I would like to think that there are equal rights for all people, all over the world. Sadly I know that is not the case and that most likely it will never be the case. How negative of me, I know. My reasoning behind this is that someone is always going to feel the need to have power and control and some people are always going to feel like they are powerless. Government, police, army, that is where you find the strongest hierarchy of power and the people who believe they are the most powerful. Even in friend groups you will always see a sort of hierarchy of power, there is one person who  leads by example and the rest copy and follow. These hierarchies will inevitably change as new people fight to claim their own portion of power, some will find greatness while others will fall to defeat. In my opinion, what gets forgotten is the lives of the people who seek no power and who put their faith in the powerful to rightfully care for them.

In some countries you could say that everyone has a relatively fair chance to speak their minds and attain a role of power. For example, here in Canada, I can run for a position in municipal, provincial and national governments. Ideally no one would assume they knew what I stood for or how I would use my bit of power because I am a woman. I can get any job I want and get paid the same amount for doing the same thing as men. I will not be judged for doing things that were historically a man’s job like politics, playing sports, being the breadwinner of the family, doing physical jobs, etc. As a woman, my position of power and ability to have a voice would be accepted and encouraged. For all this, I am thankful, but it kind of brings the female morale down when we hear stories about how other women are being treated as second class citizens and are being discouraged, sometimes violently, for standing up for themselves.

Middle Eastern and South Asian women have always been a topic of interest in European and western countries. Even in the late 19^th century/ early 20^th century, British suffragettes were using Indian women as a reason to gain the vote. In Antoinette Burton’s Burdens of History — British Feminists, Indian Women and Imperial Culture, 1865-1915, she depicts the British female view of Indian women as “…helpless, emancipated, and trapped in a zenana existence… [pg. 65]” Therefor it was imperative that British women get the vote so they could involve themselves in the humanitarian side of ‘rescuing’ these women from their religious and cultural restraints placed on them by their husbands, fathers and brothers. Yet, despite this lacking of ‘civilised’ women, there were three whom Burton highlights who upped the standard of Indian women: “… the celebrated nationalist-feminist activist and poet Sarojini Naidu, the social reformer Pandita Ramabai and Rukhmabai, who later became a medical doctor. [pg.68]” With this precedent set, I feel as though it paved the way for women across the Middle East and South Asia to consider what other things they could do with their lives besides be home makers and child minders. So when I came across an article in The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2014/sep/05/iran-editor-feminist-views) about a female Iranian journalist, Shahla Sherkat, who is an active contributor to the feminist movement in Iran, I was intrigued.

Straight away you can tell that the articles she writes are not being encouraged. In fact before her new publication  Zanan- e Emruz (Today’s Woman), she had been the editor of a title called Zanan for 16 years until it was shut down by former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Even though there are “…hopes that [Zanan-e Emruz] might signal greater freedom for the media and women under President Hassan Rouhani.” Shahla is now being summoned to the courts for the content that she is putting in this title. It is because she is “…spreading feminist ideas, which they believe are contrary to Islamic principles…Zanan magazine [is] managed by a woman with feminist and western views… western values undermine feminism, unlike those in the Islamic republic.” If she posted these articles in Canada, she would be commended, but in Iran she could be sent to prison.

Evidently western influence is a growing concern for some Iranians.

Pop culture, the need to be famous, known or heard is quickly becoming synonymous with western culture. Through YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, Vine, Keek, Snapchat, many people are claiming that 15 minutes of fame everyone so desperately wants. You can now be InstaFamous, a YouTube millionaire, or a viral sensation; and that is exactly what these 7 Iranian adolescents became. They filmed a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg5qdIxVcz8 ) of themselves dancing on the rooftops of Tehran to the catchiest song of 2014, Happy by Pharrel Williams (It was the number one song in 24 countries, was nominated for an Oscar and was the lead single off the Despicable Me 2 Movie). People around the world saw this video (including Pharrel himself) and liked it (as you do on YouTube) and it has garnered over 2 million views worldwide. The world loved it, the Iranian police, not so much. The six were sentenced “…to six months in prison and 91 lashes. A seventh participant, Reyhaneh Taravati, received an additional six months on her prison sentence for possession of alcohol and her role in distributing the video. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/19/iranian-pharrell-williams-fans-happy-video-sentenced )” The courts “…found them guilty of producing a “vulgar” video and conducting “illicit relations.” If they are caught doing anything else along these lines in the next three years they will have to serve their sentence, but in the mean time they had to go on national television and confess to their wrong doing… for being and spreading happiness. Is this just cultural preservation or is it disallowing Iran to evolve into a more diverse country?

In some ways, Iran has come a long way from the monarchic and political oppression they were plagued with in the late 1900’s. President Hassan Rouhani seems to be making an effort to change Iran’s treatment towards women and encourage cultural acceptance, but he does not have the full support of the country. He may encourage and feminist rights and he may think the seven Tehrani video stars should be let free without charge, but what can he do to change the minds of those people who use their voice to speak louder than everyone else?

In conversation with some people the other day, I brought up how Scotland is voting on whether to become independent or stay as part of the United Kingdom. The response I got was; “Is that actually a thing? No way! I haven’t heard about it. It’s funny how Ireland has been trying to be independent for years and Scotland just decides to go and vote.” Despite that being a bit worrying, it does raise a good point. If it is this civilized for Scotland to gain independence, what has changed from the years of struggle against colonialism?

To gain a broader understanding of the voting process and the reasons behind the move for independence I searched the web and found many European sources. As a broad overview I found the BBC’s article, (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29238890) to be a very helpful resource. It has information about when, where and how the voting will happen and when the results will be announced; by the chief counting officer Mary Pitcaithl who will release the final results to the world at GMT ‘breakfast time.’ The flaw with this article was that it did not report on any of the motivations or details of this referendum.  As some Scottish newspapers are calling a ‘British Bais’, I found a Scottish website (http://rt.com/uk/188404-scottish-referendum-live-updates/). Here I found speeches and interviews from both sides, both with very valid and interesting reasoning behind their YES/NO votes. Tommy Sheridan, a socialist campaigner referred to the “Yes” campaign as a “revolt against austerity”, whereas the Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond took his stance quite strongly with his referral to British government as the ‘Westminster establishment’ and “So the Westminster parties cobble together separate, contradictory proposals for more powers – none of which offer any answers to the real challenges we face.” My eagerness to learn this world changing result is ever growing since the final pre-vote polls statistics have changed from Yes – 45%, No – 50 % and Undecided – 5% to Yes – 51% and No – 49%, but it also made me consider the numerous other countries that have had to claim their independence over the past few centuries.

In History 103, my Professor has been talking about the independence of colonies like British Honduras (1981), Puerto Rico (1898), and Suriname (1975). The one main example that interested me was the independence of Brazil. Although many of the colonies that formed the Brazilian Empire were made up of Indigenous peoples, Brazil became a nation state as the population was built up by settlers and slaves. Now I consider slavery the main, albeit abstract, link between the Brazilian Empire’s independence and Scotland’s new attempt for independence. According to John Geipel in his article on Brazil’s African Legacy in History Today Volume: 47 Issue: 8 1997 (http://www.historytoday.com/john-geipel/brazils-african-legacy ), he says, “… Over the four centuries of Portuguese involvement in the Atlantic slave trade, an estimated 10 to 15 million Africans were transported to the European colonies in the Americas. Of these, over 3.5 million were taken to Brazil…”  Even though the last Brazilian monarch Pedro II ended slavery in 1850, Brazil was the last country to abolish slavery, and it was because Britain was putting a great deal of pressure on all countries to abolish slavery during that time.

This is a perfect example of Global Capitalism and how despite each country having its own political power, one country can hold enough power to influence the decisions of all the others. That is why I believe that although Scotland may believe that gaining independence from the United Kingdom will give them more governmental power and allow them to take control of things such as currency, oil and postage, the British government will always have a sort of looming influence over their decisions. Through the geographical proximity, historical and existing trade and economic ties, cultural linkages and membership in the European Union, British influence will be maintained.

The global to local link that comes to mind is Quebec’s quest for separation. It has been an ongoing issue even from before Canada was formed, and continues to be one of the most controversial topics in Canadian politics today. Even though they want complete separation from Canada in terms of government and status, they want all the goods that come with having their economy and borders linked to ours. Therefore no matter how much they try to separate from Canada, Canada will always have that historical overhead of power over Quebec which would linger on throughout their newfound independent state.

With the results of the Scottish referendum trickling in and the official results to be announced in an hour or so, I cannot wait to see what is going to come of this vote and how it will change the way we view national identity. Just as September 7^th 1822 is an important date that marks the separation of Brazil from Portugal, September 18^th 2014 is going to be a date our children will see in their history textbooks.  The question this referendum has brought to mind is, as our world becomes more globalized and countries are becoming reliant on trade with other countries to sustain their economy, how will borders be defined in the future, and is there really such a thing as a truly independent country?

–Meghan Cheung