By Ryan Sparrow
Leading an empire is a lot of work. President Obama won a second term as President over a slightly nastier person, Mitt Romney. In their course for the White House, the main headquarters to direct the empire, billions upon billions of dollars were spent. Billions were spent saying the right-wing Democratic Party is better than the right-wing Republican Party and vice versa.
The US is a massive empire; it has near hegemony over the entirety of the world.
This is why in the Presidential debates there was no mention of tackling climate change or curbing military spending.
The US has 50% of the world’s defense budget not because it is defending itself or freedom, but to maintain an Empire. Liberal commenters will have us believe that the Empire building is simply mistakes, simply invasions based on wrong information or stupid ideas.
It is not by mistake or stupid decisions that Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or many others were invaded. It’s not by mistake that Yemen, Pakistan, and many other countries are being drone strike on a regular basis. It’s not by mistake that democratically elected governments were overthrown like Haiti, Honduras and Paraguay.
It is, however, big business. Millions die across the globe in order for profits to be made. There is a lot of money involved in attacking other countries via defense contracts, there is a lot of money involved in stealing their resources, and there is a lot of money in rebuilding contracts afterwards.
Empire is not about military conquest; empire is imperialism which is resource extraction and profits. For example in 2008 when the government of Honduras was overthrown, they overthrew the government without any initial bloodshed, though death squads do round up and routinely kill supporters of many of the democratic organization, peasant associations and trade unions. The new dictatorship in Honduras has now opened themselves to the dictates of mining corporations, many of which are based in Canada.
It is not necessary to have a country be a colony by use of military invasion, simply the threat of force when a country engages in economic nationalism. Economic nationalism refers to economic policies that are directed towards the betterment of the colonial people at the expense of the interest of the imperial country.
As President, Obama has overseen the expansion of the US Empire to include more colonies, like Libya. Libya’s crime to the empire was not abuses towards the population which no doubt existed, nor that Gaddafi was a undemocratic, it was that Libya did implement policies that were in the economic interests of the Libyan people. Policies like a public oil corporation whose profits went to fund healthcare, infrastructure and education. The crime to the empire was the lack of markets for foreign multinationals to profit where profits could be made.
Obama’s new colony is very unstable, the life expectancy and purchasing power of Libya has plummeted since the NATO bombardment and overthrow. But this is not a concern of the US Empire. Libya, once the richest country in Africa now has much of the country’s major infrastructure in ruins. Soon after the overthrow Libya had its oilfields privatized and are now in the hands of big oil multinationals.
The empire however is not free; someone has to pay for the costs involved in maintaining an empire. When the United States government goes to wars, maintains military bases or attacks other countries it uses its defense budget and public treasury to pay for it. The spoils of war are not going back into the government’s coffers, the revenues brought in from imperialism are privatized, and the profits of war are provided to corporations and their boards of directors. The CEO of banks and hedge funds, Oil companies, construction firms, defense firms, and so on all benefit from imperialism.
Imperialism allows that the coffers of defense contractors’ overflow, with their rampart “unexpected” cost overruns much like the F35 Fighter Jets that Canada is planning on purchasing, where the costs more than doubled.
So much profit is made, but the people have to pay for this empire, they do this through taxes, which are increasingly flat taxation. What is meant by flat taxation is working people are paying a larger share of it, while the rich and the corporations pay less or sometimes nothing. Debt is used to finance the imperial ambitions, which in turn provide massive returns to those issuing the debts. Cuts to the social wages are made, cuts to social security, public sector wages, and so on in order so that these vultures can profit ever more for war.
In order to maintain an empire, there is a need to suppress alternative political voices that are opposed to it, most notably in this most recent election was the arrest of the Green party candidates and their exclusion from the debates. Most notably under Obama was the repression of the Occupy Movements, this continues policies that attack organized and peaceful protests and the routine arrests of the poor and racialized people.
The monopoly media cartel and the public education system also help reinforce the dominant imperial ideology by not just promoting and framing the discourse but also limiting the realm of acceptable opinions. For example discussions on reducing the US defense budget or even municipal policing budgets are deemed subversive and outside the realm of acceptable opinion.
Obama is not in opposition to empire building, he is engaged in it. If he was opposed to it, he could not be president.
By Spencer Nestico
The role of journalism has always been primarily to connect developing stories with the public. Journalists will type away incessantly at their old typewriters, all the while priding themselves in their role to deliver a product that was not only factual and interesting, but something that yielded a deeply vital outcome: a well-informed population. You see, communication and knowledge are the reasons that nations become successful in their endeavors because people understand the issues. Conversely, this is currently the reason for why nations have difficulty advancing their policies - bad journalism.
It’s hard to pinpoint where exactly in the last 20 years did journalism begin to get less and less objective and more and more fatally sensationalist. Regardless of the history, it’s undeniably apparent that things have changed. The role of the journalist is no longer to present a balanced view on events, it’s to present such a balanced view that there’s no longer any point in writing about it. The great emphasis given to reporters and writers in news team is to refrain from bias at all costs, and this is probably one of the worst things to happen to the art. This is because there’s no differentiation being made between natural bias and acceptable scrutiny. A great example can be seen from the recent Presidential election. News teams have been so focused on presenting an impartial judgment of the two candidates that the public gets a mistaken impression that both candidates are equal in their ability to run the White House. This is wrong.
It seems that one of the greatest felonies that the journalist world has made is that they assume stories can no longer be interesting or acceptable unless they are just that: interesting and acceptable. News media is a great example of this. Fox News is one of the most humorously entertaining excuses for a news show, one that replaces actual analysis with gross exaggeration and even total fabrication. These types of media no longer have faith in their own stories, or their own viewers. They have lost the modest personality that was so attractive about reporters back in the day, the ones that made the likes of Walter Cronkite and Harry Reasoner household and national heroes.
It is lamentable to see the turn journalism has taken in the last decade. It’s sad to see lies told solely for the purpose of evening the odds and balancing stories, all in the name of fairness. The respect that the field once had has all but seemed to diminish.
It’s notable however to understand that not all reporters and members of the news media are corrupted, but just the big ones. Corporate media outlets like CNN and ABC News are the ones who are consistently producing the inaccurate material, spreading news that is so blatantly bare of opinion in order to please every possible reader that it really says nothing at all. On the other hand, small independent writers, or popular talk show hosts like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert still seem to retain a decently analytical mind, one that can actually question and argue the views held by Conservatives, whose only reply is always just an appeal to traditionalism. These are the men and women who should really be heard by America and are the ones who actually want to make a point, and well-educated ones at that.
Journalists have a right to take a stand on issues. They have a right to make judgments. Journalists have the factual knowledge and in-person experience on the issues that they investigate that citizens never get a chance to acquire, and this is why journalists have a responsibility to convey their actual findings to their audience, and not some heavily edited drivel that attempts to pander to both sides. These are the journalists we need right now, the ones who aren’t afraid and will come back from their reporting with news that they excitingly realize must be told.
During the 20th century reporting was done out of a responsibility and service to a people, and although I am assured that statements made by current members of this occupation would say the exact same thing, its just different. Journalism has never been used more aggressively to evoke sentiments of discontent and prejudice, and to foster a mentality that is unable to become open-minded or questioning. To go back to those days of honest broadcasting requires not only a massive restructuring of the news media, but also an increase in the level of acceptance that people have for each other in daily society. Either way, I’m just a corrupt journalist, so how would I know?
By Julieta Rodriguez
What’s my biggest pet peeve? Women who claim they’re not feminists.
Once I had a friend ask me, “Do you identify as a feminist?” And without hesitating I replied, “Of course.” To me, that question seemed so strange—how can one be a woman and not be a feminist? Is there really a woman on this planet who doesn’t care about her own rights, freedoms, and about being considered an equal? I doubt it.
So what does it mean, then, when we hear women say they’re not feminists? I think the answer is simple: women don’t want to be seen as militant man-haters. People tend to think of feminism as a radical movement and decide it is best not to be associated with it. In thinking only about the possible extremes of feminism, though, we ignore the fact that the majority of feminists are not at all extremists or fanatics. They are, in fact, people like you and me.
According to dictionary.com feminism is nothing more than “the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.” This seems like an innocent enough definition; one that doesn’t risk offending, and is not radical. In fact, it simply appeals to an inherent desire to be treated equally and with respect—and there is nothing extreme about that desire.
Here is what worries me, though: the best way to cripple the feminist movement is to evade it by being too scared to associate ourselves with the word. We shouldn’t be so afraid of the assigned meanings of ‘feminism’.
We should instead focus on what it is supposed to stand for—the equality, not only of women, but also, of anyone who is undervalued.
The only way to truly have equality is to put aside our anxieties about this big bad word and decide, instead, to take it back; to make it ours again.
Of course, it is also necessary for men to embrace this word and realize the importance of women’s equality, but I think it’s even more important for women to come to this conclusion. If we are the ones to tear down the very movement that is concerned with our rights and freedoms, how can we reasonably expect men not to? How can we ever, as women, expect to be seen as equals, if we are constantly and consistently dissociating ourselves from feminism?
And another question: why are we so afraid of a word, anyway? In the end, it’s just a word—nothing more. We assign arbitrary meanings to all words, so why should we be so frightened by one possible meaning of ‘feminism’? I think the fear is completely unwarranted. We must not fear a simple word.
We must own it. If we do so, we will no longer hear people scoff and ask, “You’re not one of those feminists, are you?” as if it were such a terrible thing. It can never be a bad thing to fight for the rights of marginalized groups.
I am a woman and I am a feminist. That word does not intimidate me. I am not afraid of the meanings people assign to it, because I know what it is supposed to stand for. I believe in the equality of all women, and all marginalized individuals.
If that makes me radical, so be it—but I think it simply makes me human.
By Rob Hardy
Hurricane Sandy may just be one of the stronger hurricanes on record. This fact is actually lost on many people due to weather hype (or hype in general these days), which makes “the conversations” that Twitter initiates grow to such loud drones that the voices themselves are lost in the process.
Though it’s great to be able to engage with others, people’s ability to tweet virtually anything can help colour any event, thereby changing perception in often-unrealistic ways. When many people weigh in on something like a storm, but have no clue what a millibar is, expectations get assigned that were never valid to begin with, reducing the process to little more than a telephone game.
First off, in regards to this hurricane, which by the time you read this will have caused beyond billions in damages, we have a case of under-hype if anything. As someone who has followed meteorology for a very long time, when hurricanes are classified solely on wind speed we get a redundant factoring which fails to take into account storm surge, rainfall or barometric pressure. This makes Sandy’s classification as a Category 1 hurricane misleading because it’s actually behaving like a major one instead, aided by a collision of weather fronts fuelling the storm’s energy.
Climate change is a very prickly topic but it’s really not so difficult. Though there is some debate, statistics are finding things heating up, though this involves colder weather at times since progress never uniformly points to one direction. We know that humans have absolutely changed this planet, and it’s also safe to say that bigger changes around us also play a factor (such as increased activity on the sun and other planets). But beyond that, we can’t quantify exactitudes.
People always talk about “the science”. Okay, let’s look at that. Science comes from the latin term scientia, meaning knowledge. Uh oh, so right away, this doesn’t look too good here. Because even if we were to unwisely declare that intuition was not a worthy source to rely on, how are we as humans going to function rationally when our body of knowledge, a.k.a. the level of our scientific understanding thus far, could only relatively fit into a thimble? And that’s for those who actually know a thing or two.
For those who don’t, hype not only builds up but it also tears down, with little understanding that weather is not really easier to predict today despite technological advances. However, this is not something to be reduced to a cheap joke, because understanding our place in the larger sphere should be taken very seriously, lest we be reduced to relying on second-rate information. That everyone likes to “freak out” as if they are in the movie 2012, and then later declare a significant event as a “dud” after the fact, doesn’t take into account the actual facts as they transpired, but rather plays into some sort of hyperactive social script - the same one which also declares that looking into the way things actually work is “geeky”.
Even authorities in Ontario were ripe to jump on the bandwagon during last year’s Snowmageddon, for example, saying that the storm “fizzled out”. No, what actually happened is that it thankfully spared this part of the region from the worst effects, while Lakeshore Drive in Chicago got pummelled by hurricane force winds off of Lake Michigan, forcing drivers to abandon their cars for miles after the blizzard made it impossible to move. This “dud” actually showed that a single non-cyclonic storm system could now produce nearly every sort of weather event imaginable at some point, including hail, thunder and sleet, with winds upwards of 80 mph, something quite unprecedented and unlike the clearing we ourselves experienced in this region.
Our earth is changing. This seemed especially clear this weekend as a powerful earthquake in British Columbia, registering at 7.7 causing a widespread tsunami warning for Hawaii, effectively pre-empting news of the impending hurricane with its own round-the-clock coverage. These kinds of stories bury the lesser-known but significant events, such as the Trans-Canada Highway, which collapsed in Wawa last week when rains caused the land beneath it to give way.
Other significant events are further obscured, such as Russia’s own 7.7 earthquake two months ago.
Some of you have travelled overseas for work or to see family, perhaps hearing something about how unusual the weather has been there.
We live in the GTA, which seems to be one of the few places being spared of some of the larger calamities occurring more frequently elsewhere. But it only takes one event to alter lives drastically, which is why New York is particularly vulnerable - not really well protected from even a minimal hurricane.
The point is that it’s easy to say something was over-hyped or mild if you only experienced the peripheral effects, but we have to judge something by its strongest point, as those whose homes are already flooded in Delaware and beyond will attest.
Otherwise we are relating more to a kind of created mythology than any specific event itself.
V: As a fourth year student, I have come to love and dread OSAP. For an independently funded student, OSAP is the only way I am able to stay in school. I have worked part time for years but it does not pay all the bills at the end of the day. Every year, with a steady increase of around 5 percent to my tuition, I find myself acquiring more and more debt. 5 percent does not sound like much but it comes out to roughly $500 every year. Ontario once adopted a two-year tuition freeze between 2004 and 2006.
In 2006, the average university tuition for an undergraduate degree was about $5,000. My tuition costs roughly $6,600 today.
As you can see, there has been a steady but painful increase in fees. Maybe it is time to have another tuition freeze.
D: At first I thought, “Why don’t we already adopt this motion?” Quebec has had a tuition freeze for as long as I can remember. I always wondered how the Province of Quebec was able to afford such an initiative. Federal Transfers and Equalizers, as they are called, is the reallocation of Provincial revenues to different Provinces to ensure sustainable budgets. Ottawa reallocates 15 billion dollars a year of other Provinces’ revenues to Quebec. Granted, Ontario also benefits from this program.
My point is that we all share into the expensive initiative that is a ‘tuition freeze’. If a tuition freeze were to occur in Ontario, the plan would cost $110 million to implement in its first year, $195 million in the second, $280 million in the third and $365 million in four years time.
Since no party would ever consider a tax increase in the midst of the Premier leaving office, I would have to assume that the money that would be needed would come at the cost of social services, the arts, and other important facets of society. I don’t think I can watch another social service risk drastic funding cuts.
V: The assumption that I made is grounded strongly in the evidence that has been presented over the last few decades; when the going gets tough, the services get cut. However, the only way this assumption could fail is if the economic prosperity improves as a result of this tuition freeze.
“With the fastest growing tuition in the country and poor performance in the student summer job market, the province must act quickly to address the concern that higher education is becoming increasingly inaccessible for Ontario families,” commented Alysha Li, President of OUSA.
As is consistent with my experience, along with thousands of my peers - as tuition costs increase, the need for more student financial assistant increases with it.
Furthermore, as tuition costs begin to increase and outpace inflation rates, the number of individuals who find that education is becoming inaccessible is also increasing. These potential students cannot then engage themselves in the competitive market places of our economy and find meaningful employment. This is just as problematic as having social services, and other funding, cuts.
D: But is a tuition freeze the solution?
As much as I do not always align my interests with the Liberals, I did appreciate the 30 percent grant that was available to me, and many other students, whose families make an annual income of less than $160,000.
I feel as though this is a very accessible grant that many students have benefited from over the last year.
This initiative has cost the Province the same amount a tuition freeze would.
I would argue that this initiative has been better on the basis of accessibility, practicality and the direct financial benefit to students. Furthermore, I think that this program should be expanded, not in terms of accessibility but rather, to relieve even more of the financial stress of students.
I would much rather see the money that would be needed to start or sustain a tuition freeze be put into this initiative.
D: At the end of the day, this is not an easy issue to debate. A simple issue has a clear-cut answer. A complicated issue has a difficult problem with a tested solution that requires attention. A complex issue is a very difficult problem with no clear answer or sufficiently tested solution.
Tuition costs are important to all of us.
We all must bear this burden in some way, whether that is through the support of parents, tiresome employment, federal grants and loans, et cetera.
What we all, and the thousands of students who protested in the streets of Montreal, can agree upon is that tuition costs are too damn high.
By Edwardo Lovo
“Why are you a feminist?” I’m often asked, after revealing that I am one. The need to ask the question expresses that someone needs a justification to be a feminist; the onus is on the feminist to exonerate their feminism. The question that should be asked is, “Why aren’t you a feminist?”
Do you believe in sexism? Do you believe in discrimination based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, ability, age, and class? Do you believe in an inequality between people based on arbitrary characteristics? That is, do you believe they exist? Do you believe in promoting these things? These questions are intended to be rhetorical, and I ask you, dear reader, to consider more fully why you aren’t a feminist.
Feminism is a movement against the oppression of women, but it doesn’t merely take a stance against systematic sexism. Society has complicated human beings by structuring all its individuals into multiple categories; we don’t merely fall into a single category, such as men and women, but fall under a variety: social class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. So, women can fall under any of these categories, and for feminism to be a movement against the oppression of women, it must be a movement against all of the intersecting systems of oppression.
Feminists are stereotyped as man-haters, as being all women, as being lesbians, as being hairy. Well, I’m not a woman, for this reason I don’t think I can count myself as a lesbian, I’m too narcissistic to hate myself—and, hey, I shave sometimes.
I acknowledge that I am writing from a male perspective, and I do not intend to speak on behalf of women, but as a self-identified feminist. How, as a man, am I affected by systematic sexism? And, for the non-believers, is there systematic sexism?
Patriarchy is an oppressive system that imposes norms on men and women—promoting an imbalance of power relations that favour men. To serve you one example, women are given the contradictory expectations to be sexual and not sexual. On the one hand, women who don’t accept his advances anger a man. On the other, a woman is degraded for being promiscuous by being shamed by negative labels, whereas a promiscuous man is praised for his “success”.
In a workshop on racism held by the Human Rights and Equity Services, the speaker Dr. Gary Dumbrill reported on his experiences being raised in the ranks of the work force. He noted that as he raised the ranks he noticed fewer women as his colleagues and that this is cause for reflection. It reflects an imbalance of power between men and women, where men are placed in the higher echelons of the work force.
Clearly, something is wrong, and these are problems that cannot be dismissed offhandedly by claiming that there is no inequality between the sexes.
For men especially it is difficult to see the inequality, as we are the privileged in this oppressive relationship. But after removing the blindfold to the cited facts above (and countless other visible effects of varied forms of oppression) the question that faces each and every one of us is, “Why aren’t you a feminist?”
V for Vendetta: Freedom Forever!
“People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.” This quote resonates with powerful meaning in the graphic novel adaptation, V for Vendetta, a movie ripe with underlying connotation. The movie encourages everyone to wake up from their oppressed slumber and take back the power.
Set in the near future, 2038, the United Kingdom falls under control of a totalitarian government, the Norsefire party. The party cements their authority through fear and the promise to ensure safety for British citizens through complete control and surveillance. Norsefire maintains power and knowledge, only divulging information they wish to disclose. A masked man named V, dressed in a Guy Fawkes mask, enters the picture with the intent to “free” the people and take back their individual identity by blowing up Parliament.
After blowing up the Old Bailey, V hijacks a news building and airs a prerecorded video of himself, admitting to the crime. He then encourages everyone to join him at the parliament building the following year, and stand up to the government.
The film sends a strong message to the audience: unless people stand up for themselves in regards to civil liberties, powerlessness will follow.
At the movie’s climax, with an array of armory pointed at V, Mr. Creedy demands that he take off his mask. Rather than opening fire on the man who has created a political uproar in London, the henchmen seem more concerned with identity and power.
As V walks towards Mr. Creedy, he informs Creedy about what he is up against, “Beneath this mask there is more than flesh, beneath this mask, there is an idea . . . and ideas are bulletproof.”
V fights for Britain to take control of their country and make their voices heard early and often. He insists that he is not a terrorist, and that it’s all for the greater good. The movie does a fantastic job providing justifications for V’s actions, while allowing the audience to ultimately decide whether or not he is truly justified.
Very few movies contain the power to actually empower and motivate someone to engage in social change. V for Vendetta ultimately reminds us to stand up for our beliefs, hold the government accountable for their actions, and stay active in political debate.
- Matt Morehouse
Theater is well-known for staging political discourse. Shakespeare, whose political and psychological insights are still being understood in new ways, defined the canon of Western literature. He explored human nature through genres ranging from tragedies to black comedies, portraying the psyche with poetic acuity. While his plays and poetry put me to sleep in high school, I must admit that reading them now makes me realize just how relevant they really are. The Bard’s play-within-a-play technique allowed him to do something quite amazing. Building layer upon layer within a single story, the complex plots tease the audience, daring thinkers to keep up with the playwright. Shakespeare’s provocative ideals about art translated into modern cinema. For example, Apocalypse Now, popularly known for its anti-war stance, represents the government as a failure of colonial enterprise. If you pay attention to the philosophy of Col. Kurtz, played by performance master Marlon Brando, the “horror” seen in war is the effect of people acting like gods.
In order to cover up such crimes, a politician like Nixon gave us such convoluted explanations that we got lost in his maze. Remember Inception, how reality is caked with layers upon layers of dream? Watch it again and judge whether Cobb, performed by Leonardo DiCaprio, reached reality in the end. Or did he just get lost in a web of chaos and deception?
Feeling similarly lost? You might watch American Beauty with comfort then, since pretty much everyone in that story feels the same. Coming across as a typical family drama, the movie is actually a harsh critique on our culture. And that floating bag— justify to me how that can be beautiful, and I’ll give you my tuition savings. When I watch the movie I feel that nobody knows what’s good for them, because values— ranging from a disheartened war vet to upper-middle class yuppies— have crumbled. What is termed “beautiful” in the movie is pathetic, and subjective judgement is thus made arbitrary and null of any grounding in reality. This, or so much of the world will claim, is the poor taste of North American mainstream— if you don’t believe me, ask Noam Chomsky.
When it comes to poor judgement, see if you can figure out any of the characters’ intentions in The Ides of March. This film, whose title emanates from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, shows its viewers the reality of Machiavellian politics. Look at Gov. Mike Morris, played by George Clooney. His deceptions are so careful that he not only fools his staff, but the audience watching the movie.
While you might catch onto political slants in pretty much every movie, the following is a list of my top cinematic critiques of the political game:
The Manchurian Candidate (John Frankenheimer)
JFK (Oliver Stone)
Absolute Power (Clint Eastwood)
The Matrix Trilogy (Wachowski Bros.)
The Insider (Michael Mann)
Lions for Lambs (Robert Redford)
Enemy of the State (Tony Scott)
The Adjustment Bureau (George Nolfi)
Manufacturing Consent (Noam Chomsky)
The Godfather Trilogy (Francis Ford Coppola)
Before tuning into the presidential election, watch these movies, read the newspaper, and make some appalling connections.
- Marco Filice
By Talia Kollek
A few years back I attended my first university Halloween party. I fully expected it to be just like the movies, with togas and a never-ending supply of beer. What I actually encountered was questionable attire.
My one friend had decided to dress up as an Indian. The tasseled costume was complete with lines of face paint, cleavage, a hand made headdress, and the occasional joke about alcoholism. At the time, I remembered being taken aback. My friend had never displayed any racist tendencies before, so what about that night had made her actions feel acceptable to her? Why had this particular costume crossed from “dress up” to discrimination?
Unfortunately, my friends’ costuming was nothing new. Non-Natives have been impersonating First Nations people since as far back as the 1830s. An image of the First Nation’s lifestyle was built up by Europeans and perpetuated through artwork, stories, and media. To be a real Indian included living in harmony with nature, tipis and wigwams. This concept of the Noble Savage painted all First Nations people with one brush, ignoring the immense diversity of tribes across North America. It reduced an entire continent’s culture to one incorrect image.
To take this offensive caricature and wear it on a day designated for silly dress up has deeper meanings and ramifications than just a costume.
When it comes to Halloween costumes, an important issue to address is inappropriate sexualization. As if mockingly representing a culture with a costume is not offensive enough, outfits will often exploit sexuality and simultaneously skew gender roles.
Similar to the image of the Noble Savage, the image of the Sexy Squaw (or any hyper-sexualized Native woman) is a terrible misrepresentation and fetishization of a demographic. To reduce First Nations women to sexual objectification ignores the fact that they are three times more likely to be victims of violence and sexual assault (according to Statistics Canada). There is also a prominent history of sex slavery and subjugation of Native women by European colonizers. Mockingly dressing up as an at-risk population should not be considered appropriate Halloween behavior.
However, an important distinction should be made between cultural appropriation and cultural sharing. A fantastic example of cultural sharing on Mac’s campus was the Powwow held in September.
The event was organized by the McMaster First Nations Student Association and was open to the public in the spirit of sharing and education. In contrast, cultural appropriation would be for a non-Native individual to take an item with significance (such as something resembling a headdress) and wear it in jest or as part of an ensemble. Dressing up as another culture does not necessarily relate to genuine appreciation.
Suppose you disagree with me. Suppose you think that dressing as Pocahontas, a “sexy gypsy” or painting your face to look more like Kanye West isn’t offensive. Even if you don’t think that it is doing anyone any harm, there are still other aspects to consider. Most importantly, you have to keep cultural identity in mind.
You have had your own unique experiences in your lifetime, and each of those experiences is somehow influenced (for better or for worse) by your age, gender, sexual orientation, location and culture. Halloween rolls around, and it all seems like fun and games.
You get to dress up and “play” as an “exotic” culture, and then at the end of the night you get to go back to whomever you were in the morning, without experiencing any of the oppression or discrimination faced by others. Before ignoring the experiences of other people and wearing their identity as a costume, please consider that you may cause someone to feel alienated or deeply insulted by your light-hearted or well-intending theatrics.
At this point, you may be wondering exactly what you can dress up as this year. The options are endless. If all else fails, cut your losses and buy some eyeliner to draw on whiskers and go as a cat.
If you are truly having trouble thinking of dressing as anything other than a Native American then it may be time to reassess your creative thinking process.
A good start is to avoid anything that reaffirms cultural stereotypes. Is your costume something specific? Or is it a generalization of someone else’s heritage? If you are dressing up as favorite cartoon character you are doing a great job, if you are dressed as a “sexy insert-culture-here” it is time to go back to the drawing board.
What I would like you to take away from this article is the idea that costumes have significance. Do yourself and everyone else a favor this Halloween and choose something respectful.
Dressing up as another culture isn’t appreciation, it isn’t just a pretty outfit, and it isn’t something to be taken lightly or as a joke.
When people dress as a stereotype they are perpetuating deeply rooted racism and the misrepresentation of a population that is still dealing with discrimination, partially as a result of actions such as Halloween dress up. This year, please dress respectfully.
By Edward Lovo
There is a view of education that requires challenging. It's rather natural to be anxious about the prospects of one's choice of study. One worries about what career path one will take after completing a liberal arts degree, for example. However, the view of education that ought to be challenged sees education solely as a means to these prospects; in other words, education is an investment.
Living in a (more or less) democratic society, education is more than just an investment; more than what many regard as a privilege rather than a right. Education is a social good that is integral to the ideals of a democratic society. Two such ideals are political equality, and open and fair discussion.
Democracy, in the first place, implies that all citizens come together to reach a decision on questions that concern them all. Accordingly, the second of the democratic ideals, open and fair discussion, expresses each citizen's right to the opportunity to articulate their views and supporting reasons, and to listen to an array of other viewpoints on matters of public concern.
Political equality requires that all citizens are equal participants in decision-making. Political equality is a robust conception that goes beyond the empty formality of filling out a ballot. Open and fair discussion presupposes a substantive equality between citizens.
Thomas Christiano, a democratic theorist, gives the following example by way of illustration: “Consider a citizen who has a vote and is not forbidden to say something in the process of deliberation. But suppose that because of poverty, lack of education, and lack of organization this citizen is unable to understand the issues involved in the decision-making or have a clear idea of what [their] interests are or how to articulate them to others. Such a citizen is not the political equal of the citizen who is wealthy, well educated, whose interests and points of view are supported by organization, and who is able to understand issues as well as clarify and articulate [their] interests...most of us would believe that [this society] does not live up to the democratic ideals of political equality and participation in rational social deliberation.”
So, political equality does not end with the uneducated worker being able to cast a vote in the same way the educated employer for whom he works is able to cast a vote. This is merely equality on paper and not equality in our substantive relations with one another.
Education, as well, ought not to be restricted to a select few, such as to those who can afford it, as this exacerbates the inequality between the classes. Limited accessibility reflects in society an inequality in power among classes that privileges an educated elite not only in the process of deliberation but also in the fulfillment of political roles.
Education, then, is fundamental to a democratic society, which promotes political equality among its citizens. It serves as a grand equalizer of its citizens, and a society that limits its accessibility is not living up to its ideal of political equality. Upon these considerations, one should see that education is not an investment in a democratic society - it's a right.
