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.

Martha Nussbaum’s Democratizing Citizenship and the Narrative Imagination explores many interesting ideas about literature. And how it affects our society and the morals we hold. Due to my interest in theatre I found her section on how tragic plays can help young people develop a sense of right from wrong as well as aid them in developing both empathy and sympathy. Nussbaum talks about how tragedies can teach young people about the bad things that may happen in life. She also talks about the “sympathies of the spectator” and how this teaches people empathy. To some extent I do agree with her theories in that drama can be a useful way to spread ideas to a large group of people, as well as use it as a teaching device. However I do believe that there are other ore effective ways of teaching young people morals many people just watch theatre and don’t always take away the main message. Also there are many people in the world who have no interest in the theatre or have not been exposed to it and still posses’ strong morals and a sense of empathy. Also often theatre can be used as a political vehicle, therefore the morals that young people learn in these dramas may not reflect the morals held by their society or culture. There are also many people in this world who are unable to display empathy due to social disorders, so no matter how much theatre they are exposed to they will still be unable to feel sympathy. Nussbaum does admit that literature is not transformative when used by itself, and often time’s literature can be the cause of oppression in our society. This all being said I do enjoy the idea that drama can put someone in the place of another individual who has completely different experiences and then build an understanding of another class of people. This can be a step in ending the class divide. Many forms of theater were created for this specific goal in mind for instance Morality theatre which was popular in the medieval century its main goal was to teach a religious moral from the bible to the general populace. Drama was used because the majority of people were illiterate and therefore unable to read the bible. This is a case of theatre effectively teaching people morality however it is also extremely manipulative. Which brings me back to my earlier point that although theatre can teach it is just as biased towards a political or religious agenda we should not trust in it completely to show our young people right from wrong. In conclusion while Nussbaum does say that literature must be used in tandem with another technique to teach young people empathy and morals, I feel she puts too much emphasizes on the good things that theatre can do opposed to how manipulative it can be.