Hey, global citizens.

It seems that your blogs this week reflected the weightiness of the topics we’ve been delving into surrounding the war on terror. Judith Butler’s laboriously articulated thoughts in Frames of War have undoubtedly pushed us all to think about the convoluted web of nigh impossible questions that are woven into the mess of how people construct identity. If I had to make a gist note on the entirety of this week’s musings, it would look something like: The war on “terror” is not impersonal, and as is always the case with war, it is a war on human beings. Yet this one sentence does not do justice to the wide variety of tortuous questions that ran rampant on the pages of this blog batch. Here’s a snapshot of some of the titles that you came up with:

“Who am I, who are we, and what is humanity?” –Kennedy’s Korner
“The difference between you and me” – Paolina
“Destiny: Coexistence or Fear?” – I$aiah
“Are all lives treated equally?” –Alex

And these are just titles!

I think that we’re beginning to get the point of this academia thing. Atleast I hope that I am. I would wager a guess that these are exactly the type of questions Dr. Luger wants us to think about, that it’s why we read the dizzying Judith Butler-esque things that we do. And I’d like to believe that we aren’t just mulling these questions over so that we can feel intellectually accomplished or open minded – but because they actually do matter in a tangible way. And despite how contentious the value of it is, I believe that -to some extent- a real answer exists under all the layers of constructs that have been painted over it. Us, them, “other”… Its obviously unclear, or we wouldn’t be spending all our time in class trying to figure it out (with the help of scholarly predecessors). If it were clear, this would be a colossal waste of our time. However, to disbelieve in the existence of an answer (of some tangible variety) and still spend our time doing what we are doing would, in my opinion, render us equally wasteful. Just a thought: maybe the “mutual reference point for humanity which does not exist” (check out Peter’s well argued blog) might actually exist. Maybe many of us ascribing to it in our writing this week. Maybe many of us are also deluded and idealistic. Maybe just optimistic?

That being said, these blogs, particularly the most recent ones, are a really cool way to explore that. I appreciate that we’ve come together as this band of meandering miscreants in the vast unknown of life. Or astu. Probably more of the latter.

-Joseph

UBC, what a lovely mess. I’m learning to enjoy being part of this opinionated hodgepodge of tortured souls that we’ve taken to calling “Global Citizens”. I think it was made clear as I read my peers weekly blogs that we all, whether explicitly expressed or not, agree on at least one thing – our world can do better than this.

A common topic that was undertaken in the blogs this time around was the graphic narrative we are currently studying, “Persepolis”, and how it is imperative that we use Marjane Satrapi’s story of her childhood as a means to combat the widespread misconceptions of Iran and its people (Isaiah illustrates this eloquently, worth a read). Satrapi has given us all a fresh framework to understand the Islamic Revolution and the Iran Iraq war, shifting much of the class’ focus to the real, human, relatable people like Satrapi who experienced it first hand. Healthy!

Olivea and Mia both effectively explore this idea of being able to personalize those we feel distant from because of preconceived ideas. By generalizing human themes of childhood rebellion and growth, Olivea argues “the fact that we can connect to Satrapi’s experiences makes her story even more powerful. It makes us stop and think about just how different we aren’t.” Similarly, Mia touches on the negative effects of allowing our views of Iran to be “painted with one brush”. It is heartening that we can reach these grounding levels of humanity as a lens through which to view our neighbours.

In this lies the apparent longing for the realization of our ever changing notion of what we’re calling Global Citizenship, and the implication that (to borrow Erin’s words), “An open-minded perspective to worldly events will inspire understanding and respect for the varying cultures that constitute this global experience.” But, as Peter argues with great conviction, there is an inherent danger in striving for Global Citizenship, which he believes to be an “essentially contested term”. Peter brings to light a certain type of insensitivity in how we often tread on the value of cultural differences and history in our attempt to bring about equality. Summary does it no justice, so read it please.

I think that in our hunger for a world better than this one, our increasingly (and arguably dangerous) post-modern thinking could be tempered with doses of reality like those brought up by Peter. Class discussions have naturally been focused heavily on equality, but it is quite plainly becoming frustrating how quickly we blur our definition of equality into one of sameness, how quickly our desire for open mindedness becomes a complete and utter disregard for truth and reality. I can’t claim to have a clear definition of either, it seems to be a fine line- though I suppose it’s impossible to represent anything linearly anymore. Cheers to post-modernism! 

-Joseph