Dionne Brand captivatingly reveals the conflicted nature of hyphenated identities in our multicultural society through a beautiful, poetic prose. Brand’s way of portraying her characters’ individualities, and eccentricities, whilst also revealing their unattractive characteristics such as frustration, anger and confusion is an effective way of illustrating a relatable reality. Literary discourses that compare extreme individuals, one almost perfectly good and the other pure evil, is ineffective in capturing realistic characters. By her conflicted characters, Brand is able to paint a bigger picture where the reader is left to analyze the character’s personalities, the various influences, and burdens that impacted the characters to have left them so angry, or frustrated. Her style of characterization serves as a tool of understanding these characters compassionately, and relating to them.

Brand’s central theme is identity constructions in a globalizing society. She attempts to demonstrate what its like to live in the hyphen, and how it affects people’s personalities. She captures the significance of labeling and how people choose to identify with particular labels, and the ways in which people construct themselves around these labels. Tuyen’s embarrassment and shame directed towards her parents carries an underlying implication of identity construction. She isn’t directly ashamed of her roots, but the various connotations and labels her roots carry. Shame correlated to her identity results in generational division, and loss of culture. Her internalized shame comes from external influences. Traumatized by exclusion, and labeling, she drives herself from individuality, and prefers to stand with the crowd, no matter what the situation is. During the World Cup, she passes by Korea Town, and finds herself supporting the Korean team, and says that she is Korean for a day. This shows how she is easily absorbed by mob mentality, and this characteristic of hers is embedded in her sensitivity to being labeled and feeling excluded. Brand instrumentally, and subtly portrays Tuyen’s conflicted identity through her daily preferences. Though her father owns a Vietnamese restaurant, Tuyen prefers western food, especially milk and potatoes. Someone in class mentioned that her preference for these white colored foods could be interpreted as her way of identifying with the dominant white culture, even though her body physically rejects milk. Another example would be of how she is angered by the fact that her family doesn’t cook at home and have proper dinners. She longs to have the conventional family ritual of dining, and interprets that there is something wrong with her family because they don’t follow this ritual. Through her longing of the dining ritual, she also longs for communication with her parents. She is frustrated by her parents’ silence, and lack of communication. Her mother is insomniac, and has an excessive behavior of obsession with reserving documents related to their identities. Instead of feeling compassionate towards her mother, and understanding that her mother’s obsession with documents is probably an outcome of a traumatizing event, she is frustrated and angered by various behaviors her parents have.

Dionne Brand offers us a rather different approach in voicing the immigrants. However extreme, and subjective, I think that she accurately portrays what its like to live in the hyphen. Though I can’t directly relate to immigrant life, and being traumatized by labeling, I can easily relate to a hyphenated identity. When people ask me where I am from, though I answer with no hesitation that I am from Mongolia, I think the label “Mongolian” doesn’t fully represent my identity. Growing up in an international school my whole life, I was often excluded from the Mongolian identity because of my strong western influences. I can’t even confidently claim Mongolian as my mother language because I’m not as fluent at it as a typical Mongolian, but I can’t claim English as my mother language either. In addition, I was heavily influenced by Russian culture and language whilst growing up, and it is embedded in my identity. I prefer to label myself as a global citizen, however the label also undermines my individuality. In the sense that I can’t fully identify to any particular label, and that I am a hyphenated identity, I can easily relate to Brand’s characters. The collision between generations is also something I think anyone can relate to. My parents grew up in a communist society, in addition to being only 2 generations away from our indigenous/nomadic influences. Though they successfully adapted to democracy and its ideologies, their characters are still heavily entrenched in conservative, and culturally subjective perceptions. Due to this, I sometimes struggle to understand my parents, and vice versa. However, because I understand their personalities well, where they are coming from, what their intentions are, and what they signify and mean, we come to a mutual understanding eventually. As regard to roots, and inheritance, I am proud of my background, because I know its what makes me different. However it’s easy for me to accept my individuality and express it because I wasn’t excluded or labeled for it whilst growing up, whereas Brand’s characters are very sensitive to this.

In history class, we recently viewed an Australian movie that astonishingly captures a personal tale of colonisation. Rabbit-Proof Fence remarkably captures the devastating effects of colonialism, revealing an elaborate insight of an individual’s understandings of things happening around them, and instinctively building defence mechanisms and ways of dealing with oppression. The main character, Molly, is an innocent child with powerful agency who, striving for freedom of oppression, was able to achieve her goal through restless resistance. Her character effectively portrays the importance of resistance, illuminating the power agency. Molly’s character significantly sparks the watcher’s own sense of agency, and resistance.

With that being said, this movie is an excellent work of art that reminds us of the importance of arts in cultivating the collective imagination. It is through arts that people “re-charge” their own sense of agency, and power, simultaneously fostering their capacity of imagination, and power of understanding others- compassion. Though people have trouble understanding each other because they are captured by their differences, and not similarities, it is through imagination that we are able to see through these differences. Ultimately, coming to realization that these differences are simply socially constructed ideas, and in the end all humans are more alike than different. What is not available in the collective imagination cannot suddenly realize itself, and the arts is what triggers the incentive to imagine what could be. Artists, in all forms- writers, visual artists, musicians- stimulates, excites and appeals something collective in all of us. It is the ultimate catalyst, and source of nurturing the collective imagination.

This made me think of the question of genocide that we have been also discussing in anthropology and history. Is it genocide if it happened unintentionally? However unintentionally carried out, the devastating consequences it entailed was inevitable, and in the end what matters is the outcome. Focusing on intention only misdirects us from what actually matters, and serves the sides that need to take the blame. Psychological analysis of denial, and defence mechanisms can be clearly demonstrated here. The colonisers desperately seek to justify themselves, and defend themselves in every way possible because they are still in denial. It is not that simple for acceptance to override denial with the heavy burden of guilt, especially when the colonisers is a collective group. What we must focus on is reconciliation, rather than quarrelling in the ultimately unimportant question of genocide. Because in the end, focusing on the question of genocide will negatively serve the collective state of denial. However, scholarly questioning of course in the end serves good, because raising such questions will help the collective mentality to come to understanding each side of story, and realize that it is simply an unfortunate series of events, rather than seeking someone to blame. In conclusion, it is essential to keep in mind not to lose focus on what actually matters, which is the effect rather than cause, whilst attempting to understand the natures of the causes.

Three Day Road is a powerful account of two friends numbed by the horrors and cruelties of warfare. Boyden gaudily and instrumentally portrays themes such as self-conflict, inferiority, competitiveness, culture clash, and impact of a childhood trauma. What intrigued me the most was how well his imagination painted the clash between the Aboriginals and the wemistikoshiw, as if he experienced everything himself. I could feel and understand every single character’s emotions, and thoughts because he painted it so vividly. Though Boyden’s diction is rather simplistic, how he joins figurative language and symbols to let us see through Niska’s and Xavier’s eyes is very rich and creative. This also allows him to express many indigenous traditions and ways of life- an interesting insight into aboriginal’s mentalities and how the clash of cultures affects them.

Because I would like to discuss several significant observations I made whilst reading the novel, I don’t want to simply answer 1 question from the list. Rather I would like to analyze the 3 major characters in the novel, and this would allow me to cover several of the questions.

Analysis of Characters

Xavier is the second to last person alive from his bloodline of windigo killers (medicine men/ healers), who are also the spiritual leaders of their tribes responsible of foretelling the future and taking necessary precautions from whatever the future holds to protect their tribes. Xavier seems to have intuitive, excellent observational skills and abilities to understand people’s insights. It is evident that he has intuitive powers throughout the novel e.g. when he instinctively followed the call of the grouse out to the playground (which was Niska). Xavier is also very spiritual and seeks/ believes in universal signs and warnings all around him; Elijah criticizes this. Xavier barely knows his mother, Rabbit, who became an alcoholic and gave him away to the nuns at the residential school. Niska came to save him when he was 3-4 winters old, and he chose to leave with her without hesitation. Niska then raised him in the bushes, teaching him of his cultural knowledge and ways of life. They moved closer to the Cree when he was old enough to want friends, and he went to search for his best friend from residential school- Elijah. Elijah then comes to visit Niska and Xavier very often to hunt, and play with Xavier, and the two kids grow up together. They make a decision to fight for the army, and though it was probably Elijah’s idea and desire to join the army, Xavier’s character doesn’t let his best friend leave alone.

Elijah, on the other hand, grew up in a residential school, after losing his mother, and he barely knows his father. After spending his whole childhood and teenage hood at a residential school, he is more conflicted than Xavier. Elijah has natural talent for tongues, and is easily adapted to residential school, and the wemistikoshiw’s culture and language, as opposed to Xavier. Elijah “lives for what the day will bring” (52) according to Xavier. Throughout the whole novel, conflicts of competitiveness between the best friends develop into bitter resentment and eventually lead us to the climax of the novel. Though Xavier is better in the bush than Elijah (mentioned several times by Xavier himself, and this reveals Xavier’s competitiveness as well). Elijah has a restrained relationship with Xavier, and his esteem is based in large part on his competitiveness with Xavier. They are both trying to prove themselves and their value to the wemistikoshiws around them because the wemistikoshiw makes them feel inferior and worthless, and the fact that they are trying to prove their worthiness to the wemistikoshiw is what divides/ separates them from each other, and poisons their friendship. Xavier mentions several times that he is a better shot than Elijah, but Elijah is a better killer. Xavier says, “I’m a good shooter but I don’t have the killing instinct for men” (138). Through the beginning of the novel we already sense Elijah’s aggression, and sadistic motives. An example of this would be when he shoots the bloated stomach of a dead horse just because he felt like shooting. This is very contradicting with the indigenous traditions of dealing with animals- e.g. how Niska’s father kills a hibernating bear out of desperation of surviving a harsh winter and prays to the bear and calls him “a fellow spiritual brother” and says that nothing of this bear can be wasted. This shows how Elijah is distant from his culture, and “the Indian inside him” truly seems to have been killed by the residential school. Elijah also developed “immoral” intentions from an earlier age when he stole the nun’s rifle and enjoyed shooting with it, and how he enjoyed hunting. Though some might argue that his enjoyment of hunting is cultural and “in his blood”, but Xavier says that, “No Indian religion in him. The only Indian Elijah wants to be is the Indian that knows to hide and hunt” (137). He also mentions that stealing the rifle from the nurse “is a small payment for her always wanting to bathe me” (267).

The memory of him saying that is described by Niska, and she says, “those words echoed in my head days afterwards” (267). She also makes an observation about the 2 boys shooting with the rifle, “Your shooting competitions were friendly but serious” (268). She then further remembers young Elijah asking Xavier why Niska calls him “nephew” and when Xavier replied that his name is “nephew”, Elijah says, “Your Christian name is Xavier”. Niska expands on this, “He did not say it meanly. I could tell from his voice that the boy was simply trying to understand” (268). This demonstrates his early confusion of identity. The significance of Niska’s role and narration in the novel can be demonstrated here. Boyden offers a third perspective and an observer of the two friends and their friendship, and because she witnessed both of them grow up, she provides us with additional important background information about the two friends that give us more understanding of the characters. She is also an important role in representing a lot of the indigenous cultures and traditions in the novel, as well as giving us a detailed background of their family, and the families division and separation. In addition to that, Niska’s character also offers us an aboriginal woman’s perspective on culture clash and self-conflict.

Back to analyzing Elijah’s character- in the beginning of the novel, Thompson asks Elijah if he enjoys killing and Elijah answers, “It’s in my blood.” Xavier is left to feeling excluded because Thompson doesn’t ask him the same question and Xavier is left to wonder, “How am I different?” This was the first important distinction between the friends that foreshadowed Elijah’s character development. Elijah used language to get Xavier in trouble, even since they were in residential school, to this day in the army. I believe that language was somehow the symbol of destruction and division in this novel. Elijah always abused his power with language to boost up his esteem and prove himself to be better than Xavier. And misunderstanding through the barrier of language is what led to Xavier killing Elijah- the letter from Niska that was translated, as “Kill Elijah is you have to, do what you got to do to come back.” But somehow this intervenes with the obligations of windigo killers of killing those who suffer from their misery and from Niska’s narrations these windigos often drive people to engage in cannibal activities. By the end of the novel, Elijah is a morphine addicted, heartless murderer and a cannibal, and is completely insane. Xavier kills his best friend to kill his windigos, continuing his aunt’s practices. Niska once mentions, “I am a healer, nor a murderer. To heal you need to cut out the sickness” (264). However, I am sure some will argue that Xavier killing Elijah was the consequence of his built up bitterness of feeling inferior to Elijah throughout the whole 20 years they together served in the war. I would argue that’s not true because throughout the whole novel, though there are a few cases where Xavier compares himself to Elijah, there are no negative thoughts towards Elijah- all his intentions towards his friend is positive, and protective. He once even observes his friend and says that Elijah is “beautiful like an animal” (231). He thinks about Elijah on his “three day road” to death and says, “If Elijah comes back to me, and he will help me… We will fight together again, against this medicine that consumes us, I will pull him from the war madness that swallowed him whole” (270). Speaking of the “three day road”, the symbolism of three is represented throughout the whole novel and every time it is correlated with death and because the number three has great significance in Christian beliefs, and Xavier mentions this among with list of things that are represented in three that all have to do with war, destruction and death- Boyden is implying that Christianity, and the Church was cause and representation of death and evil.

Elijah’s name and its meaning has great significance in the novel and in his character development. Trickster- “the one who takes different forms at will” is his fundamental characteristic. Elijah can change personalities, and fool everyone around him whenever he needs to- “He never lost his ability to talk. Fooled everyone that he wasn’t mad with his talk, but he could never fool me,” Xavier says. Also when Elijah first jokes about eating German’s meat, Xavier noticed “the gleam of the trickster in his eyes” (310).

Prior to starting Three Day Road by Joseph Boyden, we watched a documentary called “It’s Time” by CBC. The documentary touches on several issues at hand, as well as provides a background history of the First Nations. The documentary discusses the foundation of Canada, and the aboriginal people’s impact on the formation and establishment of Canada. They weren’t conquered by the European colonisation- they signed treaties to share their land and uniting together to form Canada both parties agreed to benefit from each other. Promised to be provided with shelter, health care and all the possible benefits of being a Canadian citizen in negotiation of their land, the aboriginal population joined in hand with the settlers.

From the documents by the Indigenous Foundations, I learnt the significance of the Indian Act. The Indian Act was based on the assumption that in order to function within Canada, the Aboriginal peoples needed to adopt a “Canadian identity” and abandon their cultures and traditions. Colonial mentality interpreted the Indians culture and way of life as “primitive” and “savage” and they need the direct intervention and direction of the government in order to function as a part of “civil” society. The Indian Act is a legislation that legally defines the identity of an Indian. Consequently, the Act created a conceptual framework for understanding the identity of Aboriginals affecting both the mainstream society’s intake and interpretation of them as well as affecting the Aboriginals understanding of their own identity. The Indian Act has so many unsettling parts to it, such as the two-generation cutoff mechanism that was enforced by the government onto the Aboriginal population. Also the sex discriminational law of losing your status as an Aboriginal if you marry a non-aboriginal. These kinds of oppressive laws enforced in the Indian Act was a tactful way of racial engineering by the government. The Indian Act has significantly impacted the Aboriginal population in their search for identity, and status within the Canadian society. However, even though the Indian Act is an oppressive piece of legislation, it is also the only legal document that recognises the Aboriginals and gives them distinct identity within Canada, as well as distinct rights.

An unsettling and a subtle message expressed in the documentary that caught my attention was how they kept correlating the Aboriginal population to the economic development of Canada. The host of the documentary, an Indian himself, kept mentioning the importance of the Aboriginals in the contribution to the economic development of the country, and how there is potential 300 billion dollars to be gained through the Aboriginals because a lot of Asian countries rely on Canada for resources, and to transfer these resources, they need Aboriginal people’s help because they are transferred through Indian lands. Though the documentary positively portrays the Aboriginals, their agency, development and their place within today’s society, it seemed to me as if the host of the documentary, as well as the former Prime Minister Paul Martin were trying to prove the Aboriginals worth and their value through the economical benefits they can gain from the Aboriginals. Paul Martin also mentions how Canada is competing with economically developing countries such as India and China, and these countries have populations of billions whereas Canada has 34 million people, and that Canada can’t afford to waste a single talent. He also mentions how Aboriginal young population is growing 6 times faster then other populations. I found the former prime minister to be very capitalist/ neoliberal, and as if he cares only about economically benefitting from the Aboriginal population. The major intention of this documentary was to demonstrate to the public that “It’s Time” for Aboriginals and the rest of Canada to come in partnership and to develop together as a unified nation, and it disturbs me how they have to prove themselves and their worth by providing economic evidence of how they can contribute to the development of Canada.

Another very disturbing part of the documentary was the therapy session, and educating farmers about Aboriginal background and understanding them. The two farmers that were offended about this, and were very self-defensive in the end were changed and influenced because they were more educated about the whole situation. This demonstrates how the mass works- they don’t even have the full story straight, and based off of the very limited view they have on an issue they are so eager to come to conclusions and have strong biased opinions. And it is the government’s fault here for not incorporating the Aboriginals history and background in the public education system just because it is not their proudest part of history- it is a dark secret people avoided addressing for generations. It also shocked me when the high school students said that they were clueless, because personally coming from an IB school, I was revealed to all parts of world history and thankfully none bias education. This got me thinking about education systems, and how they shape mentalities of today’s global citizens (I say this because of today’s multicultural international society). In todays society where information/knowledge and the whole world is available to most people at a hand’s reach with the dominating influence of the internet and social media, the educational systems must focus their energies more in what kind of mentalities they are reproducing, and how that shapes the student’s character rather than only focusing on providing factual information/education. I guess what I mean to say is educational systems must train their students how to think, and not what to think.

Whilst reading The Handmaid’s Tale, I have reflected on and analysed over several significant themes and ideas represented in the novel, and their projections onto today’s society. Margaret Atwood offers us an extensive, “feminist” and a realistic (meaning highly correlated with real life issues/ strong contextual influence) take on the dystopian vision other prominent authors have warned us about before. The Handmaid’s Tale strongly influenced by George Orwell’s 1984, shares similar themes and ideas of the mechanisms, and tactful exercises used by totalitarian governments in order to maintain their power and brainwash over their people.

George Orwell’s envision of the future was inspired by the aftermath of the second World War, and its strongly impacted paranoia of the Communist influence on the democratic free spirit of the US. Margaret Atwood on the other hand envisioned a future of a totalitarian society that could have possibly been the consequence of the increasing power of the religious right wing politics, correlating their ideologies to the current (at the time) social injustices, and social issues regarding the roles of women in society.

In the article ‘Just a Backlash’ Shirley Neuman quotes Atwood, “Am I a propagandist? No! Am I an observer of society? Yes! And no one who observes society can fail to make observations that are feminist. That is just… common sense.”  I could not have agreed more with Atwood on this and how this correlates to the label feminist. The label itself is so extreme, and carries so many implications and connotations, same as all labels and stereotypes, and reading this from the article reminded me of how we have to be very critical and careful when using labels and stereotypes. Atwood also said that she invented nothing in Gilead, and that everything she envisioned is a potential extension of the real world we live in. Neuman further provided a lot of real life evidence relating to the oppression of women e.g. women being forced out of universities, out of their jobs, and back into their homes in Afghanistan in 1984. Another significant correlation Neuman made was how a right winged spokeswoman Phyllis Schlafly in the 80’s is identified as the prototype of the Aunts and/or Serena Joy from the novel.

Backing away from the context of the novel, as mentioned before, Atwood incorporates a lot of significant themes and ideas about the tyrannical tendencies and oppressive mechanisms used by governments to brainwash and control their people. Similar to 1984, psychological manipulation is the fundamental bases of a totalitarian society. The psychological stimuli they enforce on their people is designed in a way that it overwhelms the mind’s capacity for independent thought. Using various of propaganda to constantly stimulate the minds of the people with their ideologies and practices, and further controlling them by constant surveillance (+ physical control), they completely occupy the minds of the people that there is no space for them to think and develop independent thoughts. On top of that, fear reigns over and clouds the people’s mentality. When the people are constantly occupied with everyday issues, and daily dealings with the oppression of the regime, they are being distracted from the moralities, and essences of their lives. And speaking of dealing with their daily oppressions, the theme of exercising and abusing what power an individual has over their lives to comfort their oppression is raised. As demonstrated through Offred, “loosening some of the rules” and being able to exercise somewhat power she has comforts the character’s fighting spirit and it leads to her growing content with her oppressive life. These practices of somewhat power of individuals leads to selfishness and leading to division between different groups of people, limiting unity of any sort and that is one of the greatest dangers of a totalitarian society; people being unable to unite.

Another correlation between The Handmaid’s Tale and 1984 is how totalitarian societies control information and history. By filtering out everything that people know, they enable the passage of true knowledge to the future generations, and completely re-creating the reality. By controlling the present, they are able to control the past, and by controlling the past they are able to justify their actions in the present. Another major theme present in both novels, and a theme that both authors can’t stress enough is the importance of language. In both dystopias, the government fully controls the language used by the people. Language is the central structure, the fundamental catalyst to human thought because it structures and limits the ideas that individuals are capable of formulating and expressing. Language being a major political agency, the regime makes it impossible to even conceive of disobedient or rebellious thought because the people are unable to even imagine it, and further even put into words. Lastly, the theme of “doublethink” present in 1984 is also present in The Handmaid’s Tale; everyone is the novel seems very self-conflicted and confused about their opinions. Even the architect of Gilead, the Commander himself is a victim of his own society, constantly searching for companionship and intimacy while preaching the importance of arranged marriage, and rejecting ideas of romance. He is also blind to the moralities of his own actions, and his hypocritical and corrupted actions such as engaging in recreational entertainments at Jezebel’s.

As much as I hate to admit this; I am a proud IB student, and one of the most important things I learnt from IB is to always write reflection on everything I am learning/ learnt. This helps me understand how my academic life relates and helps me with my personal life, and gives me a chance to express my appreciation and gratitude towards my teachers (not trying to suck up).

Though I am not a big fan of sci-fi or alien movies, I must admit I enjoyed District 9. The movie starts off as a mockumentary in order to expose the context of the story. Then it develops into a more or less conventional movie interrupted a few times with news reports, or interviews throughout. As we discussed in class, the movie touches on very important themes such as “othering”, apartheid, xenophobia and biopolitics.

Apartheid is a system of legal segregation of law and society, and is an extension of colonial practices. It is not coincidental that the movie was based in Johannesburg, South Africa, where there is history of colonial violence (and slavery) between the British and original Dutch colonizers. The white minority ruled over the black majority, and though not as slaves, but in all social, political ways. This was to blame the National Party of South Africa, who were the dominant party since 1948 until 1994.

“Othering” is a practice of “us vs. them” system where one feels entitled to, or just is a part of an exclusive clan, without any real understanding of what is really happening. We can see this in District 9, when the main character, Wikus, is an ordinary middle-class worker who is doing his job without questioning the authorities, or without doubting the ethics of his work. Wikus is a representation of the typical working class; the majority of this society who simply follows orders and does what they have to do in order to earn and provide for themselves and their families. It is not their fault, because they were not brought up to question and reflect on the social and political matters of life. We do not have much power and will in our lives if we look at it from this point of view, because the “most” available public educational system for the majority of our society is not adequate in preparing and producing open-minded, reflective, compassionate, principled thinkers. And the deceiving, brainwashing media does not help in anyway, but even further contributes to blindfolding the collective imagination.

I thought that Distirct 9 profoundly represented our society’s corrupt, and selfish authorities. A lot of the time, actually majority of the time, our governments have some selfish intention in intervention and colonization. One of the first official colonizations, the colonizing of the New World, however sworn by the Papal authority that the colonization was most importantly because they were “saving” the barbaric savages and giving them law and order and religion, we all know that they simply wanted all the endless resources from the New World, including the people, whom they saw as resources too. The intervention of the States in the Middle East also was solely dependent on the available oil and opium, in my opinion. And yes I am somewhat a conspiracy theorist, but that’s besides the point. The point is that, from the beginning of history, the more powerful exclusive clans, and only more powerful in terms of machinery and army force, have inhumanely and brutally just taken over and forcefully taken everything they needed from the other clan. They do so in the name of just war, however is it really just when the other country has no equal power in fighting. In this case, the authoritative government, MNU, simply wanted to adopt the aliens’ machinery.

There are so many things I would like to discuss here but won’t because my view is very extreme and might offend some people. But I just want people to consider and reflect on everything that is going on around us- question the intention of all biopolitical industries. Who or which political party, which authoritative figure is behind every news channel, and newspaper and what are their intentions? Why and how does only 1% of the world has majority of the wealth whilst the 99% lives in the shadow? How much does the pharmaceutical industries make, and where does all the money go? (I don’t even believe ADHD is a real thing) Why is there GMO’s in majority of the food we eat? I could go on forever.

In conclusion, please don’t trust the media. Actually just abstaining from media is probably the best solution to having an uninfluenced, unbiased and a healthy mentality. Always question and reflect on everything you are told. And always be compassionate and understanding towards people, and try to understand where they are coming from, why they are the way they are, rather than straight away judging or blaming.

And if you have instagram follow- seekthetruth and standup911.

After reading Democratic Citizenship and the Narrative Imagination by Martha C. Nussbaum I learnt that a) “The people do need novels and dramas and paintings and poems, because they will be called upon to vote.” And b) literature is a major moral/ ethical guidance for society. Although I always knew that literature was important, I never put too much thought into how indispensable it is in society; not only literature, but also all the arts. Visual arts is an art I personally grew up close too, and this essay got me thinking- what is the role of visual arts and how significant is it?

I have recently visited the Morris and Helen Belkin Art Gallery on campus and they are displaying an exhibition of artworks that were created by the victims of Indian Residential Schools. Witnesses is a remarkable collection of artworks aimed to contribute to the education of public about the residential schools and to illustrate the inhumane and brutal misdeeds that were done to innocent children.

There were two short films, which were rather abstract. One of them showed an Indian girl who was taken away from her mother and put into school- the mother mourns and desperately cries while her daughter is forced to wear a uniform and cut her hair (hair is very symbolic and meaningful in the Indian culture). Suddenly, the classroom full of kids with zombie make-up and identical uniforms and haircuts start to dance robotically. The second movie simply showed an Indian woman bathing a Caucasian woman- perhaps a servant. Throughout the whole movie they are silently sitting there, one being washed and the other washing- and with a build up of emotions the Indian woman quietly starts to cry and little by little the mourning gets worse and the cries become more and more emotional. The collection of artworks all told stories of their own, and with the descriptions of the artworks, the viewer is able to understand the content and the story behind each artwork. There were stories of rapes, gang rapes, and physical beatings. There were a few paintings, and mostly simpler drawings that used pastels and pencils. The use of such media, and the illustrative almost cartoon like styles were perhaps to re-create the memories through a child’s vision. I thought it was more effective how such cruel stories were illustrated through a child’s vision in an innocent and symbolic manner instead of a realistic and gruesome manner. Witnesses addresses many of the problems and harms caused by the residential schools; rape, beating, destruction of families, minimalizing individuality and “robotizing” children, loss of culture and identification… The list goes on forever and it utterly depresses me to think further of the psychological harms done to them, having to move and live on after witnessing such inhumanity, having to go through life after having been robbed of your childhood, and even robbed of your identity.

Similar in aim as literature, through visual arts the “silenced” and the “excluded” people of society get a chance to be heard. Behind every great piece of art, there is a context, a story behind it- the artist either wants to send a message or express their feelings. The artists of this world, a musician, a writer, or a painter, they drive and shape the society by challenging society’s perception. An example of this would be Cubism- a turning point in modern art, completely changed the way society looked at things. Pop art, though rather shallower, too drove society into today’s eccentric pop culture we are familiar with. Da Vinci is a relevant example- through his drawings and notes a number of inventions and discoveries were made. Art is a way to preserve history- one of the most important roles of art. On more internal and personal bases, art is very therapeutic. Art gave an opportunity for the witnesses of residential schools to come to peace with their past- through art they faced the darkest part of their lives, and when an artist faces a memory or a thought and takes it out through brush strokes and colors they feel release (I don’t know how to put this into words)- it is a process of letting go, and coming to peace. I can’t stress enough about the psychological needs of a human to practice art- the power of imagination! Also like Nussbaum mentions about the significance of literature for kids as a moral guidance, visual arts is also a moral and an emotional guidance.

The “earth” without “art” is just “eh”!

“Letter from Birmingham Jail” was written in 1963 by Martin Luther King in response to a public statement of concern written by eight religious white leaders. The purpose of the letter was to first of all to explain to the readers that black people are not going to give up fighting for their rights after so long and also to try and reasonably explain, while appealing to the readers emotion, that the laws the white men are protecting and expressing a great deal of anxiety over are not the Gods natural laws, but man made.

To effectively express his ideas and opinions in this letter, Martin Luther King uses multiple of techniques. In order to win the trust of the reader, he uses the rhetoric ethos. From the beginning of the letter he says that the men he is responding to are “men of genuine goodwill” and needless to mention, politeness is maintained throughout the whole letter. This shows his character, his ethical appeal. Another thing he mentions in the first paragraph of the letter is how he has no time to reply to criticism and he mentions his secretaries- this demonstrates how he is a man of somewhat power and he does not have time to reply to most people however he will respond to this- also contributes to ethos and his character.

Another rhetoric he used throughout the letter is pathos. Starting from paragraph 4 he starts explaining why the Negros can not “wait” anymore. He uses descriptive language (“”stinging arts of segregation”), diction, metaphors and many more techniques in order to appeal to the emotions of the readers. In order to draw out sympathy and understanding from the reader Martin Luther King uses vicious, raw yet real stories. “…and we stull creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward the gaining of a cup of coffee at a lunch counter”- even the daily regular gesture of getting coffee is challenging for the colored. This is a propaganda techniques called “Plain Folks” and is used when the writer wants to be identified with the common people of the community and seem as if he is “just another person”. To appeal even more to the emotions of the reader, he tells these horrible examples from the readers point of view so that the reader imagines these things happening to them- “When you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will drown your sisters and brothers at whim, when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick, brutalize, and even kill your black brothers and sisters with impunity…” another purpose of this section is perhaps to trigger the colored, and drive their emotions even more so everybody is brave and willing to fight for their power. He also says that his “twenty million Negro brothers” are being smothered in an airtight cage of poverty- builds a sense of togetherness, unity. At one point the letter reads, “The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jet like speed towards the goal of political independence, and we still creep…” I thought this was to spark fear in the readers minds because he is comparing his nation, America, to other nations and of course given the history of America a lot Americans are competitive.

From the second section of the letter he starts to focus more on reasoning (logos) rather than try to drive out emotions from the reader. In attempt to reason with the white religious leaders, he pulls in many references to the bible. He explains that they are all equal in the eyes of the God, and that all just laws are “uplifting for the human personality”. He also mentions that he would also openly advocate disobeying anti-religious laws if he was suppressed of his religion, and help his Jewish friends no matter what the law says if he was in Germany during WW2 because there is moral laws, and the man written laws have proved themselves to be unreliable in the past. Towards the end of the letter, I sensed that he gets a little more aggressive than before- he says that he is completely fearless in fighting for justice, and at some point he mentions that the colored people have been here before the Pilgrims, and before the Declaration of Independence- they were there from the beginning- “we were here…” “If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands…” Note that every time he says something that is a bit extreme, or might be offensive or the reader might disagree he ends his sentences with “…”

In conclusion, Martin Luther King uses multiple of propaganda and rhetoric techniques in order to effectively communicate his beliefs.