This week in our ASTU class, we started watching American Sniper, a movie about the most deadly sniper in American history, Chris Kyle, who was deployed in Iraq. This film clearly states the divide between terrorists and Americans. I see this movie as propaganda for America, but its not necessarily a bad thing. Much of war that happens is not seen directly, we see pictures occasionally or articles about the events that occur. Therefore, I think it is important to have movies portray war because we can see what battles are like and get a better understanding of what and who were fighting for. Although American Sniper does change some of the details, it still gives a great foundation for what it was like for an American soldier in Iraq. Journalist such as Alex Von Tunzelmann, wrote in the guardian about how historically accurate American Sniper was, he wrote “The war is a lot easier to support when no Americans ever make a mistake and everyone who opposes them is obviously horrible.” This is an important point to understand why American Sniper can be seen as propaganda, because they portray all of the kills Kyle takes, as terrible people that would have killed tons of Americans. This idea is central in portraying a film about America in war. We see this mentality in world war 2 especially, when nazi propaganda was quite wide spread. Now this movie is not as nationalistic as propaganda the nazis did, however it is along the same lines of trying to get the public on the side of pro-war. This film is not only important to understand the experiences of war, but it also sheds light on what its like coming back form war. Which is a really important issue for veterans in today’s society. In society we don’t usually talk about the details of war, which makes it harder to understand what veterans have gone through. Much of the time, they also don’t want to talk about what its like, therefore the conversation that should take place to help them, never happens. Movies such as American Sniper, lend a hand in opening up the conversation to figure out ways to help veterans as well as showing the public what war is like. This is important to help people understand what our country is fighting for.

Tunzelmann, Alex Von. “Is American Sniper Historically Accurate?” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 20 Jan. 2015. Web. 30 Mar. 2017.

This week in our ASTU class we talked continued our talk on 9/11 in relation to scholar, Judith Butler. Her book called Frames of War, introduces the idea of who we grieve says who we see as valuable in society. I have used this theory to look at the war in Syria right now, and how we don’t hear much about what is going on. Is this because the lives that are being lost are not Westerners? Or maybe because the country is rooted in Islamic beliefs which don’t align to the western world. Whatever it may be, it makes us question our values and ask why do we hear so much about trivial things such as fake news and not enough about real news and life in other countries? In an article by the Washington Post they briefly give a reason why the U.S hasn’t intervened, “White House staff have consistently viewed the payoffs from action as uncertain, the potential benefits as low and the likely costs as unacceptably high”. In this article they are rating people’s lives on the cost it would be to the country whether to help them or not. This lens of looking at intervention detaches any sentimental feelings one may have to the plain cost efficiency of a country. In light of knowing that the U.S does not want to allocate funds to help the Syrian people, the question of should the U.S intervene in the first place, arises. Is it in our prerogative to actively help these people? I see the situation as only being acceptable if the citizens of Syria are asking for our help, then we should intervene. In the case of the Bosnian genocide, we read a graphic narrative by Joe Sacco that showed us how Bosnian citizens wanted the U.S to intervene. This may be the case in Syria as well, if it is, then we should answer the call for help.

Turning our attention to the United Nations, if the U.S finds it too costly to intervene, why has the United Nations not done more? After all, the whole basis of the U.N is to help in cases of humanitarian violations as seen from the U.N charter: “to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character”. As global citizens, we should feel the need to give help and support to anyone in need no matter the country they may live in. Since we live in such an interconnected world, why haven’t we done more for the Syrians? Why aren’t we grieving or fretting about the situation in Syria? The boundaries of countries should not bound our empathy as well. As humans all connected in this world, we should do more for each other in times of need.

Works Cited

Butler, Judith. Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable? London: Verso, 2016. Print.

“Deliver Humanitarian Aid.” United Nations. United Nations, n.d. Web. 16 Feb. 2017.

Heydemann, Steven. “Why the United States Hasn’t Intervened in Syria.” The Washington Post. WP Company, 14 Mar. 2016. Web. 16 Feb. 2017.

This week in our ASTU class we continued our discussion on The Reluctant Fundamentalist, by Moshin Hamid. This is a novel about a Pakistani living in New York before and after 9/11 and how these events changed his way of living because of prejudice and the effects it took on his love interest, Erica. To make sense of this novel, one must look at Changez and Erica’s relationship to understand the confusion Middle Eastern men must have felt in the post 9/11 era. As I read, the love story between him and Erica became the main focus of the novel. How he tried to understand Erica, was similar in how he was trying to figure out his place in the American society during the tumultuous time of 9/11. Andrew Anthony, a reviewer from The Guardian, writes “One of the novel’s notable achievements is the seamless manner in which ideology and emotion, politics and the personal are brought together into a vivid picture of an individual’s globalised revolt.” I found this review to be special because it identifies the more emotional side of the book, which I find to be very important in understanding Changez’s relationship with America. Looking through that lens, one sees how the events he endured made him feel more of an outsider and question his identity. The confusion of what Erica was going through made him unstable in his own life, while he was trying to figure out what she was thinking. During class we talked a lot about his feelings toward America. To understand his feelings toward the country, looking into his relationship is crucial. Changez is at first brought in and intrigued by Erica and then later slowly forced out and finally clearly shut out of her life. Looking at Erica as a symbol of America, this is where we can see his feelings toward the country. His love and interest into her as the story begins and the confusion and frustration with her as he is pushed out while not fully understanding why. She loves her ex-boyfriend who represents America before 9/11 and he reminds her of the future and how America has become so racist and prejudice. She wants desperately to forget that, and therefore pushes him out of her life. Hamid is accomplished in his style of writing because of the fluidity of Changez’s feelings toward America and Erica. I find Anthony’s review to be more reflective on Hamid’s novel than other critics such as Mira Nair, the director of The Namesake, who writes “A searing and powerful account of a Pakistani in New York after 9/11.” This review is much less telling of what the story means because it overlooks the depth of the emotion the novel explores. I found this book to be the most interesting one we have read this semester because of the subtle symbolism and unique style. To fully understand this novel, one must analyze Changez and Erica’s relationship to grasp the complexity of how a Middle Eastern man feels in America during the post 9/11 era.

Works Cited

Anthony, Andrew. “The Reluctant Fundamentalist by Mohsin Hamid – Review.” The Observer. Guardian News and Media, 22 Dec. 2012. Web. 26 Jan. 2017.

Moshin, Hamid. The Reluctant Fundamentalist. N.p.: Anchor Canada, 2008. Print.

This week in our ASTU class, we took a field trip to the library to see the collection of documents on Obasan, by Joy Kogawa. Here we were able to see all of the documents that she used to prepare for the book; as well as letters from readers and other people associated with the book. For this post, Im going to focus on how the artifacts changed my understanding of Obasan’s place in Canadian history. In my group, we had responses from all different types of readers. There were letters from ordinary people who were touched by Kogawa’s book. There was also a letter from the prime minister at the time, and reviews from different magazines and literary reviewers. Through these documents, I was able to see how Obasan made people feel about racism in Canada. The racism in this country is not as well known and more hidden, which makes it harder for people to talk about. With the publishing of Obasan, it made people realize that there is racism and that it is something that Canadians should acknowledge as a country. Joy sent a letter to the prime minister, telling him to read her book so that he could get a better understanding of the Japanese internment. He responded with a very bureaucratic answer, something along the lines of “thank you for your book, I will be sure to read it”, this shows how even in the high ranks of the government, this topic is not something people want to talk about. Eventually he did give a statement of apology to the interned people, which is a step in the right direction. There were some reviews of the book that praised Obasan for shedding light on the touchy subject of Japanese Internment. The letters and reviews were ways for Joy to hear feedback form the public on how they received her book. All the reviews that we read, were thanking her for writing the book, and praising her either on the writing of the book, or the subject, or sometimes both. In a review by Laura Davis, a published author, she writes “It is this popular reading of Obasan – that it progresses from silence to speech, from trauma to overcoming that trauma…”. She is grateful that this book was written to start conversation on the matter of racism and healing from the trauma of the past. Davis argues that we think with this book and others like it, the conversation of racism in Canada is over, however, it is always ongoing. In conjunction with reviews from the archives and other reviewers online, I have found Obasan to be a tool that people have used to start talking about Canadas history in a more truthful light. It has brought people to start the conversation of racism in Canada. Obasan been a very influential book especially to the Canadian people, but also to the world, on the topic of racism.

Works Cited

Davis, Laura K. “Joy Kogawa’s Obasan: Canadian Multiculturalism and Japanese-Canadian Internment.” “Joy Kogawa’s Obasan: Canadian Multiculturalism and Japanese-Canadian Internment” by Davis, Laura K. – British Journal of Canadian Studies, Vol. 25, Issue 1, January 1, 2012 | Online Research Library: Questia. Cengage Learning, n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

Kogawa, Joy. Obasan. Boston: D.R. Godine, 1982. Print.

This week in our ASTU class we read a book called Obasan by Joy Kogawa. This was a fictional book about the Japanese Internment in Canada. This book had a strong theme of memory and how a nation can hold a memory or try and forget one. In previous books that we have read like Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi, she writes about not forgetting and making sure to always keep her history alive with her. In Running in The Family by Michael Ondaatje, he was conflicted on saving memories or forgetting them. He blurs lines between forgetting and remembering. Each of these books has a different way of attacking memory. Memory is such a personal aspect of life, our future actions are determined by our past mistakes. Therefore it’s interesting to view history in such contrasting perspectives. Canada as a whole country has tried to forget the Japanese Internment during world war two, I see this as counterproductive to the healing process of Canadian Japanese. B.K Sander, editor of Saturday Night writes “An injustice once performed is fatally easy to repeat.” If the Canadian people don’t acknowledge that this horrible governmental action happened, then it will be hard to prevent it from happening again. Many students in class said that their schools barely touched upon the subject, if they did know about it, then most students were from the states. This shows that there is a major need for the rewriting of the textbooks. Canada should try and actively remember what happened and why it happened; from there, society can prevent this from happening again. The actions that have been taken to repair the damages the government has done, has been a good start; but hardly enough to repay the families in full. But is it even possible to repair all the damage? On September 22, 1988 the prime minister at the time, Bill Mulroney, apologized to the Japanese internment in Canada. He proceeded to give individuals who were interned 21,000 dollars. This was a much-needed action. However, I think that even more can be done, by just educating students in school about the atrocities of the governments past, this can do a lot in shaping Canadians values to appreciate diversity rather than ostracizing the minorities.

In our ASTU class, we recently read Running in the Family by Michael Ondaatje. This is a historiographic memoir because it’s about Michael’s family; but he tells it in third person as If he was living alongside the older generations. When I started reading this book, I took everything he said as the truth, no doubt about it. The whole time, I was thinking “wow his family is quite adventurous!” Once I got to class and we started talking about the book, someone brought up the fact that it didn’t all seem true. Which led us into a discussion about the factuality of his memoir. I was shocked to find that he, indeed, wove in false details into the stories he was telling. From then on, I read the rest of the book knowing the ridiculous affairs and tragic death stories, were most likely not actually true.

This got me wondering about how stories are told. If a celebrated author can publish a book with made up histories and call it a memoir, how important is the truth after all? Without all those extra details it probably wouldn’t have been as good of a read. After reading his memoir, I’m not going to go fact check him. Therefore, why does it matter if he tells the truth or not? In Michael’s case, a big reason for writing his memoir was to find some truth about his father. Yet, ironically, he tells the story with lies, to try and understand who that man was.

As children we are always told not to lie. It’s always better to tell the truth, but why is this? If the person believes your lie, and there is no reason to be upset from it; what is the harm done? We could argue that there is no harm done, since both parties were satisfied with the end result. In Running in the Family, Michael blurs the line between truth and fiction. Yet, as the reader, I am completely satisfied with the story that he has told. I don’t need the truth. Society has taught us to never lie, but sometimes, a little exaggeration is exactly what a story needs.

This week in our ASTU class we read Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi. This graphic narrative illustrates a child growing up during the Iranian revolution and how she feels about the events that occurred. Prior to reading this book, I had never been exposed to the Iranian revolution. This showed me how little I have learned about world history.

Coming from an American school, first year we take world history. Yet, most of the class is based on European history. We never address the matters of the middle east or even major other countries like Australia or India. No wonder Americans have the reputation of being terrible at geography, we simply aren’t taught it. Our view of the world is skewed by our textbooks only teaching us about countries that have influence and money. Coming to university and meeting so many international students, shows me how much I don’t know about the world.

During class we discussed what it means to be a global citizen. Our group started looking into how we see the world as a globalized place. This idea is getting muddled into thinking that we are becoming “westernized” rather than globalized.  The major countries in the world have the ability to further their ideals onto weaker countries, is this what globalization has become? The American school system is built upon the idea of America being the best country out there. This becomes an issue when we are learning about other countries who may not believe that. We have shaped our minds into believing that other countries want our help with their issues. Yet, when did we find it necessary to indulge ourselves in everyone else’s business? Is this what we call globalization? The powerful American and European countries patronizing the smaller states.

In Persepolis, Marjane references this idea in The Water Cell chapter. Her uncle is telling her about how Iran became a republic. She illustrates panels of “the very influential British” (Satrapi, 20) scheming to use the new Iranian leader as their puppet. Again, we see the unwanted tampering of western governments in foreign politics. We must critique our actions on foreign policy from different perspectives before we act, or we run the risk of intruding on others. The only way we can strive to become globalized citizens is through actively learning about other countries in different perspectives than the one we were taught. This procedure will lead to a less conflict consumed world.

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