Yesterday’s CAP conference was the first of the sort that I attended, and I was shocked by how interested and in awe I was of all of the presentations. The conference was able to bring all of the CAP streams together, and we got to see exactly what other streams had been working on and learning about all year. In the first panel I attended, Helen Wagner’s “National Geographic and the Photographic Gaze: The Commodification of Indigenous Peoples in Consumer Culture” struck me the most. This may have been because it covered topics we did in the Global Citizens stream, including commodification.  She presented the argument that by photographing the lives of certain Indigenous peoples but failing to include much of their culture,  National Geographic has turned many Indigenous peoples and cultures into a commodity for Westerners to look at and enjoy. For me, this brought a new light to NG because I’d always assumed that the organization worked for the best interests of the Indigenous peoples it photographed. Though I don’t doubt that it does, I now question whether the way they commodify their faces and cultures is respectable.

Thinking about the commodification of marginalized peoples from an ASTU perspective, we could discuss the representation (or misrepresentation) of their cultures as their stories are Westernized for consumption. Much like the narratives of drug addicts on the Downtown Eastside in Through A Blue Lens, the stories of the indigenous peoples in National Geographic are portrayed in a way that the privileged will understand them. It was interesting to make the connection between the presentation of someone in a different stream who had taken different courses, yet be able to apply what she discussed to what we as Global Citizens learned this year.

I would also like to note that all of the presentations and showcased items done by members of the Global Citizens stream were great. There was passion, and everyone seemed to be truly enjoying what they were doing. I especially loved David How’s presentation “Raise the Vote: Addressing the Youth Voter Crisis” and his goal to create an apolitical organization to educate and empower university students to vote in the next federal election. I hope to be able to help him in doing this and that many others will want to do so as well. I feel that David, along with all of the other GC presenters, represented our stream magnificently. Having been a part of this stream, for me, has been one of the best parts of my first year in university. Throughout all the courses we took, which seem to be such different genres of learning, we were able to make connections and learn about our global world in a way I never have before. Globalization, modernization, commodification, and marginalization all found their way into most of our courses. Plus, it helps to be able to make connections and friendships with people that are in three of your classes. I can genuinely say that as we move to second year, I will miss the GC stream aspect of my learning.

This Monday, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, along with her organization LeainIn.org, the Girl Scouts of America, and Lifetime, initiated the “Ban Bossy” movement, which aims to “encourage girls to lead” without the risk of being labeled “bossy.” The site’s message reads:

When a little boy asserts himself, he’s called a “leader.” Yet when a little girl does the same, she risks being branded “bossy.” Words like bossy send a message: don’t raise your hand or speak up. By middle school, girls are less interested in leading than boys—a trend that continues into adulthood. Together we can encourage girls to lead.

Many powerful female celebrities and politicians have backed the movement, including Jennifer Garner, Jane Lynch, Beyonce, and Condoleeza Rice. It has been brought up that the women who participate in the media campaign- and Sandberg herself- have all overcome the adversity of being female and being called “bossy” and made something of themselves. Despite being called “bossy,” Wente claims, they have been pushed forward by the pejorative. This can negate the idea that “bossy” is a term that disempowers women- as long as we are able to put it along words like outspoken, opinionated, and tough, we can still be successful.

The campaign has been controversial since its beginning, with the response of many (including women) being that this is not the best way to overcome the adversity women face. Some are saying that banning “bossy” is a bad idea because girls need to “suck it up” and “reclaim it.” Others have presented  different options. As Jessica Roy mentions in her article, “this campaign focuses on policing language rather than bringing attention to important issues that have real impact on women and girls: the lack of affordable childcare, sexual assault, domestic abuse, girls’ lack of access to education worldwide or the gender pay gap, to name just a few.” Women have been and are continuously being marginalized throughout the world in ways that are more important than a word. Furthermore, the word “bossy” is not even close to the most derogatory word women face daily.

Throughout elementary and middle school, I was called bossy, obnoxious, you name it; yet I never felt patronized by the word. Of course, this is a personal opinion. While the “Ban Bossy” movement views the word with a more true-to-the-dictionary definition of “inclined to domineer,” I agree with this journalist who understands bossy as “inclined to dominate.” She also claims that “telling girls that they should be hurt if someone calls them “bossy” is submitting to the notion that being “bossy” is a bad thing,” which, personally, I don’t think it necessarily is. Being bossy means you are able to control a situation and that you are a strong and independent person, all of which are things that I believe should be striven for.

Although the intentions of the “Ban Bossy” campaign are pure, there are some significant flaws in its execution. Not only does it undermine the word and turn it into a negative, but it also ignores the more inherent problems of gender inequality in our society. The best thing the campaign has done is create conversation surrounding the marginalization and adversity that women do face. Rather than taking a term and trying to ban it because it makes girls feel bad, we should teach girls to empower themselves without allowing themselves to be torn down. Like Tina Fey and Amy Poehler have said, “bitch is the new black.”

While watching Through A Blue Lens in class this week, I was reminded of other “real life” TV shows about addiction I had seen, specifically TLC’s My Strange Addiction and A&E’s Intervention. While Intervention focuses on drug and/or alcohol dependence, My Strange Addiction has all sorts of different addict profiles, including a woman who is addicted to eating her deceased husband’s ashes and a 33 year old man who spent $100,000 to “perfect his Justin Bieber look.” With the rise in reality television that seems to have occurred in recent years, I question the whether certain shows accurately portray and depict the different narratives and lives of the people on the show.

I’ll admit it: I loved watching Laguna Beach and The Hills when I was in high school. LC was my girl. And although a part of me believed that everything on the show was real, I also sort of knew that most of it wasn’t. Although claiming to show the “real” lives of the people on the show, there was much controversy around what was real and what was fake. After the show ended, a girl who had been on The Hills, Kristin Cavallari, revealed that she had had “fake relationships and fake fights on The Hills. What does this say about other reality tv shows? How does this portray our society? In fact, how do reality shows in general portray our society? When I was in the tenth or eleventh grade, Jersey Shore was a big deal in my high school- people thought “It’s so dumb, it’s funny” and continued to watch it. When MTV held a season in Italy, I thought “Oh god, this is how Italians are going to view all Americans.” As it continued, I realized that future generations might view this one the way that the show and  other reality shows portray our society today.

Some long-standing reality shows, like MTV’s (actually) unscripted The Real World are on the verge of ending, however. Although in its 29 season which is currently being broadcast, viewer numbers have dropped drastically, perhaps making this the last season of the show. What used to be popular because of the truth and ‘real-life drama’ that came with 7 young adults living together is no longer; it is shows like Here Comes Honey Booboo and Duck Dynasty which feature more ‘wholesome American families.’ However, isn’t it interesting that the self-proclaimed redneck families in Duck Dynasty used to have an entirely different image, one that does not fit the brand of their show at all? Where’s the reality in that?

It can be said that people watch a lot of reality television, even if they claim it is their guilty pleasure. The way the lives of people on the show are portrayed often do not accurately depict who they are or how their lives are, though some do. In a way, I believe that these shows have become a narrative of our society today. If they are archived and later found and researched, this is the way future generations may view the era of the early 21st century. Perhaps scholarly articles will be written about the rise of the Kardashians or the fall of the Gosselins (you know, Jon and Kate Plus 8). I just hope that in the future, there will be more interest in the real problems of today than in today’s interest in reality television.

As we returned to the study and discussion of the residential schools and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission this week in class, I found new insights into and information about the Indian Residential Schools that I wasn’t aware of last semester. Through the class visit to the Museum of Anthropology’s Speaking to Memory: Images and Voices from St. Michael’s Residential School exhibit, our further discussion into what we experienced and learned about the TRC, and my reading and analysis of Naomi Angel’s article “Before Truth: The Labors and Testimony of the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission,” I learned of the resilience shown by many of the residential school children despite the horrors they were facing. Rather than portraying the children simply and only as victims of suffering, the exhibit and article showed a different aspect of the children’s lives: their bravery and perseverance through the bad hand they were dealt.

As Emily commented on my response to the MOA exhibit, associating a “victim” identity can “prolong the reconciliation process” because it continues to marginalize their identities and keep portraying them as colonized and oppressed people. It is certain that it is important to recognize the wrongs that were done to the aboriginal people by the Canadian government, but I believe that we must also see them more as survivors than victims. We also discussed in class how print versions of the apologies from the Canadian government, the RCMP, and churches involved in the residential schools which were given to the aboriginal people hung in the windows of the exhibit, not really doing anything, much like the actual apologies. The Canadian government apologized and promised forward movement, but then literally did nothing to enhance and restabilize the lives of the First Nations people. It was just an empty promise.

As class ended yesterday, discussion continued between Kenny, Makoto and I on how we, in the American public school system, were never educated about the lives of the Native American people other than to talk about how they were colonized and pushed to the West on the Trail of Tears. In the United States, it seems to be pretty common knowledge that Native Americans have higher rates of alcoholism, abuse, and addiction than those of non-Native descent, yet the US government has not done anything to help the Native people. Maria pointed out that in Alberta, there is a lot of education about the First Nations and it is a very important part of their curriculum, yet in the United States we barely even skim over the topic. In fact, I didn’t even know that there had been American Indian Boarding Schools in the Pacific Northwest until I decided to research it yesterday, and I doubt that many other Americans have knowledge of them. This needs to change.

I applaud the Canadian government and Canadian citizens for moving towards reconciliation between the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. It is sure that there is still much to be done moving forward, but the education and discussion about what has happened is a step forward. At the same time, I am appalled by the United States government and educational system and the fact that they hide this part of the nation’s collective history and brush its current effects under the rug. I hope one day they will be able to move towards reconciliation as Canada has, although I find that highly doubtful.

Since coming back from winter break, we have talked a lot about archives and what they constitute in ASTU. What I find particularly interesting is the digital branch of archives, namely that of social media sites such as Facebook and, as Amelia pointed out, Vine. I also enjoyed reading Allison’s post about Facebook and how it portrays our lives in an inaccurately ‘happy’ way, without the struggles and failures of our lives, contributing to a future knowledge gap. This immediately made me think of the blogging site Tumblr, which has long been portrayed in the teen world as a form of diary or autobiograpahical site.

The difference between Tumblr and Facebook is that unlike Facebook, Tumblr can be completely anonymous, creating a space where bloggers can say exactly what they are feeling and talk about the struggles in their lives without fear of reciprocation from their peers. Tumblr is often thought of by its users as a community where sharing parts of one’s life, both good and bad, is safe. The site has hundreds of sub-genres of blogs, such as fandom blogs or nature blogs. It is within these communities that members are able to find others to connect with and can truly create bonds and friendships.

The diary aspect of Tumblr can essentially be a form of archive, as it presents a place where bloggers can write about their lives, both good and bad. Where Facebook contains a “natural silence,” defined in Rodney Carter’s article “Of Things Unsaid: Power, Archival Silences, and Power in Silence” as silences “entered into by choice, often to allow for reflection and personal growth” (228), Tumblr lets that silence of the traumatic events or failures in one’s life be voiced. On this site these natural silences can be discussed, which can allow posters to reflect on what has happened. It can also create a bridge for the knowledge gap which can be found in Facebook archives. Granted, not every Facebook user has a Tumblr, but it’s a start. This act of connecting the two sites would be extremely difficult to do for future archivists, however, because not many Tumblr users link their Tumblr blogs to their Facebook profiles or any other social media sites because of the pros to anonymity.

The idea of social media sites as archives is rather new because these social media sites are rather new themselves. If we think towards the future we can perhaps imagine how these sites will be archived and what silences and gaps there may be and perhaps attempt to fill them. As for now, I along with many others will keep discreetly posting about my life on Tumblr.

Having lived in the United States for over 10 years of my life, I know how important the holiday of Thanksgiving is to Americans. Some consider it more important than Christmas! Today, it is a secular holiday and a time for families to be together and to be thankful for the people and things in our lives. What I was taught in elementary school was that Thanksgiving was a day to recreate the Thanksgiving of the Pilgrims and Puritans in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1621, who were simply thankful for the bountiful harvest they has that year. It is said that they celebrated with the Native tribes who had taught them certain agricultural techniques, basically saving them from starvation.

In recent years, the holiday has come under some scrutiny by those who see it as a huge lie to prevent shame upon the European separatists who settled in America. In a section of his book Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, James Loewen analyzes the inaccuracies in American history textbooks on the dealings which occurred between the settlers and the Native Americans. He criticizes them because rather than telling the truth about what happened, the textbooks dehumanize certain people such as Christopher Columbus and portrays them as heroes when in reality, Columbus slaughtered millions of Native Americans.

The story goes that on the first Thanksgiving, the European settlers and the Native Americans sat down for a meal to celebrate and be thankful for the bounty they had just reaped from the earth. What really happened, however, was that “the colonists offered the Indians a toast to eternal friendship, whereupon the chief, his family, advisors, and two hundred followers dropped dead of poison.” This video tells the story of what really happened and why Thanksgiving should not be a celebration based on the coming together of the colonists and Native Americans.

People often forget that millions of Native Americans died once the European settlers attempted to colonize America. It is often called the “American Holocaust” because over 100 million members of the oppressed, the Native Americans, were killed by the oppressors, the settlers. This was over 95% of the American population. This event, although often forgotten, is “far and away the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world,” yet we still celebrate it today.

My family and I have never had big celebrations on Thanksgiving, often passing it along as a normal day. After learning more about what really happened in the 1600s, I will surely continue on this path. It is astonishing that we as a generation not only do not know what happened, but once we do still celebrate the holiday. Perhaps for some it has evolved as more of a celebration of family than of being thankful for different aspects of their lives. In this case it may be an option to transition to a holiday such as Family Day in Canada in which this could be done.

Overall I find it extremely hypocritical of the history textbooks in America to hide this act of genocide, yet to cover the Nazi Holocaust extensively. As an American student, we learn everything about the Holocaust of World War II and nothing about the extermination of Indians in our own country. With more exposure perhaps we can change the textbooks to not only cover the good that happened in the US, but the bad as well. I think it would only be fair to teach our students the truth and to give them all the information possible.

Over the semester our ASTU class has studied many life narratives, including blogs as a form of online narrative. Another type of blog that interests me that we have not talked about is the videolog, or vlog. Youtube has allowed many “vloggers” to post videos about their daily lives and (sometimes) attract a huge viewership. There are also many sub-genres of vlogging, such as video game vlogs and makeup vlogs. Overall the vlog is another way to write a life narrative, except it is in video form instead of written form.

One of the most popular early vloggers is Shane Dawson of ShaneDawsonTV, who has amassed 5.2 million subscribers since his start in March 2008, continue to share parts of their daily lives with their audiences. His 254 videos have a combined total of almost 1 billion views.

One of the most famous video bloggers today is Jenna Mourey, more commonly known as Jenna Marbles, who makes weekly videos about all sorts of different topics. Many of these videos are simply about things that have happened in her life that she wants to share, and she also has a “What Guys and Girls Do” series. Since starting her YouTube channel in February 2010, Jenna Marbles has reached 11.4 million subscribers and has a combined total of almost 1.3 billion views on her videos. She has “more Facebook fans than Jennifer Lawrence, more Twitter followers than Fox News and more Instagram friends than Oprah.”

These sheer numbers give attention to a vlogger, and as they gain a following it becomes easier for them to make these videos because they become partners with YouTube and get money for the views they get. To become a partner with YouTube, one must have at least 1,000 subscribers, at least 1,000 views on each of their videos, and at least 10,000 page views. The more views they get, the more money they get with which they are able to buy new camera equipment, take trips to YouTube conventions such as Playlist Live, and, in the case of Jack and Finn Harries (and many other YouTubers), rent out an office space from which to run their vlogging business. As one of the newest up-and-coming YouTubers, JacksGap has over 3 million subscribers after having been on YouTube for only two years.

What I find interesting about the YouTube vlogging community is that, with enough recognition, one is able to make a life out of it. The Harries twins, for example, have taken multiple trips to different parts of the world and then vlog about them. Jenna Marbles began making her videos in her $800/mo apartment and now lives in a $1.1 million dollar rented townhouse. What begins for some vloggers as a way to share parts of their lives or simply as a hobby essentially becomes a lifestyle. One day when it is all over they will be able to look back at their YouTube videos and see a part of their lives. Vloggers are essentially creating a narrative on their lives in that moment, yet the videos they make are permanent. By putting their narrative on the YouTube, they allow their audience into their lives in the same way a blogger does by posting a new blog or a writer does by publishing his autobiography.

This past week I began re-reading one of my favorite books Into The Wild by Jon Krakauer. The novel is based on the story of Christopher McCandless, a man from a well-off East Coast family who, after graduating from Emory University in 1990, disappeared. He changed his name to Alexander Supertramp, gave away all of his savings to charity, and hitchhiked to Alaska, where he walked alone into the Northern wilderness in April 1992. Four months later his partially decomposed body was found by moose hunters.

For years now this has been one of my favorite books, and I never considered the fact that it had to be reconstructed by the author because little was known about Chris McCandless’ journey to Alaska and how he died. His story has nonetheless been an inspiration for many nature-lovers who admire what he did, despite his death. The coroner’s report said that he probably died from starvation, but in Into The Wild Krakauer hypothesizes that he passed away from mistakenly eating seeds of the wild pea plant rather than potato plant, the latter of which was nontoxic. Recent findings, however, found this to be untrue: McCandless’ death was caused by a neurotoxin in the sweet pea plant which affects different people differently but “those who will be hit the hardest are always young men between the ages of 15 and 25 and who are essentially starving or ingesting very limited calories,” which definitely describes the state Christopher McCandless was in before he died.

Krakauer’s mission to write the book began after he was asked to write an article for Outside magazine about the death of Chris McCandless. It was after writing this article that Krakauer began retracing McCandless’ two-year path from Atlanta to Alaska, reading his intricate diaries and examining the photographs and self-portraits he took. Though much of it is backed up by evidence provided by McCandless’ personal affairs, we will never know exactly what happened to him in his final days, as he was so weak he was barely able to write.

This leads me to question author construction of a story, which my group talked about in our presentation on Dave Eggers’ What Is The What. The two stories differ in that Krakauer had to use information he found about McCandless, whereas Eggers’ interviewed and talked to Valentino Achak Deng for hours and hours in order to get his story right. Deng also had the ability to view the book and agree with the way his story was portrayed, while McCandless’ death was really the reason the book was written. In the case of narratives being written and portrayed by outside sources, it is always important to consider who the author is writing it for. For example, although the film God Grew Tired Of Us is about the Lost Boys and Sudan, how they grew up during a civil war, and all of the atrocities they saw, it is also about how Americans saved them and the ways they helped them once the Lost Boys got to America. Many people see this as a way to appeal to a Western audience and shows the perceived superiority of Western culture. While Into The Wild is the story of a young American adult male, its reason for being written is still questioned by the public. In a recent article written by Krakauer, he tells what his readers have sent him about the book.

“I’ve received thousands of letters from people who admire McCandless for his rejection of conformity and materialism in order to discover what was authentic and what was not, to test himself, to experience the raw throb of life without a safety net. But I’ve also received plenty of mail from people who think he was an idiot who came to grief because he was arrogant, woefully unprepared, mentally unbalanced, and possibly suicidal. Most of these detractors believe my book glorifies a senseless death.”

One detractor, Craig Medred, believes that Krakauer puts too much emphasis on the “what” that killed McCandless instead of the “who;’ McCandless was, after all, an inexperienced man who took to the wilderness with inadequate equipment. He also believes that Krakauer took his story and made him a celebrity and that he “wanted to write a story that would sell.”

So, as I read this book again for the tenth time or so, I wonder who is right. I know that the story of Christopher McCandless would never be so popular and well-known had Jon Krakauer not made it into a novel, yet I now question his reasons for writing it the way he did. Was McCandless the valiant hero who rejected societal ideals and simply made a fatal mistake or was the unprepared, suicidal character that detractors of the book believe he was? The truth is, we may never know.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to attend a screening of Bhopali, a documentary based on the Union Carbide gas leak of 1984 and the ways in which it still affects residents of Bhopal, India today. Before attending this showing, I knew nothing of what happened in Bhopal, in fact, I did not know it had happened at all. On the night of December 2, 1984, the Union Carbide plant leaked 27 tons of a lethal gas called metho isocyantate (MIC). None of the six security measures were in operation because Union Carbide had ceased them in order to save money and maximize profit. They knowingly put people’s lives in danger, and because of this, thousands of people died.

It is estimated that seven to ten thousand people died immediately on the 2nd or 3rd of December, but the gas has continued to affect the region. Now, over 25,000 people have died because of the gas leak. Over 120,000 people, especially children, are affected with diseases such as cerebral palsy or mental and physical disorders. In addition, the factory was abandoned by Union Carbide when the company was bought by Dow Chemicals, and although Dow acquired UC’s assets and liabilities (one of which being the factory) they have not cleaned it up. There are still hundreds of metric tons of chemicals inside and around the factory, which contaminate the soil and the water of the region. This means that the people living in Bhopal are drinking contaminated water. They do not have access to clean water. All of this information is available in the documentary and also on the Bhopal website.

For 29 years since the gas leak happened, the people of Bhopal have been fighting for clean water, money to pay for their medical treatments, and simply for justice. Union Carbide and Dow have never paid for the damage they caused. Sanjay Verma, one of the victims of the disaster and a lead in the documentary, hosted a question and answer session last night after the film. He told us of the time in 2006 people from Bhopal walked to Delhi, a trek of over 500 miles, to speak with the Prime Minister of India and ask for clean water. He promised them he would, yet two years later nothing had happened. They trekked back to Delhi in 2008, and this time the PM began installing pipelines in Bhopal. Since 2010, a small section of Bhopal has been able to have clean water for one hour a day. This is not enough.

Humanitarian organizations such as Amnesty International have been working with the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal (ICJB), “a coalition of people’s organizations, non-profit groups, and individuals,” to pressure Dow Chemicals and the US and Indian governments to give the people of Bhopal healthcare, clean water, and proper rehabilitation for the survivors and their children. However, as Sanjay Verma told us, it is important that Dow Chemicals be the one who pays for all of this. If the Indian government pays, it will come out of taxpayer dollars. In essence, the people of Bhopal will be paying for their own health care. The question is under which country’s laws is Dow responsible. Must they follow Indian laws because the factory is in India, or American ones because they are an American corporation? Verma also stated that a few years ago when Barack Obama visited India, one of his advisors had a conversation with an Bhopali activist (which was released on Wikileaks) in which the Obama advisor said in not-so-nice words that Bhopal was not a topic to talk about. This could be because Dow Chemicals is a huge corporation, and as world-renowned environmentalist David Suzuki stated in his introduction of Sanjay Verma last night, corporations are treated as people in the United States and are allowed to contribute huge amounts of money to political campaigns. Dow was a corporate contributor in the Obama campaign. In 2008, Obama praised banks for giving “critical” loans to Dow. Giving money to politicians is a way that huge corporations protect themselves from backlash for wrongful actions. Aquene Freechild, a volunteer and former staff member at the ICJB stated, ““The only reason Dow hasn’t had to show up in court is because of collusion with elites in India and even more, because of the protection of the U.S. government.” This is a national political problem that is unfortunately affecting thousands of people in Bhopal.

Bhopali has brought more attention to the problems facing Bhopali citizens, as it has closely shown the lives and struggles that are prominent in Bhopal. It was filmed by director Van Maximilian Carlson, who did not seek help from any outside organizations. It is different from the Lost Boys documentary God Grew Tired Of Us because it was not spearheaded by a large organization like National Geographic or backed by famous people with lots of money. Bhopali seeks to inform its audience and encourages them to become active in the fight for the rights that should be given to the people in Bhopal. Many of my classmates raised concerns about the portrayal of the West in GGTU and how it seemed that the focus of the film was not the struggle the Lost Boys faced, but rather the way Americans helped and saved them. I found this the contrary to Bhopali, perhaps because they have not gotten help yet. The film was more of a report on the current state of damage caused by the Union Carbide disaster than an attempt to Westernize it to the humanitarian aspect. Perhaps this is because it was not backed by lots of money and big names but simply made by a documentary maker. No matter what, I strongly suggest watching this documentary and getting informed on this issue, the largest industrial disaster in the world.