Diversity In Canada Laid out

Journal: Tolerance as Discourse

In this journal I will be discussing tolerance. After reading the first part of Wendy Brown’s Chapter on Tolerance as a Discourse of Power, which explains a variation of definitions on tolerance, I decided to explore this portion because of my interest of this discourse. In a many of the definitions they explain tolerance as coping with certain undesirable circumstances or presences, instead of offering a resolution to this aspect of life or society that bothers us. “There is no Aufhebung in the operation in tolerance […]” (Brown, pg.24) “Aufhebung” in German means an abolition, or cancellation, while it has several contradictory meanings such as “to lift up” and also “’transcend” as well.

(en.wikipedia.org, 2010) What I think Wendy Brown means by a “discourse on tolerance” is that tolerance as a guide line in society means one thing while tolerance on individuals could mean something else.

            “The OED definitions together make clear that a tolerance involves neither neutrality toward nor respect for that which is being tolerated.” (Brown, pg.26) This point could lead us to wonder when we claim to tolerate someone alone or a group of people are we being prejudice? Could we be offending them?  In the tolerance as discourse question I posed while reading this is does tolerance always represent coping and never resolution? Can coping turn into adapting? Over time species learn to adapt to new environments, therefore it seems it would be possible for societies or communities to maybe at first tolerate a new presence of something or a group of something’s, but after time, and adjustments tolerance turns into adapting.

            In Wendy Brown’s chapter some elements of “tolerance as discourse” can be, “Authority as a presupposition of tolerance as amoral and political value” (Brown, pg. 25) Because laws or bylaws could be judged and political features can use tolerance as scale or index of some sort, it can be a tool and not just a definition of actions we may be taking or not taking and situations we may be dealing with.  If tolerance can be used as a tool, it can also be used as power. Brown outlines this fact as well by pointing out that tolerance can be a subject of discourse by disguising power.

            In conclusion, tolerance is seen as discourse mainly because it has different meanings for different situations. When I personally think of tolerance, and link it to everyday life, it brings with it a negative side of enabling fortitude of antagonism and licensing the existence of the negative aspect to be dealt and coped with. Very simply, outlining the problem.  If politicians are using tolerance as a tool to outline problems in our society, what are we tolerating? And, is it always seen  a problem?

Works Cited

Brown, Wendy. “Tolerance as a Discourse of Power.” Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in

            the Age of Identity and Empire. Princton UP. 24-47

“Aufhebung.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 18 Nov. 2010. Web. 18 Nov. 2010.

            <http://en.wikipedia.org/>.

Do Muslim Women really Need Saving?

            From What I understand all of the “transnational feminism” stemmed from the aftermaths of September 11, 2001. (Abu-Lughod, 2002, pg.783)  As well as most observations that Muslim women needed help manifested in the United States. Abu-Lughood (2002) then wraps up her views that cultural framing was not helping but preventing exploration of depth of different cultures and nature of human suffering, instead of looking for global interconnections, there was division of the world into artificial spheres.

There were a few questions I had as I read this Anthropological reflection on Cultural Relativism and its others, but there were also many points that I was very thankful for and appreciated how the material cleared up blurry facts one might hear on TV, or from a friend who heard it on the radio. An example of a question I had was when Abu-Lughod (2002, pg.784) revisits a speech by Laura Bush where she explains how because of the progress made by the military in Afghanistan women had more freedom in their homes and had more freedom with their children and families. Abu-Lughod then proceeds to explain that these claims and actions are a total cliché of history as she cynically states “white men saving brown women from brown men.” (Abu-Lughod2002, pg.784)a story many times repeated in history. My question is: does this mean that what Laura Bush claims in her speech is a manipulation of simple aid and lies? If there were more proof of this claim being less than true? The question, do Muslim women really need saving would really come into the light, especially in the U.S political area and questions about cost and necessity of the military being in Afghanistan.

            A really good point she makes that cleared up a lot of information had known but was unsure about is the question of the Burqa. It was a commonly popular knowledge that a sign of oppression in Afghan women under Taliban terrorists that they were forced to wear a burqa and cover their hair and skin. (Abu-Lughod, 2002, pg.785) So why would they continue to wear this after they are free, why not get rid of the feeling and signs of  terrorism and oppression?  Abu-Lughod(2002, pg. 785) clears this up simply by stating: “Why are we surprised that Afghan women don’t throw off their burqas when we know perfectly well it would not be appropriate to wear shorts to the opera? […] people wear the appropriate form of dress for their social communities and are guided by socially shared standards.”

            In conclusion as a Social science student I was engaged by the social psychology aspect of this article, Do Muslim Women Need Saving?  because I was able to relate it to what I know. Once being able to look at the information provided by Abu-Lughod, I could think I wouldn’t wear a burqa to my family dinner because it would be inappropriate just like Afghan women might not wear a jean skirt and a tank top to her family dinner. This Article cleared up some inaccurate judgments I may have made in the past and I am content with what I learned from it and would like to say it was well written.

Works Cited

Abu-Lughod, Lila. “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological

            Reflections on Cultyral Relativism and Its Others.” 2002

* source from Prof.

Journal: What is a Canadian?

Reflecting on the first texts, my attention was drawn to the more “attempts” of the definition of what a Canadian was throughout the years. The political leaders certainly had a differing view as to what a Canadian should look, talk, work like, compared to those thoughts of Canadians throughout the years.

            The Text points out war pamphlets in 1941, openly discussing the accepted and less accepted races and immigrant types welcomed to Canada, however insisting on “promoting understanding and acceptance” (51, Mackey) For as long as I can remember  when discussing Canada we claim it is a welcoming, widely divers, and peaceful nation. Walking the streets of Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, or any large city in Canada it is very apparent that Canada is divers, there is no universal race or language in any one place. Is Canada as welcoming as we think it is, however, is a question that I would like to reflect on.  In this first text, it became obvious to me that while assuring everyone that the Canadian people and Government are accepting, the governments’ actions and everything else spoken is a demand for those wishing to immigrate to Canada to conform to the “traditional” ways or the desired cultures. Even single provinces show their inflexible desires of the people who decide to live there. Quebec as a wide known and discussed province in the texts, is known to be less welcoming of those living in Quebec not because of their race but for Québec it’s the hope to preserve the French traditions and religions brought here long ago at the time of the British colonies. Although these are all facts from our history, Canada has shown intentions of welcoming diversity among its people. Post war, during the flag debate Canadian leader Lester B. Pearson had a thought, that the great maple leaf flag could:”bring those other Canadians closer to us of British stock and make us all Canadians”(57, Mackey) and although this doesn’t seem like the most open and racially accepting, it’s this kind of mindset that truly makes Canada the way it is.

             Personally, I am thankful that public racism became less accepted as well as the strain on “western” assimilability for immigrants lessened. I feel I can relate to this appreciation because it was in the 1960’s that my father immigrated to Canada from Trinidad and Tobago. He does recall finding it difficult to get a job or reason with certain people when he first arrived here in Canada, and although times have changed for the better I do find myself to be a minority in some places, but the diversity of other great places such as the beautiful city of Ottawa out weigh any uncomfortable situations I have ever felt in our great Nation. So my point overall of this journal I could say, Is that maybe Canadian politicians have had the wrong idea in the past, but overtime and with the voice of some unwilling to be bystanders, I’m sure times have evolved for the better and will hopefully always continue in an upward spiral. Call me an optimist, but I look for the best in people and believe that with knowledge and time the best parts of us will prevail.

Kardinal Offishall is a Canadian rapper whose talents have been hidden from me until now.  I really appreciate this song because contrary to everything on this blog so far, it celebrates Canada’s welcoming tendencies and multiculturalism. Kardinal has had a long and steady career since the beginning of his rapping days at the age of eight and winning competitions by the age of twelve. Born in Canada and raised by his Jamaican immigrant parents in Toronto, he learned to love Canada for all the reasons they had taught him to.

This isn’t his only song that depicts his love for Canada. He is known in Toronto as someone who puts his efforts into the idea that Canada is great, showing this even at the young age of twelve performing for Nelson Mandela during his first visit to Toronto. He changed his rapper alias to Kardinal after being inspired by a wonderful French 17^th century politician named Cardinal Richelieu. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardinal_Offishall)

From his music alone I get the feeling that Kardinal enjoys learning and sharing his love for Canada with Canadians who have made him feel welcome. During this song specifically he tells of the different races and cultures he sees in the city of Toronto. He speaks of being multicultural because of the place he grew up; being tolerant, patient, and welcoming to those different from us is the message that Kardinal seems to want to spread. This song enables him to tell the story of  how having so many different types of people and being different in Canada effects him, and that it is for the better by him being able to relate. The chorus tells of being from Toronto and how he represents it wherever he goes, being proud of Toronto, being from Toronto and sharing it with everyone. This is why he calls it home, and the rest of the lyrics list benefits of being from the great Toronto. At one point he exclaims “I am Multiculture!” he states how he learned to be himself even when that meant being different and maybe not accepted by everyone and the diversity of Toronto made it easier for him.(http://www.maplemusic.com/artists/kao/bio.asp)

Toronto being so meaningful to him is so believable because when we are children we are curious and being a minority might be difficult growing up. Kardinal’s hometown had a positive impact as well as his hip hop with a reggae fusion helped him to feel welcome, I’m sure the popularity and fan love didn’t hurt either.

The ill educated American

In reflection of this video, the “ill educated” American has some good points about the views that illegally immigrated people might share. Although his politics are in question, it would be un-ethical to do certain things that he points out such as going door to door asking for papers, it would be costly, and unrealistic as a proper measure of removing illegal immigrants.  What would be the next steps in deporting illegal immigrants, and what benefits, in the end are legitimate after spending tons of money trying to remove them?

            Another good point the “American” shares is luck, he was fortunate enough to be born in the united states, so because his neighbours were cast into a country stricken with poverty, they must stay there even though their dreams and opportunities could be open up if they just travel next door? Should Mexican above other countries have the opportunities without difficulty to immigrate to their sister country and work?

In comparison to Canada, Mexicans do immigrate and work very hard to stay in the country, doing jobs that Canadians aren’t willing to do, and even after, having trouble with their papers. In 2005, there was a call for eager Mexicans willing to work in Canada, On April 19, 2005, Canada’s government said they would spend 58 million $ to speed up immigrant applications. According to Immigrant experts, “America had its arms closed while Canada had its arms open”(workpermit.com, 2005)  Specifically reaching out to immigrant workers who are frustrated with U.S. restrictions.

Another point made in the video was that Americans, specifically in Arizona, were not angered by all immigrants, but mainly those filtering in from Mexico. The fact is that the United States houses roughly 20 million people of Mexican decent; approximately 5 million of those immigrants are undocumented and deemed illegal immigrants.(Lopez, 2005) That 5 million can justifiably anger American citizens who are paying taxes, because although the Mexicans are working, they are dodging many costs.

The portion of opinions that caught my attention, was where the “American” says the part that bothers him most about immigrants is that they make Americans look lazy.  An opinion I have as a Canadian citizen may be that Americans are more inclined to be obese or lazy. I laughed as the “American” stated how Mexicans work very hard compared to Americans especially in a bar scene.

When it comes to Mexicans in Canada, a clear representation of them would be those closer to the south such as Leamington, an area full of Mexicans and best known for their tomatoes, coincidence? I think not. Mexicans do work hard, and are good at what they do. Being from Windsor I have traveled to Leamington a short half an hour away from my neighbourhood, to witness Mexicans traveling to work on their bikes in every direction you look.

So do Mexican immigrants pose a problem? Are they a big inconvenience to Americans? Are we affected as a neighbouring country? In my opinion and that of the video I chose to reflect, Mexican Immigrants do not pose too much of a problem to the government, they may be a inconvenience to citizens in both Canada and America, but the thought that propelled me to write about this, is if you, or I were in their shoes, what would you do?

http://www.workpermit.com/news/2005_05_04/canada/canada_attracts_mexican_immigrants.htm