As the school year comes to a close it is so important and extremely valuable to reflect on what we have learned and the progress we have made. ASTU and the Co-ordinated Arts Program as whole has had a profound impact on me as both a university student but also as a maturing human. Before entering CAP and the Global Citizens stream I had no doubt of what it meant to be a global citizens yet as time went on, this program made me question what it actually means and if we should be so willing to accept what it entails. The ASTU course enabled me to view global citizenship and people’s contribution to the world in general by taking on the perspective of a literary scholar and analysing this through a multitude of mediums. We have had the opportunity to read graphic novels that share a more personal perspective like Persepolis as well as a more journalistic style of graphic novel such as Safe Area Gorazde.

Our final piece of text was the film American Sniper which follows an American Marine soldier who has the most kills of any American sniper. While this was not my first time seeing this movie my perspective was quite different after reading both Patrick Deer’s essay, “Mapping Contemporary War Culture” and Judith Butler’s first chapter, “Survivability, Vulnerability Affect” from her novel Frames of War: When is Life Grievable?. Patrick Deer’s focus of his essay revolved more around the socialisation process of militarisation that takes place in society. He did this through investigating how military words have infiltrated mainstream English language, for instance saying the “battle” or “fight” against cancer, contributing to the war metaphor. He also explored TV shows and movies. A main focus Deer took was looking at the HBO series The Wire which looks at narcotics in Baltimore through the lens of both drug dealers and law enforcement officers. Deer argues that The Wire’s “ironic portrayal” (77) of the dysfunction that lives with urban institutions is a way to open a up a critique by the human cost of the internal wars that exists; the war on drugs and the war on terror. Through these investigations he made the overarching argument of the banalisation and normalisation of war.

Judith’s Butler focuses on a broader topic discussing the precarity and precariousness of life. Butler posits that, by nature, all lives are vulnerable but some are more vulnerable than others. Her essay points out the paradox between both “sides” having a common goal yet without each side realising this. Butler’s essay continues to explain how creating an “us vs them” mentality makes it easier to kill other people. In fact, it is not viewed as killing because the lives lost were never considered to be lives to begin with. Perhaps a great example that embodies this text is the poem we read titled, You Throw a Stone by Juan Felipe Herrera. The syntax and the content of the poem shows the mutual pain that both sides experience. At the same it makes the reader come to understand that there are not two sides, not to suggest that we are all the same, but instead that we all experience loss and pain. The poem, in its brevity, shows how conflicts can escalate and take on a life of their own without truly comprehending how and why they even started. Each of these texts resonated with me quite deeply and have caused me to reevaluate how I look at war and the ways in which it is represented.

These texts in particular are what made me critique American Sniper the most. It became so obvious and clear how the film, and many other war films, play off of the the “us vs them” approach to continue the breach between each side. Moreover, any acts of killing that were conducted by American’s were portrayed as necessary and heroic. When any civilians or soldiers were killed by the other side, the Iraqis, it was represented as a heinous and horrific act. Not that I condone any act of killing, media representations such as these will perpetuate the animosity that exists and will continue the deaths that occur. It is situations such as this that make it crucial to read academic pieces and to be critical and aware. I am truly grateful to have been a part of this unique and eye-opening program and have had the opportunity to have had access to a wide array of literary pieces. I know that I will continue to go through my university experience and life with a critical eye.

In our second term of ASTU we started by discussing Joe Sacco’s graphic novel Safe Area Gorazde which documented the Bosnian genocide. It was highly realistic, gruesome and rather shocking to the senses. It was interesting to have previously read Persepolis and compare the two styles each author decided to use. After analysing a graphic novel we changed gears and read Pakistani author Mohsin Hamid’s The Reluctant Fundamentalist (2007). This novel takes the perspective of a Pakistani character who attends Princeton but eventually feels the resounding impacts of the September 11 attacks and eventually moves back to Lahore. From this novel we extended our discussion by reading Joseph Darda’s “Precarious World: Rethinking Global Fiction in Mohsin Hamid’s The Reluctant Fundamentalist” and Judith Butler’s “Frames of War: When is Life Grievable?”. These readings were applied to our discussion of The Reluctant Fundamentalist.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this The Reluctant Fundamentalist. The storyline and writing style was so new from anything I had previously read. Not only that, it was really enlightening to read a story from a foreigner’s perspective on America. Although the protagonist was not Mohsin Hamid himself, it is still embedded with his ideas and world views. Even though I do like to consider myself as cultured, I am guilty of mainly having contact with predominantly Western literature. This novel made me rethink my position in the world and how I view the world itself. The main character Changez shares how he viewed America when he originally moved there to attend Princeton, which was excitement and optimism. However Changez feels the indelible effects of the culture of fear born out of the 9/11 attacks. Even though he was never identified as  Muslim or from the country that committed the attacks, he was othered and vilinised. While I knew this did happen, I myself have never experienced this but it made me realise how it is still highly present in our lives today. I also felt the emotion that Changez felt from being viewed as a threat and in a sense made this situation that occurs daily more real.

The additional scholarly readings we did, though hard to interpret, were extremely interesting and made me ponder a lot. Darda’s piece talked about global literature and looked at The Reluctant Fundamentalist but through Butler’s theory of survivability. His article was particularly interesting in how he argued the importance of global fiction in its ability to break borders and form connections. Judith Butler’s article was more detailed in that she described why it is we have borders between us. Butler suggests the idea of precariousness and precarity in which all human lives are precarious by nature but some lives, because of certain living situations for instance, are more precarious than others. She elaborates how interpretative frameworks create this notion that either people are allies or they are threats, and if they are deemed a threat than we must destroy them before they destroy us. In simple terms, it is the belief that one person’s existence directly affects my ability to exist. It is in this mentality that humans view certain lives as grievable (because they are similar to us and therefore we can relate) while others are not considered lives and could never be killed in the first place.

All of these ideas were new to me but have really resonated with me and made me evaluate my perceptions of various groups of people but more so wonder the feasibility of this attitude ever changing. Butler posits that once we recognise that we are different but at the same time we are all humans will we be able to have a more cohesive global community. While I agree with what she is saying I do not know how likely it would be to ever get to the point that everyone views another as a grievable life, regardless it is a beautiful idea.

For our joint CAP lecture we were required to visit the Museum of Anthropology, which was a great excuse to go since I had never made it out that way. It was honestly a breathtaking experience to walk into the MOA. Totem poles decorated the light-filled room with floor to ceiling windows. Even before entering the exhibit I was in awe and filled with a sense of serenity and peace. Exploring the Amazonia exhibit was an equally beautiful experience. This exhibit was particularly interesting to me since I spent four years of my formative life living in Venezuela and had travelled to Peru and Ecuador during this time. This exhibit reminded me of my upbringing livingn in South America. Being in this exhibit made me reflect on my past and reminded me of a distinct memory from when my family and I travelled to the Orinoco Delta and whilst on this visit interacting with the Warao indigenous people (which translate to Canoe people, since this was their main mode of transportation). We travelled to these remote villages via boat and experienced their lifestyle (see photos below from my travels there).

The Warao people canoeing on the Orinoco Delta

Since I was only four at the time I did not think too deeply about this experience however looking back it has made me ponder about how this interaction must have been for the Warao people. To me it seemed slightly odd to see grown ups only partially clothed, my day to day experiences suggested that clothes was a normal part of life. Yet, to them they lived isolated from other groups and therefore must have been an equally, if not more, of a surprising experience. These thoughts filled my mind as I explored the exhibit, especially when reading about colonists who had come into indigenous villages exploited and slaughtered them. Knowing this history how do these minority groups feel when tourists come through to “watch” them live? Is it ethical to bring tour groups to view indigenous groups as if they are on display, almost like a human zoo? These are just some of the questions that arose during this visit.

The entire exhibit featured a myriad of artefacts from displays of headdresses, hammocks to baskets. Each was fascinating but the one that I found of particular interest was the tool that was used for hunting, the blow gun (see photo below). I had heard of this tool before but what struck me was the process behind it. Blow guns were made by the Yerba Masā, who excelled in hunting. Hunting was more than just a process of gaining meat, but a study of plants (which were used to make curare-a poison), animals and their behaviours. Due to this, hunting was connected to shamanism. Hunting was not just a process of obtaining meat for survival but instead was considered a transcendental connection and exchange between the hunter and the spirit of the animal. This made me think of the stark comparison to that of the meat corporations that dominate North America. The process of hunting is not common and instead to attain meat is a disconnected experience. People go to the store, choose their meat and go home. There is no spiritual appreciation to the animal.

One major issue revolving around the Amazon (that I did research on my grade 11 and 12 year on) is the amount of environmental degradation and deforestation that is occurring as a result of agriculture, but more specifically cattle production. This is dangerous on both a social and environmental level. To read about how there is a intrinsic connection between indigenous groups and their land makes this dilemma even more frustrating. Their land is being taken from them, used in ways that are against their beliefs and depleted for the means of making profit. Cattle production has led to 65-70% of all the deforestation that has taken place in the Amazon. Moreover, the Amazon is home to 10% of the entire world’s species, 20% of the world’s birds, 2.5 million insects (which are the support structure of an ecosystem) and 40,000 plant species. Each of these species face imminent danger on the daily and the reason for this is because of the dominant Eurocentric view of using the environment as a way to make money.

This relates to what we have been discussing in our geography class and this concept of territory and the discrepancy in views between indigenous groups and European colonists. For example, in America when European colonists first encountered Natives they saw them as not using the land to its “full” potential and believed that land should be owned by the person who uses it most efficiently. Yet this is completely open to interpretation. To indigenous groups they respected and shared the land and used it to the amount they needed, saving it from depletion. Eurocentric views held the perspective that land was at the mercy of humans and should be used to its maximum potential regardless of the consequences. This is no different to what we see now in our modern day society. It is angering but also challenges us all to think what our responsibility is in these situations.

Upon my visit to the MOA, it made me very happy to see how much effort the museum has put into trying to respect the groups native to BC and the Amazonian indigenous groups. Entering the Amazonia exhibit I grabbed the pamphlet and was pleasantly surprised to see that written below the title was, “The Rights of Nature”. Following this, the inside of the pamphlet had used part of the Rights of Nature (from Ecuador) that expressed that nature has rights to regenerate “life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes”. It was refreshing to see such emphasis of the importance of preserving nature. This made me more appreciative to be living in a city that places a lot of significance on respecting our environment and maintaining it to our best ability. This attitude, I imagine, could be easily taken for granted by the people who have been born and raised here. Moving from Hong Kong where there was no recycling system in place or any attitude of preserving the environment it is encouraging to see such a big difference in attitude, especially an attitude aligned so closely with my own.

Our most recent topic of conversation in the ASTU classroom has revolved around the novel Obasan. Obasan, written by Joy Kogawa, follows the protagonist Naomi who is a school teacher unhappily going through her life. It is not until the death of her Uncle Isamu that she is confronted with her past. We see this struggle between Naomi’s inclination to stay silent just as her Obasan does and the push from her Aunt Emily who advocates for speaking openly. Each of these is a way in which the family copes with the trauma in their past. On Tuesday we had the privilege to visit the Rare Books Library and explore the original documents which included Joy Kogawa’s source materials and drafts of her short stories and poems.

In English classes it is not uncommon to focus on the interior of a novel such as focusing on motifs, themes, characters and character development, etc. Yet, a book does not and should not be seen in isolation. To be quite frank, I was not a huge fan of this novel originally, but after going on the field trip I felt that it gave me a newfound appreciation for Obasan. Seeing the amount of research and effort Kogawa had put into this novel made me respect her much more. I think it can be easy to criticise an author’s, and artists in general, work without acknowledging the work that went into the making of that piece. It was very interesting to be able to have a sneak peek of Kogawa’s process, almost as if taking a look inside her brain when she was writing Obasan. To me being able to see her process of writing her novel exhibits how intentional and scrupulous the narrative is. It also shows the evolution of her ideas and what Kogawa felt was the most important aspects to include in her book.

While this novel is not a memoir it is highly indicative of Kogawa’s experience as a child. Having the opportunity to see the historical documents she used to write the novel gave me a higher sense of credibility to the experiences that the characters in the book experienced. The characters are fictional yet are based in facts. They are a mere representation of the experiences that far too many Japanese Canadians faced. Moreover, seeing the actual letters of the publishing companies and the rejection letters she received made me much more aware of the arduous process that writing takes. Obasan is clearly a novel held in high esteem but yet it took time to refine it to that point. One piece in particular from the Rare Books Library that stuck out to me was the Oberon Press document. It gave Kogawa feedback on her novel while expressing that the characters needed more depth and that her draft focused too much on history as opposed to telling a story. My initial thoughts of this were that of defensiveness, perhaps that was the Kogawa’s intention after all. This led me to wonder, how much of Kogawa’s story that she wanted to be told was actually told?

Joy Kogawa is obviously a very accomplished author and has made quite a resounding impact on the attitude toward the reconciliation process with the Canadian government. Obasan focuses much of the novel around the notion of coping with trauma and the diametrically opposed ways of doing this: through silence or through speaking out. The novel often advocates for silence and glorifies it in a sense, such as how Obasan is portrayed as being wise, but ultimately speaking out is what seems to be the best method. This is backed up by the fact that in the end the novel was published. Obasan is a great example of the profound impact that literature can have on a community and the way it can be utilised as a tool for remembering and reconciling trauma. Archiving history is so important, one so we do not forget the past but so we have an understanding of why things are the way they are, since as we know, the present is shaped by the past. This novel can be seen as highly pertinent even still today with the xenophobia that is poisoning the American political culture. When reading Obasan I found it perplexing that such a thing could ever happen, yet something of a similar level is happening right by us. With the Muslim ban taking place, it is more important than ever to look to our past, reflect and recognise not to repeat the same mistakes.

At UBC, us students have the privilege to be a part of CAP, coordinated arts program, which allows us to further our learning in an intimate and engaging environment. We take three courses: sociology, political science and an English/writing course, where we are expected to draw connections between these classes. We should not see these courses as independent but rather interdependent. On Friday, September 15th our professors came together to host a joint lecture in which we watched a documentary titled, A Degree of Justice: Japanese Canadian UBC Students of 1942. As can be inferred from the title this documentary follows several Japanese Canadians’ first hand accounts of their struggles of having their life disrupted after the bombing of Pearl Harbour. Sadly, Japanese Canadians faced extreme ostracisation from the Canadian communities and were forced to quit school. Japanese Canadians were faced with having their father’s being taken away from them and families having to flee the country (Yoshizawa, Alejandro, director).

This documentary raises many dilemmas such as the notion of identity. For these students, albeit they were ethnically Japanese, they felt that they were and are “true” Canadians. But what does it mean to be a “true” Canadian? For people to claim that, physically, real Canadians are caucasian are completely off base. Caucasian Canadians are simply settlers of the country and therefore are no more “Canadian” than those of the Japanese students and their families. This resonates with me on a deeper level seeing as I am constantly battling my own personal identity crisis. By citizenship I am American, ethnically I am Irish Korean. Too complicate the situation further I have lived in six countries. The notion of “home” and “identity” is not so easily identifiable to world travelers such as myself. Having heard my father’s stories of being segregated and facing discrimination from “real” (white) Americans made me feel a deeper level of understanding for the victims in the documentary. My father was born in American and no less American than anyone else. Yet, because of his physical attributes it was easy for him to be an outcast.

Perhaps the most disheartening story I have heard from my father is how his mother and him would get rocks thrown at them as he was walked to school. Facing discrimination, his mother felt the need to remove their Korean culture in order for her kids to fit in. She felt that there was no other option than to appropriate to American culture and forget the one that they originated from. There was no space for having multiple identities that is much more prevalent in our modern day society now. Although we still do see systemic racism, it has become less of a contentious topic for the younger, more open-minded generation. As technology has become more popular it has helped broaden people’s understanding of the world and as a result gives them a deeper appreciation for people from different backgrounds. This is hopefully a trend that will continue to persist and eventually limit the amount of ignorance we are still faced with today. I truly believe that fear comes from the unknown and therefore in order to become a more cohesive and global society we must be open to others and their cultures.

Along with the dilemma of identity this film brings the idea of nationalism to our attention. Before the bombing of Pearl Harbour these students were accepted as Canadian however after the attack this inclusivity had completely perished. This isolation came from a place of fear, not unlike that of the fear we have seen recently in America with Muslim Americans. According to CNN, only 32 people have died from terrorist attacks in America whereas 33,599 people have died from gun violence (Bower, Eve). Not to minimise these deaths, however the proportion of the number of deaths and the amount of time that is spent on the news vilifying Muslims is completely disproportionate. Muslim Americans identify with being American because they are American. However, it becomes easy for a government to exclude a specific minority by using the tactic of fear. The acknowledgement of citizenship and rights goes out the window. Instead of looking at what is an actual issue (gun violence, for example) the media and government choose to target a minority in order to marginalise them just as we saw in the documentary.

This is an especially important issue in this age of globalisation. Being a citizen of a certain country does not mean you have to look a particular way. Borders have become blurred as people have become more globalised, travel more and identify with multiple places. However as seen in the documentary it shows how this idea of nationalism is imagined, just as Benedict Anderson suggested in his scholarly writing, Imagined Communities. Nationalism is no more than a conception created by society as a means to create a sense of loyalty to the country. Political elites can use it to their advantage, either as a means to out a group of people through the use of fear, or to bring people together (Anderson, Benedict). Once we are able to recognise that we all have prejudices we will then be able to be open to different cultures and become a more globalised society. It is important to keep in mind that having prejudices is part of being human and is not to be seen as a negative thing so long as we do not act upon them.

Work Cited

Anderson, Benedict. “Imagined Communities .” Imagined Communities , pp. 1–5.,

             connect.ubc.ca/bbcswebdav/pid-4450611-dt-content-rid-22848673_1/courses/SIS.UBC.

             SOCI.100.006.2017W1-2.97354/Anderson%20-%20Imagined%20Communities.pdf.

Bower, Eve. “American Deaths in Terrorism vs. Gun Violence in One Graph.” CNN, Cable News

           Network, 3 Oct. 2016, www.cnn.com/2016/10/03/us/terrorism-gun-violence/index.html.

Yoshizawa, Alejandro, director. A Degree of Justice: Japanese Canadian UBC Students of 1942.

           Youtube, UBC Library, 19 Mar. 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8jGdYMmwfQ.

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!