Yee-haw. Welcome back to the final instalment of A Tip From Nick. Today finally brought with it great weather and lots of sunshine, something that was in dire need for many students. I spent as much time as possible outside to soak up some Vitamin D! Today in class we began watching ‘American Sniper’, a war film by Clint Eastwood that follows the life of US Sniper Chris Kyle. The movie is interesting in its portrayal of Post 9/11 war, specifically I find in the way the enemy is portrayed. However, thats not what I want to talk about in this blog. Instead, I want to bring attention to one of my favourite quotes from the film.

While in a bar, Kyle approaches a woman, who makes the mistake of claiming a ‘Texan’ and a ‘Redneck’ were the same thing. Kyle wittily replies with “Texan’s ride horses, Redneck’s ride their cousins.”. An incest joke, yes, but wait. What makes Kyle so insistent that a Texan is separate from a group of people associated entirely with the Southern United States?

I immediately thought of the phrase ‘everything’s bigger in Texas’, a line that many Texans hold dear to. It seems Texas, in its size and grandeur, has created occupants that find themselves mighty important. The mentality that Texas is different, and not only different but superior was seen as early as the Civil War, and as of the late 90’s has revived itself within the Texan population. In fact, in 2016 we saw the Texas government just barely avoid a resolution for a secession from the United States.

It seems that Confederate blood still runs strong within its borders. After all, it was the outcome of the Civil War which first created the desire to secede. Texas, a strong believer in confederate Ideals, remained rebellious even after the war, going as far as to refuge wanted confederate war criminals. Since then, it has shaped itself into a self proclaimed ‘Cowboy State’, creating images such as the ‘Texas Ranger’, often pictured in solitude. While the Civil War is long gone, as with it the majority of the support for secession, there is still a surprisingly large group of people who believe Texas should be its own independent entity. This is prevalent in a slogan first coined in the late 1990’s in tourist advertisements: “Texas. It’s basically its own country”. Much like Quebec, those for secession in Texas are angered by old wounds. Confederate thinking is still rampant in some parts of Texas, and if it isn’t explicitly present, it makes itself known in the way which Texan’s view themselves as ‘separate’ from the rest of America.

American Sniper portray’s Chris Kyle as this type of Texan; one that, while patriotic, holds Texas above everything else. In a scene in which Kyle’s living quarters in Iraq is shown, a large Texas flag is hung over his bed. While he fights for America, and aligns himself with its ideals entirely, it is clear that his Texan roots make him consider himself unique from the other Americans around him.

Hey everyone, and welcome back to another Tip from Nick.

As Professor Luger said at the beginning of this week, we have hit the ‘home stretch’. Lots of essay’s, midterms, and studying… you name it, its been piled up at our doorstep. The sun will soon be shining and it will be beautiful outside; allow yourself some breaks from writing to explore the beautiful Vancouver springtime, it will help tremendously with your mental state.

This week we have been covering a paper written by Alie Bedhad, titled “Critical Historicism”. In his writing, Alie mentions a term he calls ‘historical amnesia’, something that is prevalent in the United States but that also happens in many Western countries. Bedhad finds that historical amnesia is “a cultural form of repudiation that works through projection and denial.” (Bedhad 290). Alie is writing predominantly in the context of immigration and middle eastern treatment within the United States, however, I was inspired to find other cases in the history which mimic the idea of historical amnesia.

The first thing that came to mind was genocide. Specifically, the Cambodian genocide. I write about the Cambodian Genocide not because it is not known now, or similarly because it is isn’t seen as genocide by people today. What made me think primarily about the Cambodian genocide was how western academics and political officials responded to the stories and events surrounding the atrocities. But first, a little background into the genocide itself.

The Cambodian genocide occured during the mid 1970’s, when a communist faction that called themselves the ‘Khmer Rouge’ took power and ordered the immediate evacuation of all major cities. A strict and viciously violent government had taken control, and immediately began to kill anyone who was either:

a) already educated. this included anyone in the health and social realm (doctors, lawyers) as well as students, and, most shockingly, anyone who wore glasses.

b) against the Khmer Rouge in any way. There was virtual no room for any kind of protest against the orders of this government. It was follow the rules or be killed.

c) Someone from within a city. Although these people were not explicitly killed, many were moved to settlements which were essentially prison camps with gruelling amounts of hard labour which eventually lead to death.

The Khmer Rouge kept extremely strict control over media; both incoming and outgoing, and as a result only refugees escaping Cambodia and the official(but obviously biased) Khmer Rouge news source were the only indication of the ongoings of the country. The refugees, to no shock, did all they could to spread information and stories of the horrors they saw. It is the response of Western academia which shocked me the most.

Despite many first hand accounts by refugees as well as journalists who had seen the first days of Khmer Rouge rule before their expulsion, Most Western scholars disregarded, did not believe ,or were highly skeptical of a genocide occurring within Cambodia. In fact, many instead found that the Khmer Rouge would bring good to the country; that the Khmer Rouge was the answer to the poverty and instability tarnishing Cambodia after the Vietnam War. Those that were against American involvement in the containment of Communism worried it would negate their arguments, and as such vehemently denied that a genocide was taking place.

Even after a book released by John Barron and Anthony Paul, which gathered first hand reports from refugees, estimated that a whopping 1.5-3 million people had been killed by the hands of the Khmer Rouge, there was still much pushback to the idea of a genocide. In fact, this even went to a hearing at the United States National congress, in which a scholar who specialized in Cambodia was quoted to have said, “I cannot accept the premise … that 1 million people have been murdered systematically or that the Government of Cambodia is systematically slaughtering its people.”.

Today, photographic evidence, as well as recovered burial grounds and testimonies by both witnesses and Khmer Rouge members, have aided in the truth behind the Cambodian genocide to finally come out. However, there is still a disparity as to the true death toll; more-so, a belief that the original counts of at least 1.5 million killed were highly exaggerated.

This denial of the Cambodian genocide by scholars in both the United States and Europe is a prime example to the repudiation element of Behdads’ definition of historical amnesia. Be it through sheer disbelief of the tragic events, or from strategic denial to fit in with an agenda, the fact that the Cambodian genocide came incredibly close to being written out of history is frankly terrifying. Do we aim to write history as we want to remember it? Do we chose what and what didn’t happen, based on what works with our current ideologies? The answer should be no, but with the power of the nation to systematically erase an event from history, be it intentionally or not, I fear for the history books of the future.

What does it mean to have value? Who decides what is or isn’t valuable?

Welcome once again to another ‘Tip from Nick’, it is the 26th of January and the month of love ( and the much welcomed reading week) is just around the corner. These last two weeks in ASTU have been filled with discussion about The Reluctant Fundamentalist by Mohsin Hamid. This novel, perhaps my favourite of the assigned readings of both terms, Is one that leaves the reader with many open-ended questions and assumptions. Our main character, Changez, is a Pakistani native living in New York City. Having just completed his undergraduate at Princeton, Changez applies to work at Underwood Samson, one of America’s most esteemed valuation firms. At first excited and motivated to give his all to the company, Changez undergoes a transformation after the 9/11 attacks due in part to America’s racist view towards muslims due to a rising fear culture and its political policy towards India-Pakistan tensions.  However, another influencing factor in Changezs’ is his assignment to valuate a publishing company in Chile run by Juan Bautista. During a conversation over a meal, Bautista tells Changez his job at Underwood Samson is similar to that of a Janissary. In Changezs’ words, “I was a modern day Janissary, a servant of the American empire at a time when it was invading a country with kinship to mine and was perhaps even colluding to ensure that my own country faced the threat of war.” (pg.152).

Underwood Samson In my opinion can to a degree be representative of the power and strength of America’s voice (at the time a unipolar super-power) and stance on an international scale. In the novel, Underwood Samson’s valuations are what make or break a company’s chance to continue to thrive and compete in the business world, a position of power similarly held by the United States when it comes to both foreign and domestic policy. Of course, Underwood Samson is a fictional company, but I was curious to find a real world equivalent. After little searching, I settled upon one of the most well known and trusted business figures on the planet; Forbes Magazine.

Although it is not, in itself, strictly a valuation firm; it does hold power similar to that of Underwood Samson’s in the business sector. Forbes’ opinions and values are held in very high regard, so much so that it would not be radical to assume the majority of people take Forbes’ word regarding topics in the business world as downright factual. A strong example of this, one that led me to chose Forbes as Underwood Samson’s parallel company, is the ‘Forbes Global 2000’.

The Forbes Global 2000 is a list made by Forbes analysts which ranks the top 2000 companies on a global scale. While this is purely an interpretation based on publicly available information, holding a spot on this list is as prestigious as it gets in the business world.  Forbe’s view of the business world (pardon my analogy) is god; it holds power that is’t rivalled by any other competitor, and as such has the ability to dictate just how far a business can ‘make it’.

It is important not to forget that Forbes Magazine is an American company, and knowing this, is it really anything more than an extension foreign policy when it comes to the global market. It is thrusting the view of an American Empire out to the entire world, deftly manipulating the business sector through valuations they feel fit.

Perhaps this is one of the things Changez realizes about his work with Underwood Samson. By taking a job at Underwood Samson, was he really just a servant of America, comfortable in his Financial world to dictate how the lives of others will turn out.  As English Scholar Joseph Darda writes in his essay “Precarious World: Rethinking Global Fiction in Mohsin Hamid’s The Reluctant Fundamentalist”, “Changez has, in Chile, broken from the American frames of life that had earlier con- strained his “arc of vision.” (pg. 118). By throwing away his career in America and returning home, Changez show’s a resistance; a rebellion against a frame of mind that companies such as Underwood Samson and Forbes magazine push out to the rest of the world. One in which finances, opportunity, and wealth trump all else; a view on the world which Darda refers to as a “Fantasy of Mastery’, something in which valuations companies such as the ones above feel comfort and control in the power they hold.

Personally, I believe Changezs’ shift away from this ‘fantasy of mastery’ is one that is needed in the world today. While many see’s his actions as anti-American, I see them more as an anarchic stand against the American superpower, actions that decline American policy as the basis for our global infrastructures and markets. A hegemony(a global superpower) is something that should not be strived for, not if we aim for an egalitarian world, and The Reluctant Fundamentalist reflects this viewpoint. Luckily, the world is at a drastic point of change, and with the next couple years ahead with Trump at the helm of American politics, we will see just how much power companies like Forbes Magazine will really hold(or perhaps lose) on the global stage.

Hello friends,

Welcome back to the second term of ASTU! I hope everyone had a fantastic Christmas break and is energized and ready to work hard. Personally I just came down with some sort of illness which spared little symptom wise(even though I got my flu shot). It looks like a second wave of disease is passing around campus, so make sure to wash your hands plenty and dress warmly.

In our previous ASTU classes we have been reading and discussing the graphic novel Safe Area Goražde by Journalist Joe Sacco. This novel details the interviews, experiences, and recollections of Sacco during the Serbo-Bosnian War. Touching, extremely graphic, and at times humorous, it tells the story of the Enclave of Goražde, A UN designated safe zone during the war that is eventually cut off entirely from its home country of Bosnia, save for a small strip of road called the “blue road”. To access this road, a special pass was needed, and even then travel was done mostly with UN protective convoys. Residents of this enclave, many of whom would never have been able to obtain said passes to travel, were trapped in Goražde; their right of mobility taken away from them.

Mobility is a topic that comes up on multiple occasions in Safe Area Goražde, with many of the residents simply just wanting to be able to travel safely and freely again. It is a basic human right that is not usually taken into consideration when thinking about what the average person needs to be healthy both physically and mentally. While the restriction on Goraždes’ residents was without a doubt a traumatizing and debilitating feature of the Serbo-Bosnian War, I was spurred to look more into just how important mobility was by researching the most extreme version of mobility restriction: solitary confinement.

A search of the words ‘solitary confinement’ and ‘mental health’ brings up hundreds of results negatively portraying solitary confinement and its effects it has on the mind. The effects of mobility restriction and solitude, such as being placed in a small room alone with no outside access, has been researched by many top universities and schools, starting in around the mid 20th century. Research is difficult to conduct… as test subjects are needed, but two cases from the 1950’s really stood out to me as exactly how jeopardizing to the mental state solitary confinement can be.

During the mid-1950’s, a team from the University of Wisconsin held a trial in which a monkey’s were placed in a solitary confinement tank shaped like an upside-down pyramid to prevent the monkey’s from climbing out. After no more than 2 days, every test subject was found huddled in the corner of the tank in a hunched position. The monkeys were placed in the tank for different set periods of times, with the longest being a full year. Regardless of the time, all test subjects came out of the tank extremely disturbed, either staring blankly at spaces for long periods of time, pacing their cages, or even mutilating themselves. Most eventually recovered, save those that were in the tank for 12 months, who where completely socially obliterated.

In 1951, a different team from the University of McGill conducted a similar experiment in which human volunteers were placed in a small room with a bed and toilet and were given blindfolds, gloves, and earplugs to deprive the senses. The test was to last 6 weeks, but not a single volunteer was able to last more than 7 days, stating they could either no longer think clearly, or began to experience strong hallucinations.

There are countless other stories of solitary confinement, be it through  Prisoners of War, jailed prisoners, or kidnapped/tortured victims. In all cases, the mental state of mind is always severely affected, and causes numerous social problems.

Mobility seems to be something the average human being takes for granted; having never been a situation where it has been taken away, few know just how it can feel to have the space around you constricted for long periods of time. However, it seems to stand out as one of the ways that can most severely detriment the human mind. For the Residents of Goražde, who were confined to their village for numerous years, I cannot imagine just how anxiety-inducing, restrictive, and frustrating it must have felt to not be allowed to leave. Especially as Goražde was a very dangerous place for many Bosnians who merely wished to escape to safety. In my opinion,  One should never underestimate the power of free movement, and as such, one should never set to abuse it either.

Hey all,

Things are definitely ramping up as we come close to finishing up our first term! I hope everyone makes it out okay(I’m using skiing and christmas as motivation). This week we started reading “Obasan”, a novel by Joy Kagawa that details the life of a Japanese family put through Canadian World War Two interment camps, as told through the perspective of the main character Naomi. When I first saw we were learning about an aspect of World War Two, I became pretty excited, as I loved learning about it as a younger child. My dad is a pretty big history buff, and he really enjoyed showing me movies and books that revolved around major battles and strategy. Previously, I had read a book in grade eight or so about American internment camps for Japanese citizens, although I cannot recall the name. I had not, however, really fully know that Canada did the same, and although it shouldn’t have, it came as a bit of a surprise.

This lead me on a little bit of a tangent. The more I thought about, the more countries I could attribute terrible and unethical crimes to. Germany and the Holocaust. Japan’s rape of Nanking and infamous Unit 731(where human testing occurred). The United States use of the Atomic bomb. It is almost symbiotic that a country in war is bound to commit some sort of unethical crime towards other humans, and not just countries at that. Individual soldiers, in the case of World War Two conscripted men who 6 months earlier had been living average every day lives, shooting at other human beings without a second thought. What is it in war that makes us able to kill with such detachment and apathy?

When I thought about it, I couldn’t really narrow it down to a single thing, rather I believe war is capable of instilling different reactions depending on the person. For some, nationalistic and patriotic call to defend country is enough to reason the killing of other perceived enemies. For some, it is kill or be killed, and a survival of the fittest mentality kicks in. Some, like the case of Russian soldiers in the battle of Stalingrad, have no choice but to follow orders or they themselves could risk being punished or killed for disobeying commands. Whatever the case,  most people when down to life or death will not hesitate to take the life of another. Personally, I find it so incredible to think that human beings, who we like to call civilized, who many would argue are inherently good, can so willingly become cold-blooded murderers. However, I believe that if I was thrust into a war situation I too would not hesitate to pull the trigger. Maybe instead of being inherently good, we are instead inherently selfish. And can you really blame people for wanting to live, to explore and experience the world a bit longer instead of having it ended early by a bullet?

I don’t mean to say that war and killing in war doesn’t affect the people emotionally afterwards. Many suffer from massive amounts of guilt, disgust, and disbelief at what they have done. An article I read on Vice News told the story of a soldier who had killed for the first time, and what it was like for him when he “slowly began to humanize the mangled faces of the guys we’d killed. I remembered wondering if there was a tiny little Iraqi girl crying at home because dad didn’t come back, or if there was a wife with a husband who was now gone forever.”(Anonymous). That we feel regret and remorse for what we have done is a good sign, a sign that we are possibly not biologically meant to kill other humans. Perhaps, in the moment, we are pushed to survive by personal sentiments, by a desire to live, and that desire overrides our conscious thought. It is a matter of speculation for me, as I have never been in that kind of scenario and hope never to be, but it is sobering to think about nonetheless.

Till next time,

Nick

Hello again!

With almost 2 months down in my university career and Halloween just around the corner, I’m bracing myself for the winter to come. This week in class we began analyzing the work of Marita Sturken, a communications scholar who wrote the book ‘Tangled Memories: The Vietnam War, The AIDS epidemic, and the Politics of Remembering”. Specifically, we reviewed the introduction section of this book, which delved into the idea of different types of memory and how it is related(or unrelated) to history. Earlier in class today, while discussing this section, Dr. Luger mentioned people who cannot forget anything. This really piqued my interest, as I had seen some videos on the internet of people who seemed to match this condition. Not knowing much about and definitely not able to relate(trust me, I am so forgetful), I decided I would do some research and understand why and how it is possible for a person to truly not be able to forget.

When I began my initial research, one of the first things I identified where the name and definition of this condition. Hyperthymesia, also known as piking, is defined by an online website ‘Hyperthymesia.org‘ as a condition that allows a person “to remember the events of any given calendar date, usually back to puberty, with stunning and accurate detail. They can compare similar dates, or catalog days where the weather was rainy or they were in a certain place.”(Informational Sites Collective). It is an extremely rare condition, affecting less than 20 known people in the world and has only been identified since 2006 as an actual medical condition. One of the most interesting aspects of Hyperthymesia is that is completely autobiographical; in other words, the memories these people experience are extremely self-centred and only apply to memories they personally had been a part of. It also doesn’t necessarily mean these people are super humans, as most of you are likely thinking at this point. Many affected with this condition still have trouble memorizing new material, much like the average university student, as Hyperthymesia is not associated with photographic memory or any kind of image based memory. As such, this raises an important topic I want to discuss. Is this condition a superpower, or a disease that causes suffering?

The average human mind, as it has developed over many, many years, was designed to forget.  We are constantly pushing things out of our brains to make room for newer, more applicable data that we will need in the future. This is why for many, even after a short span of time(say a summer break between school), it is next to impossible to remember what exactly had occurred when asked to recall specific memories or details. Without the ability to forget, or brain would be overloaded to the point to where it would be difficult to function regularly in society. The act of forgetting is so commonly associated negatively, but in reality, it is a basic function of the mind that is required for us to live our daily lives. Now, imagine you are a person with Hyperthymesia. You no longer have the ability to simply forget and move on. Every day, you are reliving countless film reels of days in the past; triggered by anything as simple as the mention of a day or an event. Surely this seems like it would be detrimental, and it reality it very much is. A BBC news article interviewed a number of the people with  Hyperthymesia. When asked about the downsides, one of the subects gave this response: “Viewing the past in high definition can also make it very difficult to get over pain and regret. “It can be very hard to forget embarrassing moments,” says Donohue. “You feel same emotions – it is just as raw, just as fresh… You can’t turn off that stream of memories, no matter how hard you try.”(Robson). In a way, I believe this condition fits the perfect description of a ‘double-edged blade’. While blessed with the ability to relive past autobiographical incidents with ease, they also cannot escape them. They are essentially trapped within their own minds; attempting to live in the present while constantly being triggered to remember the past. For many, it is difficult to focus on anything because of this.

I believe at this moment, there hasn’t been enough research to fully determine the full capabilities of a person diagnosed with Hyperthymesia. A blessing? Without a doubt, yes. A curse? Quite possibly as well, but, there may be ways of overcoming the negative effects. Neuroscientists are still unsure of whether it is caused biologically through some sort of chemical alteration in the brain, or from an OCD-like phycological development(stemming from over-fantasizing in your mind). If this kind of memory is something that can be learned by anyone with the proper techniques, it could serve as an extremely useful tool that could benefit all of society and at that point, would outweigh the downsides that come with the condition. With proper research and funding into this relatively new discovery, we could unlock new chapters in the human mind, and push the limits of what it is capable of doing.

Till next time,

Nick.

It’s already October? I can barely believe it, I hardly feel like someone who has been through half a term of university, let alone someone that has already written some midterms! As we progressed in our ASTU class, we moved on to one of the most famous Canadian authors of our generation; Michael Ondaatje. “Running in the Family”, the title of the book we read, is a memoire recounting the stories of Ondaatje’s wild family and his search for his father through fragmented memory and identity. It is wonderfully written and I thoroughly enjoyed the read. As I read, the theme of identity struck a particular chord with me. Michael writes of his struggles as a second generation immigrant to Canada. His family, hailing from Sri Lanka, or as it is referred to in the book ‘Ceylon’, moved to England when he was a small boy, only to relocate again to the Toronto area where Michael attended University. While Ondaatje is Sri Lankan born, he spent the majority of his life elsewhere. This is what sparks his desire to write and visit Ceylon, to be a tourist and explore where he came from. Naturally, this creates a feeling that I can personally identify with quite well; a sense of being an outsider in your own home. As a child, I rarely stayed in the same area for more than 3 to 4 years at a time. My father’s work caused my family to relocate to places all over the world. While I was born in Montreal, I spent less than 3 of my childhood years there, instead moving to places such as Singapore, Korea, Nashville(Southern United States and on two separate occasions), and finally Vancouver.

Many would say I am extremely lucky to have had a nomadic lifestyle, able to explore all different kinds of cultures and environments. I without a doubt agree, I believe I am extremely blessed to have been able to explore like I did at such a young age. However, reading “Running in the Family” sparked a thought that I hadn’t fully considered until now. Much like Michael, I emigrated from my home country at a young age. I did not grow up in a quiet neighbourhood surrounded by lifelong friends and neighbours. I didn’t make the transition from elementary to high school with the same friend groups, nor did I become engrained in a community as an essential and long lasting member. My passport says I am Canadian, My parents are fully Canadian, yet I do not feel Canadian. It is difficult to put into words what it does feel like to me. Do I deceive others, and even myself, by having Canadian pride? Am I pseudo-Canadian? Do I even hold Canadian morals and values? Frankly, at this point in my life I can not truly find an answer.

But maybe I am looking at this all wrong. Perhaps identity does not come from ancestral roots and nationalistic ties. While I may lack in the identity that comes from a strong patriarchal connection to my country, my travels around the world have offered me a chance to build my very own identity. We are a product of our environment, as many say, and to a large degree I agree with the statement. My identity comes not from a single place, such as a country like Canada, but is instead a mosaic of influences from places and cultures that vary greatly. I am, subconsciously, a culmination of events and experiences from my times abroad, and much like the many spices of a curry come together to make a finished dish, these experiences have come together to create… well, me.

Hello strangers and friends alike,

Last week, I had the opportunity to sit in a joint lecture with all of my CAP(Coordinated Arts Program) professors to discuss what it meant to be a ‘Global Citizen’. Incorporating studies of Sociology, Political Science, Geography, and Arts Studies, Global Citizens is a stream that highly encourages open-minded and globalized thinking, which many students were able to participate in first-hand towards the end of our lecture. An activity was held which placed six or seven classmates together; each group was assigned a discipline from the Global Citizens first term course-load and was asked to brainstorm and collaborate  upon how said discipline related not only the CAP stream but the world as well. The group I was in was assigned English, and we talked about some interesting concepts and ideas focused around literature. However, what really quipped my interest was the idea that English had become a ‘universal language’. Was English really that widespread and known? How did it get to become a global language? Could it ever be replaced? I decided to find out.

As a child growing up with a Quebecois mother and an Ontario-born Father, I was raised from the start bilingually, learning French and English from each respective parent. Whilst I was fluent in both, and was living in the city of Montreal where both languages were very prevalent, I slowly found myself beginning to hear and use English more. Even conversations in French began to sprinkle in English phrases here and there, as if it was spreading into the language like a creeping infection. Soon, I was using English more than French, much to the dismay of my mother, who still refuses to speak to me in anything but Français. As my life progressed my family had the chance to live abroad in Singapore, a small but bustling island which centred its economy around trade and business. At first, I expected everyone to speaking Mandarin or some sort of Asian dialect that I would be completely lost in and have to learn. I was very wrong. Even in the farthest reaches of South-East Asia, English was everywhere. In fact, English is one of the two official(that’s right) languages of Singapore, and had been around for so long that the locals had created their own version of the language, which they called ‘Singlish’. Being in a position where I can reflect now, I can see that Singapore is an incredibly globalized city. As a British colony it was known as the ‘Gateway to the East’, one of the largest harbours in Asia that linked western trade to the eastern world. Trader’s and investors from all over the world gathered to broker deals, but with this came an issue; How were they to communicate with each other? A middle ground was needed to allow for people of different languages to speak and negotiate on a common platform, and that platform very quickly became the language of English. English had not only become a fundamental part of Singapore’s trade system, it had become a necessity for its survival as an economy.

In fact, this use of English as a ‘middle ground’ is not uncommon to see. The UN, although stating to have six ‘official languages’, has been criticized for its heavy use of English during debates. In casual discussion between two people of foreign origin where nether know each other’s language, English will almost always be the substitute to allow for communication. Interestingly enough, about 1,500 million people speak english, and only 375 million of those people are native English speakers. Roughly translating, English is everywhere; The alluring and enticing movies that come out of Hollywood, the idea of the ‘American Dream’. It is inescapable and has spread its fingers across the world in an attempt to reach even the most remote colonies. It has become engrained in our global society; to be a global citizen it is important to first know English.

But why? English is known to be one of the more difficult languages to learn, with words such as ‘Hamburger’ which tend to mislead many new speakers. It is backwards, full of puns and idioms and phrases which, when thought of literally, make absolutely no sense. Yet, it still dominates as the predominant ‘universal language’. Much of this can be attributed to England and its time of Imperial rule and colonization. Able to conquer most of the world and Colonize both Canada and the United States, England was an extremely influential factor in the spread of the language. Now , the western world is regarded as one of the biggest if not the biggest player in global politics and economy, and as of such has influenced the use of English as a global language heavily. However, what interests me the most is the notion that English was more or less forcibly brought on to many places in the world. Think back to Residential Schools in Canada during the mid-1900’s, and the attempted assimilation into English society conducted upon the First Nations children attending. Are we only speaking English because of the harsh and unjust actions of our ancestors? I believe it is very possible that if the world were to have developed in a different scenario, English may not necessarily have come out on top and dominate as it does today, instead lending to a more simplistic and inclusive tongue. As of right now, English is seemingly cemented in our society, with no indications of ever losing its place. But with the rise of other powers, most notably China, who knows what may happen in the future. That is exactly what I intend to come closer to finding out as I continue on through the Global Citizens stream.

I hope you enjoyed your Tip from Nick.

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