While there are certainly some common elements of “home” for our class, I found that there were some unique concepts as well. Although we have a lot in common in our lives in that we are UBC students connected with Vancouver, it is obvious to me that our concepts of home, like many aspects of our thinking, depend upon our histories and where we have been. While several people commented on their connection to land and feeling at home with nature, others spoke much more of emotional spaces and connections as “home”, with no mention of a connection to a place. Sometimes the connection with nature and stimulus from remembered interactions with nature evoked emotional memories of family and home. The change and evolution of nature was tied with the changing concept of home (and decay to some extent). While family was often associated with home and a strong emotional space, most spoke of immediate, living family. A few people spoke of ancestors (in fact Beatrice mentioned 32 generations!) and heritage, but this was less common.
Most people saw home as possible to be multiple places, and change over time. Some saw it as anchored to where family or a physical home was, while others described it solely in the abstract – almost a state of mind. For one person, it was a place of strength and advantage, but also a safe, protected place, behind a mask.
Chamberlin’s idea that the homeless of the world continue to displace others was reflected in the observations of several of the group. There was a sense of dismay that we had an oblivious perception of Canada as the immigrants’ for the taking. The immigrant story of coming to Canada and leaving home and being displaced because of wars and poverty was told several times. The sense of being the “other” in an adopted home because of skin colour, language, or names was repeated. Despite our differences, we meet in these common spaces.
Works Cited:
Chamberlin, Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. Toronto: AA. Knopf, 2003. Print.