After reading Joy Kogawa’s novel Obasan and discussing it in class, the issue of nationality versus heritage had a lasting impact upon me. The novel focuses on the effect World War II had upon Japanese Canadians living in Canada, and it is Kogawa’s most famous publication. Even though the genre of the novel is fiction, it is based upon real events as the author included real letters written at the time by Japanese Canadians. Obasan must have had a relatively great impact especially upon Canadian society after being published in 1981 because in 1988 a formal apology to Japanese Canadians was made by Prime Minister Mulroney on behalf of Canada which included him reading sections of the novel.
The struggle of nationality versus heritage highlighted by the novel is unpleasant as it shows that racism exists everywhere even in places which are promoted as multicultural such as Canada. The majority of characters in Obasan are Canadian citizens yet they are made to believe that they are the enemy within their own country. This is because of their Japanese heritage, and ultimately their skin color. I found it particularly disturbing that Japanese Canadians were treated far worse than German Canadians or Italian Canadians, even though each of those countries were at war with the Allies. Is it fair that German or Italian Canadians were treated better because they share the same skin color as so called ‘real’ Canadians? It would have been particularly traumatizing for young Japanese Canadian children such as Naomi or Stephen in Obasan as they were born and bred in Canada, meaning they only know what it is to be a Canadian citizen. When the place you call home designates you as an enemy or intruder, where would you turn to? This raises the question, what does it mean to be Canadian? Is it a matter of culture and traditions or rather skin color?
The controversy regarding nationality and heritage raised in Obasan translates into modern day society. Due to globalization and the spread of culture around the world, we are left to question what it means to be a citizen of a particular country. At the end of the day, if someone identifies as a certain nationality, no one should be able to deny them this even if their heritage originates from another location.
I think you bring up a very good point discussing nationality and heritage in terms of self-identification. Attaching oneself to a national identity and memory is an action character of the sovereign-state system that has been around for hundreds of years. However, with globalization and the spreading of cultures to different geographic locations, it is becoming harder to distinguish a certain group of people with a state or culture just by looking at them. I personally have gone through a bit of an identity crisis experience–mostly in the past two and a half months–that I feel is resonated in your blog post.
Having been born in Canada I have always identified myself as a Canadian. However, after starting school at UBC and encountering many people who have lived in Canada their entire lives (which I have not), I have had multiple occasions of people telling me that I am not REALLY Canadian. It is fair to note that I have been living in California for the past 14 years–not without annual trips to eastern Canada during the summertime to visit family. Even though I’ve been living in the states for such a long period of time, I have continued to identify myself as a Canadian. This was heightened when I was rejected American citizenship in April of this year. This whole process has caused me, as of recent, to question the idea of nationality in general as I, having lived in both countries, do not see any extreme differences between the United States and Canada. I would extend on your argument by saying that the idea of national-identification can often lead to an ethnocentric view of oneself and one’s home country. Through my experiences, I can see that although this practice of national identification still exists, it is definitely diminishing–in my opinion for the better–with the onset of globalization.
The way you brought up nationality and the relation with self-identification resembles my way to connect national memory and national identity. Because national memory is a major factor while identifying yourself.
It is very interesting that you brought up the children that were born and bred in Canada. I means yes, they might be discriminated and even traumatized because of that. But I don’t think Naomi’s family will lose their national identities. People might just want bend in while there is something negative taking place, just like the Japanese under WW2. Additionally, feel free to point out if I am wrong. Secondly, globalization is a intruging topic to make. There is so many features we talk about such as multiculturalism, fading barrier between countries and national identity. In a way, globalization will help resembling the national identity and undermining the cultural difference,and I think it is a kind of globalization that Naomi’s family trying to bend in as a Canadian. However, does agreeing to bend in as a Canadian necessarily means losing their national identity for Japanese Canadian?