This week we began to watch the film “Dirty Pretty Things” while I haven’t seen much of the film yet, one of the details that I really wanted to talk about was how Okwe was trained to be a doctor but because he was an illegal immigrant he was forced to work as a cab driver and hotel worker. While I do not know the specific circumstances that lead Okwe to flee to London, immigrants not being able to practice what they are trained to do seems to be a common theme in both this movie and Brand’s novel. Like Tyuen’s parents Okwe is unable to help the community as large because of circumstances. The fact that so many immigrants are not allowed to continue to be doctors or engineers, just because they were not trained in American or European schools has always seemed bizarre to me. If people have the ability to make the society they live in better should they government not allow this and help this people in order to reestablish themselves. For example in the case of Tyuen’s mother being unable to become a doctor again because of the language barrier perhaps the government should put in place programs that help immigrants learn to speak English so that they can pass their equivalency exams, and began helping their communities and contributing to society.

Another thing that I would like to bring up in relation to Dirty Pretty Things, is the issue of illegal immigrants. In the movie Okew is clearly not a bad guy he has a pretty strong sense of right and wrong and seems to be pretty respectful and kind. Howeveer because of the laws in Britain he isn’t actually allowed to be there forcing him to participate in illegal activities such as identity theft or swapping and not alerting the police to illegal ongoings at the hotel. He also gets pills from his friend who works at the morgue and gives them to various people. Because he has very little power, people who are in higher up positions are able to exploit him into keeping their shady secrets and giving them free medical care. This shows the inherent flaw in the immigration system. I’m not saying that there should be no vetting process I do believe that the government must be careful in who they allow to take up residence in the country, however obviously they aren’t stopping anything instead the system is set up so that people may enter the country illegally and then be exploited because of their precarious situations as well as get taken advantage of. The governments need to find a way to protect not persecute these people as they are often the most vulnerable and in need of aid.

This week in class we began talking about the novel “What We All Long For”. The experiences of Tyuen and her friends were very interesting to me, as my mothers immigration story is quite different from theirs. The characters in the book feel resentful towards their parents culture, however they also reject “Canadian culture”, Tyuen in particular makes an effort to reject her culture by refusing to incorporate aspects of Vietnam into her art, as well as refusing to speak Vietnamese. This angered me slightly as when my grandparents immigrated they made the choice not to teach my mother and her siblings Dutch or anything about their culture, so that it would be easier for them to assimilate into “Canadian culture” while I understand why my grandparents made this decision its always made me and my mother a little sad that we know nothing about my grandparents culture or our own. This refusal to teach my mother and her siblings about their culture lead to both of my mothers siblings anglicizing their names in order to avoid             being on the outside like Tyuen, Carla and Jackie were. I think this is a major problem in Canada that despite the fact we pride ourselves on being a multicultural nation, you still have to fit into a certain mold in order to be considered a real Canadian. This idea of being a real Canadian even extended to my fathers family who have been in Canada for around 100 years, however my grandfather always felt like he was disrespected in their town because he was of Irish descent not English. This shows that you can look like a stereotypical Canadian but still not feel like one.

But going back to my main point while I understand why Tyuen and her friends are so hesitant about accepting their culture I couldn’t help but feel resentment towards them because they have no idea how lucky they are to be able to learn about their culture. This is one of the drawbacks of the novel because it only speaks to the stories of a certain type of immigrant, Brand seems to ignore that even if you look “Canadian” immigration still isn’t easy.

This week I wanted to address the issue of the Willie Pickton case and his victims. In  the video we watched in class we learned about Dawn in particular, this video really struck me because so often we forget that these women were real people, who had lives and people who loved them. The Media circus so often only uses these stories for entertainment value. This makes people seem so far away, and unreal. Going off this point I’d like to address the fact that after the trials many crime drama shows like criminal minds created story lines based off of the Pickton case. To me this seems wrong, this makes these women’s stories no longer about the suffering of them and their families but rather about some shows story line and ratings. It also emphasizes the gore and violence of the murders opposed to the aftermath. Exploiting these stories and transforming them into something for people to consume, detracts from the suffering of these women’s families and further separates their stories from the public.

I feel like in order for these women’s stories to be taken seriously the media must stop putting an emphasis on turning these events into a spectacle. We must not turn them into something to consume for entertainment. This issue is an important one to tackle because so often when we hear stories on the news or watch them played out on television shows, we often forget that these are real people whose stories deserve to be heard. And that in order to stop things like this from happening we have to address the root of the problem, and that is environments like the Downtown East side.

This brings me to my third point about the video I would like to discuss what her brother said about the police not caring because these women were poor and often had drug problems. I feel like this speaks volumes about what is wrong with our society today. Instead of trying to help people who have fallen down so often our society blames and shames them, making recovery extremely difficult. This scenario seems to happen more often to First Nations women, which can create unfortunate and untrue stereotypes that again make us forget that these are real people. I can remember clearly when the Pickton trial was being played on T.V, someone said to me that the reason he was able to get away with this for so long was because the women he preyed on were “poor drug addicted runways, who no cared about when they went missing” from the evidence in the movie obviously this was not the case women like Dawn had plenty of people who cared about her, they just didn’t have the socio-economic status to garner attention. This is a problem because it makes women like Dawn, who need the most help from society the most vulnerable. And when they get victimized society blames them for being addicted to drug or being prostitutes instead of looking at what they could have don’t to help out women like Dawn. This is why marches like the one they held today are so important because they force people to take notice of these women as people not just as drug addicts on the fringe of society. And it forces us to take responsibility for the treatment of these women.

To sum everything up we as a society must stop blaming the victims and instead focus on helping them up so that crimes like this wont happen anymore.

To be honest im still not sure if i liked Three Day Road or not. On one hand the writing is very lyrical and poignant and i have to admit the story itself is very moving. However there were a few problematic issues i personally feel as though the Joseph Boyden maybe presented a very narrow picture of Indigenous people. I feel like the character of Niska plays into the whole “mystical native” stereotype? i also feel as though the book doesn’t give the reader a overall picture of what was happening to indigenous people at that time as Xavier and Niska’s living situation was quite different from the majority of indigenous people at this time. Maybe the author chose to write them this way to try and show the struggle of native people to still live in their traditional ways. However im not really sure about that.

One thing about the book that i did find interesting, was the fact that Niska sufferd from epilepsy. I thought the attitude that the clan had towards this dieses was interesting to compare with the current european attitude about epilepsy. European tradition tends to shame epilepsy for a long time it was thought to be a sign that you were possessed by the devil. And the majority of people who suffered from this dieses suffered in silence. While the understanding of epilepsy has increased since then it is still considered an embarrassing secret. For example my nana suffered from epilepsy and the only reason that her husband found out was because she had a seizure in front of him. this shows that epilepsy was still ver misunderstood. In contrast Niska’s tribe believes that it gives her mystical powers that allow her to see the future amongst other things. While this gift is not welcomed by Niska she acknowledges that it gives her a certain power and status within her community.

I found this interesting mainly because of my personal connection but also because so often we get stuck in this trap of thinking that only westren values and practices are worth learning and practicing. And we forget that our society is extremely problematic when it comes to a lot of issues. Often the west is too proud to look at what other cultures were doing well and learn from them. This reminds us that no society or way of life is without flaws and we must learn from every culture.

The propaganda film for residential schools uses many different techniques in order to promote the schools. The film makes sure to include many shots of the children smiling and laughing in order to make it look like they were enjoying their time and that they were glad to be at the school. The video completely glosses over the fact that these children were removed from their homes without consent and were unable to contact their families. This film also talks about how the schools taught the students how to speak English it also glorifies their education system in general and how it would help integrate the indigenous students into Canadian society. However as we learned in class the children there were mostly taught labour skills like doing laundry, sewing and other domestic chores. The schools wanted to train the students for hard labour and jobs that generally didn’t pay a lot and were considered to be for the lower class.

The music the video uses is also important in terms of persuading the audience that these schools are a good thing. The score is very triumphant and positive which emphasises how the government endorsing these schools is a positive thing for Canada. It is also important to note that this video was made in 1955 when residential schools were becoming more mainstream and popular. Because of this we have to assume that the purpose of the video was to convince the public that these schools were a positive thing and to deemphasize the horrors of the residential schools.

The video also promotes the Church of England and converting the children to Christianity. The film negates to mention how the forced the children to abandon their traditional ways. And forbid them from practicing their own forms of religion and cultural practices. Stripping them of their cultural identity.

The propaganda film for residential schools uses many different techniques in order to promote the schools. The film makes sure to include many shots of the children smiling and laughing in order to make it look like they were enjoying their time and that they were glad to be at the school. The video completely glosses over the fact that these children were removed from their homes without consent and were unable to contact their families. This film also talks about how the schools taught the students how to speak English it also glorifies their education system in general and how it would help integrate the indigenous students into Canadian society. However as we learned in class the children there were mostly taught labour skills like doing laundry, sewing and other domestic chores. The schools wanted to train the students for hard labour and jobs that generally didn’t pay a lot and were considered to be for the lower class.

The music the video uses is also important in terms of persuading the audience that these schools are a good thing. The score is very triumphant and positive which emphasises how the government endorsing these schools is a positive thing for Canada. It is also important to note that this video was made in 1955 when residential schools were becoming more mainstream and popular. Because of this we have to assume that the purpose of the video was to convince the public that these schools were a positive thing and to deemphasize the horrors of the residential schools.

The video also promotes the Church of England and converting the children to Christianity. The film negates to mention how the forced the children to abandon their traditional ways. And forbid them from practicing their own forms of religion and cultural practices. Stripping them of their cultural identity.

The relevance of Atwood’s satirical world is still very much relevant today. Especially concerning the recent debate about reproductive rights. It is extremely difficult to discuss this without first deciding on when a person becomes a “full person”. Is it when they are first conceived or does “full personhood” only occur after birth when a personality is developed?  I personally believe there is no definitive answer to this question, but for the purposes of this posting I will take the stance that “full personhood” is granted after birth. In the case of the woman in Nebraska it is clear that the state values the fetus over the woman’s own personal happiness and well being. Which is very reminisant of Offred and the other handmaids situations, where their sole purpose is to reproduce, and their wombs are the most valued parts of them. This woman’s particular case also reminds me of the stance the government takes in the handmaids tale which is get them pregnant young, in this case their own maturity or ability to raise a child. To go off on another tangent but it is also clear that the state is more concerned with the rights of the fetus than that of the mother, as she very clearly states that she is unprepared to raise a child and would not be able to do it properly. But the state only seems to care about the quality of life the child has while in the womb, and not the quality of life it would have out in the world. It is also interesting to note that many people who are pro-life are anti welfare, and as this woman is in no position to be able to financially support a child her only option would be welfare. This begs the question as to why the fetus seems to be more important than the actual human being. This is where the American government differs as in Gilead the child would be cared for no matter what as they are valuable resources. Its also worthwhile to bring up the point that many pro-life supporters are religious, and by attempting to ban abortions they are technically imposing their values on people who do not share the same ones. Which is extremely unfair, however is shows the power of religion which I think is one of the points that atwood is trying to make in Handmaid’s tale However in my opinion I feel the state should not have a role in deciding on if someone has a baby , at the end of the day it is an extremely personal choice. And if the mother is unready then both carry repercussions that they will have to carry with them.

M.I.A’s Video “Bad Girls” shows Muslim women who are supposedly Saudi Arabian, doing male activities and breaking the laws by driving. This Video has been the subject of much controversy as many people feel that the video is cultural appropriation as they think that she uses the Muslim women as backdrops. However I disagree about this, for the past three years I had been living in Qatar, which borders on Saudi Arabia. Qatar was considerably more liberal that Saudi Arabia, women are allowed to drive, and go out in public without wearing an abaya (depending on the family). Where there was still considerably inequality present it was miles ahead of Saudi, where despite your religious beliefs you were forced to wear an ayaba failure could result in jail or in the case of expats deportation. Also women were banned from driving, the punishment for disobeying could be death depending on who you were, in recent years much debate has been opened on this topic due to pressure from the west, however the monarchy is reluctant to make changes.  When taking this into consideration M.I.A’s video takes on a new meaning, the phrase “live fast die young, bad girls do it well” takes on a new meaning.  These women who chose to disobey the oppressive laws of their society despite the risks, are truly bad girls, in the truest sense of the phrase. Therefore the video is political statement in favor of women’s rights all over the world, also considering her work for other aspects of humanitarian rights. It is clear that she is an artist who wish’s to use her art to make a statement about the injustices in the world. It is also important to note the oppression of women in Muslim countries is men manipulating the Quran. And that Islam itself has nothing against women. Another slightly unrelated point I would like to bring up is that wearing the abaya is not oppression being forced to wear it is however.  Many westerners view the abaya as a symbol of oppression and feel as though by forcing this women to take it off we liberate them. That however is false many Muslim women chose to wear the abaya or hijab as respect for their religion and being forced to take it off would be extremely offensive to them. Just because someone chooses to wear an ayaba, niqab, hijab or burka does not mean that that are not liberated or any less of a feminist. In conclusion M.I.A’s video is a powerful political statement, against the oppression of women in Saudi Arabia. Also if you want a analysis of the lyrics to the song rap genius has a fairly helpful one.

Is the film District Nine really as enlightened and politically scathing as it intends to be? Despite the goal of this movie which was to represent apartheid in South Africa, the representation of black people in the film is still as a whole fairly negative. To be fair the representation of almost all the humans in the film are unfavourable. Apart from of course the stereotypical white male protagonist Wikus who selflessly saves Christophers life. The only black character we see for prolonged periods of time is the Nigerian gangster Obesandjo who eats aliens and sells illegal arms. The barbaric practice of eating an alien in the hopes of consuming their powers is a barbaric notion and over exoticness the Nigerians as very unreliable, also the gangs belief in voodoo magic shows them as less advanced while MNU workers also preform experiments on the aliens in an attempt to harness their power they do it scientifically, therefore making them seem more rational. There have been outcries from the Nigerian government about the portrayal in the film which eventually lead to the film being banned by the Nigerian government. It would be wonderful if we could pass these actions off as equal treatment between white and black people saying that they are both equally evil. But unfortunately due to the negative representation of black people in mainstream media, their representation in the film is therefore perpetuating black stereotypes that they are lesser evolved, gun crazy, drug lords who are less advanced than white people, and is much more damaging towards their culture and perception around the world. So in light of this did district nine really accomplish anything in terms of getting the message of acceptance and anti-racism across? The answer is no is film is typical of Hollywood and only appears different on the surface. In this film the alien prawns are seen as more desirable and human then the black characters and in my opinion it would have been more effective to have the antagonist as a black person to counteract their representation in Hollywood, and really make a statement. In then end district nine falls short of being the barrier breaking film in pretends to be.

The novel Obasan deals with the mass paranoia that was present in Canada during the Second World War. Joy Kogawa questions how it was possible for this paranoia to escalate to a level where Canadian citizens were expelled from their homes. One of the more interesting parts of the book was where the main character Naomi wonders why the Japanese are being treated so much different from German immigrants despite the fact that Canada was at war with the Germans as well. Historically the Japanese immigrants had done very well for themselves finically in Canada, this is demonstrated by Naomi’s family home in an affluent area of Vancouver. Many of European immigrants resented this especially the fisherman. This is one of the reasons why it was so easy for the government to turn the people against them. Many Canadians also bore resentment because the Japanese did not leave their culture behind when they left Japan, and many people felt that if you were to live in Canada then you must be what they defined as “Canadian”. Speaking from personal experience my grandparents were Dutch immigrants they made a conscious effort to not teach their children any cultural traditions or raise them bilingually. This case is not unique to my family many other immigrants gave up their ethnic identity when they came to Canada because they believed it would be easier for their children to assimilate into Canadian society. This relates to Van Peers article where he makes the argument that by possessing a cultural identity you are automatically excluding large groups of people. Therefore the Japanese not only looked different from the European immigrants they also had a different culture which lead to exclusion from the rest of Canadian society. Another reason that the Japanese were targeted was because the threat from them seemed more real as the Japanese had bombed the Vancouver coast as well as other points in North America. This made the war seem more immediate the Canadian people opposed to some far off conflict in Europe. Despite the fact that the Japanese were allies of the Germans, Germany had made no direct attack on North America. This attack on our home soil created fear and paranoia that was widespread throughout Canada, and the people needed assurance that the government would keep them safe.  So in a political move they made all Japanese Canadians the enemy in order to satisfy the populace. This proves the power of the individual as redressing only occurred after books like Obasan were written and the Canadian citizens pushed the government to make amends. This proves both Nussbaum and Van Peers argument that Literature can bring about change and progress.

When reading the Universal declaration i found it interesting that all of the ideals tend to represent mostly westren ways of thinking. Many of the articles laid out directly contrast with some of the countries who agreed to abide by this code, most notably the Soviet Union which at this time was operating under Stalinism/Communism. many of these articles violate laws that were place during Stalin’s rule. such as article six which states that everyone has the right to own property which of course is not in accordance with communist beliefs which state that property belongs to the state and that the people must share everything. Also Article 17 which mentions freedom of religion again contradicts the communist ideals which were that religion should be eradicated. At the time the UDHR was created religion was currently outlawed in the Soviet Union. However it is also interesting to note that although many of the articles contradict the communist belief system others strongly support the ideals such as everyone has the right to equal pay which is one of the main points of communism, as well as all men should be treated equal this again is essential in the communist belief system. However under Stalins rule almost every single one of these articles were broken as Stalin had created his own warped version of communism. So despite the heavily westren views that are represented in the UDHR it is vague enough that almost anyone can agree with at least one article.