individual. Especially in the current world in which global connections are so incredibly common. I think the comparison you used of a circle and a line was pretty interesting, that we feel like everyone is disconnected on their own line, yet if you go far enough in a certain direction that line is likely to intersect with another in some way. I also liked your last point where you emphasised that not everyone’s global presence has to be equal or even particularly prominent, as long as it becomes recognised it might be enough to make some kind of change.
Hey Kristen Lew!
It was very interesting to read your last post about different perspectives on the definition of witness. It really stood out to me how you compared two most common views on witness. Here I would like to bring to the conversation an article I have read recently. (http://nyti.ms/1LeLoWq) The author writes that second kind of witness – the people who listen to the stories of those, who went through trauma and shared their deepest fears and pain.
The article made me wonder whether by reading and learning more about a particular event a person can call themselves a witness, as they gather the information from primary sources and acquire the same perspective as those, who actually saw the event with their eyes. In the age of media people have an access to unlimited information from all over the globe and they can become witnesses to what they choose to witness.
At the same time, I realize that people, who haven’t experienced something by themselves cannot embrace the role of witness to the full extend. There will always be something left behind, the feeling that was unspoken, the detail that was missed. However, it should not stop one from witnessing a trauma even through a reading or a conversation with someone who was physically present there.
Thank you for choosing to write on this topic. It helped me understand the idea of witness itself in a more compound way.
Mariana Drok
Hi Sania!
I had a pleasure reading your most recent blog post and you certainly raised some valid points on how media is constructed to value certain lives over others. I’ve always had an issue understanding why people glamourize certain events while ignoring others that may be just as traumatic and impactful; these feelings were especially prevalent during the attack on Paris most recently as you mentioned in your blog. I noticed you chose to conclude with a ‘pessimistic’ view towards the future of how we value lives and as much as I want to disagree with you I have to agree. I feel like as a western society, we are making progress by becoming more globally aware of the traumatic experiences others have to go through however we still have the us/them classifications. Despite becoming more unified as ‘global citizens’ disregarding national borders, I feel like we will always value the lives of the ‘good/ innocent” people (us) over the ‘bad’ people (them). Perhaps those will the only classifications as to how we value lives in the future?
Hey Diego!
I wanted to start by saying I really enjoy reading all your blog posts. I find myself nodding as I am reading along. Your thoughts and ideas always get me thinking!
Today, I wanted to comment on your recent blog post: INCOMPLETE // IDENTIFICATION. Although I have to agree the course material have been emotionally heavy, I like the point you make at the end where “instead of a call for arms, there should be a call for peace.” This is so true. I find that society has been so concerned about protection and extra security when we should be making ways for peace. I find that the presence of extra security and weapons may actually put people more in danger as they are threatening in a way. I feel that it is as if one starts to “protect” themselves with arms, another person would notice and do the same and it would keep escalating.
After wars and attacks such as the 9/11 attack, there were some who were furious and screamed revenge. I find that some people may act abruptly with their instant emotions which is a very scary thing. When one is angry, they may act or say things they would not have otherwise. With the presence of weapons such as guns for “protection” may actually put people in danger. For example, if someone is angry enough, they may pick up the weapon and potentially harm someone. What I am trying to get at is your point of “hatred breeds more hatred” which made me think this may be the same for arms, that “arms breeds for more arms.” Although we may need some arms, I thought that if we reduced the arms we had, it would actually create a safe community.
Also in response to your point of “doesn’t it work the same for love,” in the way of love breeds for more love, I think by creating a community where there is more education on different cultures and acceptance of peoples difference and attempts to understand each other could help. In relation to this, I believe the poems that circulated after the 9/11 attacks allowed for people all around the world to connect, understand, and sympathize one another. There were more movements for peace than thoughts of war.
I know this may sound naive but what I never really understood is why there is war. If the leader or group has a problem with another group and vice versa, why can’t they personally figure it out instead of sending innocent people, who have nothing to do with it, to get involved and kill other innocent people who had nothing to do with it? The problem is with the two groups/leaders, not the others. In the case for 9/11, the attackers were from the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda, from Saudi Arabia as well as other Arabian nations, BUT what many seem to have difficulty with distinguishing that those attackers DO NOT represent the rest of the Arabian people. I understand the hatred toward the Islamic extremist group who made this attack BUT there should be absolutely no hatred to other Arabian people who were not even a part of this.
This goes for other wars and attacks; just because one group did something, it does not mean the rest of the people from the same area agrees with them.
I’m sorry I went on a little rant there but I would really love it if you could give me some feed back on your thoughts!
Hope you are having a great day and see you tomorrow! Keep up with the great blog posts! 🙂
-Ina de Weerdt
Hey Kaveel!
I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on poetry interpretation! You asked the question, is poetry supposed to be interpreted freely, or is it supposed to be read through a contextualized lens? I think that there’s no hard and fast answer explanation to that question. However, there’s definitely an element of trust when poetry is written; trust that what you’re writing will evoke in the reader the same general emotions and events that you’re pouring into it. I think that a poet takes the events that s/he is specifically talking about, and they transfer them into emotions and reactions, and thats what can come through and be reinterpreted on the reader’s side, regardless of why specific references are being made. I think that poetry has a slightly different function than other more explicit types of literature; perhaps poetry, like Auden’s “September 1st, 1939”, is meant to be shared, reinterpreted, and eventually re-contextualised. He chose that medium, he accepted the type of expression that left more up to the reader. For us on our end, it makes for a far less specifed analysis mission, but there’s also a freedom to poetry scholarship that I haven’t been feeling as much recently, with other academic projects. I think that poetry is so different and persistent and championed (especially after trauma, as we saw with the post 9/11 poetry boom) because of the very ambiguity you are concerned over. I’ve always enjoyed the slippage between references and emotions and experiences that comes with reading poetry, but thats just me. Anyway, I hope you come to enjoy poetry as much as I do one day! In the meantime, the unit’s over, so you’re all good! Thanks for the post!
Nicola
Dear Rachel,
Thank you for sharing your recent personal experience with racial discrimination in your last blog “Race Between Races”. I am sorry that you experienced that, and I am sorry that you face challenges in your daily life due to your perceived ethnicity. The story you shared exhibits so many personal violations, concerning, age, ethnicity, and gender. I am always deeply saddened and motivated to work towards change when I hear examples of people exploiting their social power to threated or disempower someone else, in your example, his being older than you, his being male, his coming into your personal space on public transit, his persistence, his racial discrimination towards you come together to create a very inappropriate and intolerable interaction. I was wondering how other passengers and the transit conductor reacted to witnessing this. Do you have any advice for what witnesses should do to support and protect people who are targeted in this way, and to help end this kind of discriminatory and threatening behavior all together? I know that sharing personal anecdotes can be emotionally upsetting and can be challenging at times so I appreciate the clarity and honesty I saw in your account. The insights you gave about the experience of moving here from Hong Kong was also very interesting and valuable, thank you for sharing, I hope that through continuing to open the conversation about ethnicity, identity and discrimination people including you do not have to face these sort of challenges in your daily life.
Best,
Isabelle
Hi Taylor,
First off, I want to commend you for such for an analytical and engaging blog post in ‘Unspeakability: the Soldier Versus the Civilian — By: Taylor Khatkar’. You raised some interesting distinctions in the trauma suffered by the civilian versus the trauma suffered by the soldier. Both of them experience traumatic experiences differently however its certainly interesting that the aspect of ‘unspeakability’ is prevalent in many victims of trauma. You drew such a distinction by contrasting Oskar and his grandparents as portrayed as the civilians in addition to Sgt. Price as the soldier. In the conclusion of your blog post you posed the question: is unspeakability inevitable with regards to trauma and war?. This prompted me think about the stigma around mental health of victims and soldiers of war. In regards to your question, I think that unspeakability is becoming lesser of an issue as we as a society are evolving to understand mental health and are starting more conversations regarding it. As such, more resources are available to trauma victims to ultimately heal and ‘speak’ about there problems and trauma. This made me think of Canadian Senator Roméo Dallaire who suffered a great deal of trauma following his involvement in the Somali War and how he used literature to write about his ordeal, another form of speakability. Perhaps although verbally ‘unspeakable’ maybe we should consider ‘writing’ as a form of speakability as Oskars grandparents and Sgt. Price had done? Should we consider writing as a form of ‘speakability’?
Regards,
Kaveel
Hi Jacqueline,
I really enjoyed reading your final blog post about Peter Morey’s article, as well as Hamid’s The Reluctant Fundamentalist. I found your thoughts intriguing, and as I continued reading, I found myself aligning with your position and your thoughts.
I especially enjoyed how you depicted your initial thoughts on Hamid’s novel, and depicted how your interpretation changed over time. (I found your comparison of Hamid’s novel to “the white washed Arabic narrator of Disney’s classic and only middle eastern based movie” to be especially compelling, as I, too, felt this way when I first read the novel.)
After analyzing the novel in lecture—and reading Morey’s article—I agree that there was more calculation and intention to this dramatic monologue style of the novel than we originally thought. I found that your Butlerian critique of the “us vs them” mindset worked well to prove your point. Essentially, it is the job of all readers to remain active, not passive when reading novels of this genre. It is as you say: the form is an “affective tool for forcing the reader to check their own presuppositions that they bring to the novel”.
Thanks for writing such a great blog post! I’d love to discuss it more with you in person!
-Kendall Manifould
Hello Kihan!
Your blog post entitled “‘YOUR PRIVILEGE (WHAT’S UP WITH THAT?)’: ‘BORDERS’ BY MIA & MOSHIN HAMID’S THE RELUCTANT FUNDAMENTALIST” is insightful. I enjoyed reading about the connections you drew between MIA’s song and Hamid’s novel. I agree with your point about MIA suggesting “that as a global body we should all be involved in resolving the migrant crises”. As global citizens, we need to come together in order for change to occur for the better. It seems as though Changez would agree with this point, too — as a global attitude may have prevented the prejudice that he experienced as a Pakistani living in New York City. However, I find that after analyzing the parallels that you drew between these two narratives, I am left with some questions: in her song, did MIA intended to “destabilize” our assumptions about refugees in a similar manner to how literary scholar Peter Morey suggests Hamid does in The Reluctant Fundamentalist? If so, which form was more effective in emphasizing this destabilization — the song or the dramatic monologue? I would love to hear your thoughts on the answers to these questions.
— Taylor Khatkar
Link to Kihan’s blog post “YOUR PRIVILEGE (WHAT’S UP WITH THAT?)”: “BORDERS” BY MIA & MOSHIN HAMID’S THE RELUCTANT FUNDAMENTALIST:
http://blogs.ubc.ca/kihanyh/
Hey Sania!
When you focus on Hamid and how he struggles between the identities of being from Lahore and New York was very interesting. It was more significant as it really connected to you. The fact that from a very young age you have “hybrid identity” shows your true understanding of the concept. It must be hard for you to always feel confused about what identity you feel you must pick or choose. I like how you portrayed the obstacles you have to face when seeing the differences in the cultures and societies. Having to question yourself and question how you should represent yourself really made your blog very engaging. Additionally by questioning whether you are suppose to present one group over the other extended the struggle you had to keep with both groups because it was so “dynamic fluid”. I really like when you emphasized all the encounters and obstacles you had to face in your life; it was a really good connection for the blog. The way you associated the Reluctant Fundamentalist as being conflicted with identifies as it serves to “integrate the multiple identities and forming his own identity and character” was very noteworthy. Lastly, when you explained how identity doesn’t need to be black and white was very nicely put and you further emphasized this point in your blog. Overall, your blog was well written, very eloquent, and a very attention-grabbing read.
– Imaan
Hey Jacqueline,
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your last blog post entitled “Final Blog Post!!!” (haha). In regards to the form of the dramatic monologue found in Hamid’s novel, I too felt the same sentiment where, “it felt so unauthentic [like] a one sided conversation loaded with innuendos”. Likewise, I must admit that Peter Morey’s analysis of The Reluctant Fundamentalist gave me a new methodological lens to see Hamid’s intricate choice of style as extremely “calculated and intentional”.
Further, as we have also discussed a bit in class, what really stuck out to me is the way in which Hamid becomes “so successful [in] forcing the reader to see their own dichotomies and ideas of East and West…that he constantly makes you wonder if what you’re assuming is happening because of your own presuppositions”. Through the notion of this novel being a thriller because we are “already scared”, this novel made me conscious of the bias we as readers carry, but also the intention the writer has in their work. Moreover, I am reminded by one of our first lectures in sociology where we discussed ethnocentrism, but more in specific, “reflexivity” – “the process of examining both oneself as researcher, and the research relationship. Self-searching involves examining one’s ‘conceptual baggage,’ one’s assumptions and preconceptions, and how these affect research decisions” (Hsiung, 2010). After reading The Reluctant Fundamentalist, discussing the various motifs in class, and having Morey’s article as an aid, it has definitely challenged the ways in which I had initially interpreted the dramatic monologue, overall plot, and persona of Changez as a whole.
Thanks again for your blog post, Jacqueline!
Nico Jimenez
—
Works Cited
http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~pchsiung/LAL/reflexivity
Hi Kihan,
Just read your final blog post titled “YOUR PRIVILEGE (WHAT’S UP WITH THAT?)”: “BORDERS” BY MIA & MOSHIN HAMID’S THE RELUCTANT FUNDAMENTALIST. I think the parallels that you draw between Hamid’s Novel and MIA’s song operate in a very interesting way. In both artifacts (I find I must describe them this way in order to approach them from a culturally historic perspective) we see these separation of “us” and “them” being broken down; thus not only do they operate to destabilize our western understanding of a political topic, but through the different art forms we can gain an understanding of the shifting social and cultural milieu which operate to affect the political sphere of the world. In this sense I find your connection of the two artifacts to be really interesting. As I noted above however, Taylor has also responded to your blog post and asks which source; Hamid’s novel or MIA’s song to be more effective at destabilizing our assumptions of immigrants, whether in the context of 9/11 or of the Syrian refugee crisis. To me this is an interesting question, and in connection to the parallels you make in your blog, I think that in looking at just how an art form achieves this destabilization is important in analyzing the power you argue that MIA’s work has in changing peoples viewpoint. What stood out to me after watching MIA’s video is her sense of duality in her art. I’m not going to pretend like I know a lot about MIA and her history, but from watching her video it was interesting seeing her diss popular culture and the slang, mediatized language that goes along with it, for example she says “livin it (whats up with that)… being lit (whats up with that)”. Yet, at the same time she uses that platform of popular culture to present her art in a attempt to break these same trends. The beat of her song is also very up to date with the hip-hop/trap scene; in an era where hip-hop is melody, bass focused I find it interesting that she combines this with poignant lyrics to meet the youth scene “halfway” from popular culture to art activism. I’m still a bit wary of this as it is still operating inside of the sphere that is popular culture; i find it to be troubling in that regard and I still cant answer whether MIA or Hamid operate to achieve a more accessible message of destabilization. However, I found your blog to be really interesting, and I through-roughly enjoyed the song.
Thanks for reading,
-Sam Tuck
Hey Kihan!
After reading your blog post about the connections between MIA’s most recent music video and The Reluctant Fundamentalist I really started thinking about all the different connections I’ve made between content from our CAP classes and the media. Your post made me think about how grateful I am to have chosen the Global Citizens stream because I’ve really felt like the material we’ve learned this year has been meaningful and applicable to real life. I’ve managed to quote Kanye West in three different assignments so far which I think attests to how real the stuff we’re learning is. I think part of being a global citizen is forming those connections between the academic and the theoretical with the real world. I’d like to think we don’t just exist in the vacuum of academia just yet. Anyway thanks for the great post!
Jacqueline
Kristen Ylo, this post goes out to you!
First off, I just wanted to say that you made an excellent choice regarding the opening quote. I wholeheartedly agree with you that Ferris Bueller’s Day Off is an excellent movie. Anyways, onto the blog post itself… in your post you write that the transition from high school to university “has come to be something else,” with you encountering many things you thought you wouldn’t have. Which for me, raises several questions: what were you expecting to experience coming into UBC? Have you experienced what you expected to? What experiences did you have, but not expect to? Honestly, I remember coming to Imagine Day absolutely terrified: the campus is absolutely gigantic, I had zero friends on that went to UBC, and I had no idea what to expect. Scary stuff, man.
You also address lenses and scholarly form in your blog post. The concept of lenses itself wasn’t something brand new to me. However the indepth-edness of the use of lenses in Sociology, Political Science, Geography, and ASTU was new and difficult to get into. The form aspect of ASTU is definitely something I’ve had to work on. The idea that we have been taught to write a final paper, in the appropriate scholarly form, is pretty mind-boggling.
-Carolina
Hey Nico,
I found your final blog post to not only be sincerely moving (I teared up a little at your final thoughts on CAP Global Citizens), but also extremely though provoking. I thought it was really insightful of you to use the concept of trauma transfer to problematize the #alllivesmatter campaign. I agree with you that taking trauma out of context, as #alllivesmatter and trauma transfer can do, can be extremely detrimental to the victims of specific traumas (such as race related police violence). Relating this to my own blog on MIA’s “borders” music video, where do you place MIA’s use of trauma transfer? Do you think that her transfer of her experience as an immigrant from Sri Lanka to the experience of Syrian refugees is powerful or problematic? I seem to think the former, but I would love to hear your opinion.
– Kihan
https://blogs.ubc.ca/nicoatubc/
Hey Sania!
Thank you for sharing your personal experience in your latest blog, the post caught my attention as I actually feel the same way as you do, and especially the quote that you posted in the end, “so here you are, too foreign for home, too foreign for here, never enough for both”.
I was born in Hong Kong, later moved to Shanghai, attended an international school, then moved to Beijing, and now Vancouver. All these three places I didn’t spend that long of my life at. Every time when someone asks me where I am from, my first answer would be Hong Kong, but then later I ask myself, is this actually the place I am from? I spend my childhood there but after moving away for so long, I no longer feel connected to this place. In Shanghai, there is no set culture, my friends all have different cultural background, living in a city that is so internationalized, I find it hard to understand my own background in this place. And now I am in the process of finding out whether Vancouver is a place to call “my home land”.
It is confusing whether “home” is where your family is, where you grew up, or where you feel culturally connected to. At this point, I feel like the only acceptable answer when people ask me where I am from, is to say I am “international”. It may sound funny, but at this point, I have not yet figure out where I am from, or maybe someday, “international” would become its own culture!
Thanks for sharing Sania!
blog post: http://blogs.ubc.ca/saniaastu100a/2016/03/10/hybrid-identity/
-Dione
Hey Marian,
I read your most recent blog “Curiosity over fear” and I must say that I was really impressed with some of the interesting points you made. I liked that you talked about how we as a ‘society’ make divisions and create the whole “us” vs “them” scenario by not accepting diversity as we claim to do. I also loved the point were you suggested the beauty that lies in embracing and accepting diversity. I was able to connect your recent post with one of the blog posts I posted a while ago. ” So now you can evaluate the value of life” where I talked about the how some lives are more valuable than the others and gave an example of 9/11 where the American lives were considered more valuable than those of the innocent Iraqis and muslims. It makes me think how the divisions made by the society that you mentioned in your blog contribute in evaluating the lives we consider valuable.We value people and the lives of people we consider as “our” people and often do not hold the same importance for the people who fall under the “other ” category . The mere presence of differences in the value of lives takes me back to the question which we have discussed in our CAP stream in almost every course- Does these divisions and wall we have within society hinder our path to being a “global citizen” ? I believe we still have to work on being a complete “global” citizen and that can be done through , as you said “learning the ability to accept – accept the diversity and people around.”
What do you think about this? Let me know.
Cheers
Priya
*** Mariana
Sorry for the typo.
Hey Nico,
I really liked your last blog post where you (like many of our other classmates) brought back a lot of the theory that we studied in ASTU but also made links to the frameworks of our other classes like Sociology. It’s a bit odd to think that it will be over soon, that all the professors and students that we’ve gotten accustomed to seeing will be moving on, but that’s beside the point. I feel like a lot of us weren’t entirely sure how all the classes we enrolled in would be connected, apart from a vague overarching theme of “global citizens”. Your post brings back thoughts of the first time we were asked to define Global Citizenship, and how unsure some of us felt about the term, but throughout the year, especially in the theme “us vs them” we were slowly opened up to the complexities of the scholarly mind-set of what being global really meant -particularly in the close readings of Butler and Spahr’s works. I thought it was a particularly good show of your own personal global awareness to take what we learned as theories of literature in class and apply it critically to current, real social trends/issues.
On a general note to anyone who might read this: while the year might not have been smooth sailing for all of us in every course, I get the feeling that everyone found something that drew them in at some point in the year and I hope that we’ve all had our horizons widened by the Global Citizens CAP stream.
Hi Mariana! 🙂
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your recent blog post “Curiosity over fear.”
First of all, I found the readings and the discussions really open up and broaden my mind. I find myself being more aware of certain things such as how I say things and how I think about certain things. I definitely noticed and caught myself looking at different situations and ideas with more of an open mind by incorporating different perspectives.
I love how you mentioned how we look at people who are different from us and how we respond to other’s differences. This is something that is constantly on my mind. I have thought about your question of whether we have the authority to identify others as “‘Middle Eastern’, ‘Eastern European’, ‘Chinese’ or ‘American’” and I find it almost unavoidable to not identify the differences. I believe that without identifying ourselves in this way, (for example) we would not be able to say that Canada is multicultural because in order to be able to say that we are multicultural, we need to be able to identify the different cultures. Without these differences between the different cultures, we would not have the variety that we do now and we would not be able to share our different traditions and knowledge. Like you have said, it really is these differences that make us unique and more interesting.
In somewhat relation to this, as I also mentioned in my blog post, “Blurred Lines Between “Us” and “Them””, I believe there will always be an unavoidable blurred line between “Us” vs “Them.” However, I do believe it is important to try to almost eliminate that line and create a sense of community and equality and connectedness. I love how you used The Reluctant Fundamentalist to talk about the importance to replace fear with curiosity to learn more about each person, their nations, culture, and religion. It will definitely help with creating a better connected, understand and accepting community.
Also, thank you for sharing the TED talk! It sounds very interesting!! I will go watch that later! 🙂
And yes, I completely agree with you how we should all stay open to the diversity around us and be inspired by them!!
Thank you so much for sharing again! It is always such a great pleasure to read your blog posts! I will miss them!
Hope you have a lovely week and take care! <3
-Ina de Weerdt
Hey Kristen Ylo,
I really enjoyed reading your last blog! You summarized all the experiences that happen this year so nicely and I agree with you on a lot of things. I also liked that you mentioned the role of the child’s narrative in the texts we read. You are so right in saying that this gives a completely different perspective on the trauma and the story itself. Today in class Ina mentioned that this can be a way to express emotions and feelings some adults struggle to communicate.
I think back about the first book we read – Persapolis and remember how different and thrilling it was to read a story about national trauma from the perspective of a small girl. The development of her character was another thing that stood out to me. I feel like it also can be a way to show how people change after trauma – give up their hopes and look for a deeper meaning and cause for the traumatic events.
Mariana
Hey Nico!
I wanted to quickly address your blog on “Reflection and Narratives of a Global Citizen,” specifically addressing the last two paragraphs on the importance of the act of ‘acknowledgement.’ But first, your analysis and examples on vulnerability and how we don’t really know as much as we thought (citing Einstein), I wholeheartedly agree with your stance on them. After reading the introductory paragraphs, the last two really resonated with me because it’s very applicable to our contemporary globalized world. “The more [we] learn, the more [we] realize much [we] don’t know.” Is globalization the cure towards the disease known as prejudice? By understanding and recognizing different cultures and beliefs, does that really build bridges or only fuel the fire? These were the questions that really came to me as I read those last two paragraphs, and I would love to hear your thoughts on them!
Thanks, and hopefully we see each other again next year!
Diego
Hey Sam
Thank you for your thoughtful reflection about our first year as CAP students! I enjoyed your points about the mutual absurdity that everyone lives in, in the moment. It’s a good perspective to keep in mind, when you’re wondering whether or not to put up your hand in class, or talk to someone, or really do anything involving others. We are all existing in the same absurd moment, which in and of itself is an insane feat of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and chance and decisions. When you consider that, the very fact that somehow the specific sample of people in our stream gathered together in all those separate moments that we had throughout the year, and are now thinking an interacting together, its amazing. The idea that we are trapped in this curve of time unavoidable is sort of daunting, but, I also feel it adds weight to the seize-the-moment theme.
In a slightly related tangent, this is what your post made me think of. You spoke about the ideas of everyones existence ebbing an absurd thing; an amazing thing, when that is grasped. I think that this perspective of how baffling and amazing the life that you’re experiencing in that moment is an important one. It reminds me of when you’re in an airplane, and people close the windows, watch movies, and best of all, complain about the flight. But when you step back and think about it, you’re a person, flying, in a seat, at 900 kilometres an hour, 40 000 feet up in the air, and you can get across the globe in the same time it would take to binge watch a season on netflix. Thats absurd! I like the idea that its not just that thats amazing and absurd, but every moment. Perhaps this is an oversimplification of what you wrote about, but this was my impression! Thanks for the thoughts and have a good summer,
Nicola