Tag: racism

Categories
Opinions

The role of the audience in comedy

In 2019, people claim comedy is “under attack.” Is this true?

The short answer is no, but I seem to be writing an article here, so let me explain.

Comedians such as Bill Maher, Louis CK, Kevin Hart and Dave Chappelle are experiencing a change in their careers. This most definitely does not mean that their careers are over, so, let’s take a closer look. Chapelle fans – stay with me.

I’m assuming that you have heard this argument being circulated for quite some time and although this might feel frustrating, I don’t think it’s necessarily negative.

Comedy and comedians represent laughter, happiness and, more importantly, growth and learning. There’s a reason why people look at political memes more than political policies: humour can be accessible, clever, and most of all, it has an impact.

Comedy is changing. People are no longer laughing at things that make them feel small. Social media and other large platforms are giving previously silenced communities a voice in the comedic world. We are speaking truth to power and this all feeds into one thing: the evolving role of the audience.

Yes – that’s us, the audience!

We have more control than ever before. It’s exciting, but naturally quite unnerving for comedians that have spent most of their lives writing jokes and not thinking about how they could offend people.

Despite acting like they don’t care, we have seen evidence that the opposite is true. Let’s take a look at Chappelle for a moment. He’s undoubtedly a very successful comedian who has been called out for his tone deaf demeanour for the past two years. He’s a powerful figure, re-emerging as a comedian in a world very different than the one he’s used to.

Jenna Wortham and Welsey Morris, New York Times writers and hosts of the podcast  Still Processing, highlight that in his newest standup, Chappelle is just plain lashing out at the audience.

He says,“If you do anything wrong in your life, and I find out about it, I’m going to try and take everything away from you and I don’t care when I find out… Who’s that? That’s you!”

The shift here is obvious. The audience is clearly impacting the way Chappelle normally functions. He is making a joke out of his fear for his career.

Listen, I am aware that I’m yet another chia seed eating, avocado spreading, social media savvy, left-wing millennial preaching about why Chappelle is a sore loser, but hear me out.

I’m not trying to promote cancel culture or tell you what you should or shouldn’t watch. I understand that in this social climate things often sway to an extreme. This being said, I think it’s important to understand the reality of where comedy is going.

Comedian and actor Kevin Hart is another public figure who has voiced his frustration with the audience.

He said in an interview, “I don’t understand why there’s a push to destroy what you just don’t have to support or like.”

Even though he is using oversimplified vernacular to describe backlash he received about homophobic comments, I think the important thing to note in this comment is the word “destroy.” Comedians are fearful that the audience can control their careers and instead of adapting, they don’t know how to handle it.

Nazeem Hussain, an Australian comedian speaks openly about understanding the audience’s fluid role.

In an interview with Eureka Street, he said, “’the audience doesn’t buy that homophobic, racist and sexist stuff anymore. It’s lazy comedy, they should find new jokes and get a laugh.”

Hannah Gadsby, a writer and comedian also from Australia spoke very eloquently about the dissonance certain comedians won’t stop complaining about, in an interview with Esquire.

“So many comedians expect control of the room when they’re onstage, because they’ve got the magic stick that amplifies their voice, and everyone has to listen,” she said. “Comedy no longer exists in a vacuum. To be relevant, you have to speak with your audience. You don’t get to just tell them how it is.”

People are not standing for harmful jokes anymore. This does not mean vulgarity is dead and that audiences can’t handle explicit or shocking material.

It means the role of the audience has changed – and that’s not a bad thing.

 

Graphic by @sundaeghost

Categories
News

Speaking out against Bill 21

In a night filled with heartfelt words and personal reflection, World Sikh Organization hosted an open mic in hopes of providing a safe space for those affected by bill 21 to share their experience.

In collaboration with Democratic Engagement Exchange and Punjabi Resilience and Empowerment in Mental Health (PREM), the event, which took place on Oct. 13 evening at Club Insiders anticafé, addressed the importance of social engagement through self-expression, solidarity and political engagement as elections approach.

“I hope the event was able to display the immense impact bill 21 has had on the mental health of religious minorities living in Quebec,” said Steeven Toor, founder and director of PREM.

The event was organized by Toor, who spoke about the importance of community in the face of Bill 21. He emphasized the isolation that the bill has imposed on many members of religious communities in Quebec.

Speakers shared creative projects such as photo essays and songs with the attendees. Political Science student at Concordia University, Mandeep Kaur, spoke about her frustrations. Her choice of wearing a traditional sikh turban empowers her identity but Bill 21 could hinder her pursuit of a career in law. She spoke about the injustice and isolation she feels by simply expressing her beliefs in physical form. “We have to stay together in solidarity. The bill is dividing us.” Kaur said.

A presentation was given by Bao-Vy Nguyen, a field organizer from Democratic Engagement Exchange (DEE), a non-partisan group that provides support and strategy to organizations promoting voter engagement. Nguyen spoke about the importance of voter engagement and gave the audience a few pointers to understanding party policies and tips for voting.

“Mobilization is also about being in touch with communities that are often left out of the conversations. It also starts by bringing awareness and sharing information,” Nguyeen said.

She also stressed the importance of having representation and voting to effect change. “I’m happy that many took away the Punjabi Misinformation guide, it goes to show that people are actually interested, we just need to find more ways to reach out to people and make these resources accessible and inclusive.” The Punjabi Misinformation guides are pamphlets provided by the DEE to show facts and information about the elections and candidates that affect their community.

“I was very happy to see so many folks come and support the event,” Toor said. “I was also glad to see all walks of life in the room and to be able to share space with people from different communities,” Toor said.

 

Photo by Mishkat Hafiz

Categories
Opinions

Oh my sweet, broken home

It is no question that Lebanon prides itself for being a land based on paradoxes.

Where the government forces its people to travel to Cyprus for civil marriage, but never bats an eye at nightclubs closing at 6 a.m. Where religion and politics are – quite literally – the two nesting pillars, and are more often than not interchangeable. Where our greatest accomplishments consist of being among the top 10 party cities, and breaking the Guinness World Record for the biggest hummus plate.

I love my birth country more than anything in the world. Despite all its flaws and political turmoils, I remain the devil’s advocate. However, there are certain things I will never be able to overlook, nor defend; and that is the Lebanese population’s innate racism and intolerance.

On Sept. 20, Lebanon’s Minister of Education Akram Chehayeb took to Twitter to discuss the Near Eastern country’s refugee crisis.

“Despite all the challenges, we will not allow any student to remain outside of school in Lebanon, whatever his nationality, and we will endeavor to ensure a comprehensive and just education for all,” his words read. “The human right to education is a sacred right guaranteed by all international conventions and laws.”

Such an accepting statement did not sit well with a number of people, and was followed by an overtly racist, some would call ‘nationalist,’ caricature. OTV, a Lebanese broadcasting channel, shared a cartoonist’s take on Chehayeb’s words. The drawing shows two Lebanese students walking to school, only to be greeted with a sign that roughly translates from Arabic to: “We apologize, the school is full of Syrians, Palestinians, Indians, (an offensive word for Black people), Ethiopians, Bangladeshis.”

The Daily Star reported that the cartoon has been removed from OTV’s socials as of Monday, with no response from the channel about the backlash.

It’s no secret that Lebanon has had its fair share of conflicts from the influx of refugees, due to the many strifes the Near East has had to face over the years. Not to mention the unresolved Civil War issues, placing the country in a devil’s palm, where the people live in imminent fear of it happening again. Suffice to say, a country with a pint-sized territory of 10,452 square km bites off more discords than it can chew; and for inexplicable reasons, remains hungry for more.

One thing I have learned since moving to Montreal is how similar we all are once we get over our differences. At times, I have more in common with a Syrian or Palestinian citizen than I do with a Lebanese one who has lived their entire life in the same country as I. I even go as far as relating to many Latinos about similar childhood moments, mostly ones relating to parental disciplinary methods. Because globalization has enabled us to look beyond one’s nationality, and realize that no ethnicity is better than others – especially not ethnicities that live so close together. 

As the years go by, I don’t believe the sentence “I am not racist, but” should be tolerated anymore. It is not acceptable to follow antiquated ideals of favouritism, and elitist attitudes, where one believes themselves to be better than others.

I grew up in an environment where institutionalized racism was ever-present, but was taught to treat everyone with respect and kindness. I’ve outgrown, and educated myself out of that innate racial bias, and I am only 22. What’s your excuse?

 

Graphic by Victoria Blair

 

Categories
Opinions

Perspectives on “Brownface,” from a brown-faced person

It is almost starting to feel that in the  #MeToo era, you can’t react quickly enough to any story linked to sexism, harassment, racism, etc – and that’s a good thing. It’s high time that survivors and victims of sexual assault have this safe space where they instantly have trust and public opinion on their side. Even if, in reality, getting an actual recourse of actions against the perpetrators is a little too much to ask. Remember Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey-Ford?

But what has been lost in this knee-jerk reaction, is the time to reflect – before, during, after.  It’s like once the public condemnation has come down, there is little room for anything else. And this is where it becomes dangerous.

The latest, of course, has been the Justin Trudeau brownface debacle. And following the trend that has been set forth, let me firstly make an exaggerated, arm waving, red faced denunciation of his actions. We are talking about the year 2001 here, Mr. Prime Minister – I know it wasn’t the age of woke but it wasn’t even the age of utter disconnect with global discourses. Coming from a political background, one would assume (though why should we?) that you would have been more sensitized to the issues of race, stereotyping and the deep emotions of hurt and abuse that are associated with these actions.

The any-other-colour-except-your-own face has a terrible history. It has been implicit in creating ridicule simply for the sake of laughter and amusement. It is demeaning to those of us whose identities are reduced to our colour only. The revelation of these images has given rise to a great debate about who Trudeau really is. There are accusations of racism, and of course statements of how unfit he is to be the leader of this country. And all of this is justified. We need to be held accountable for our actions.

But here, I want to move beyond Trudeau and this specific incident. I want to take a moment to remember that we are the sum-total of our actions and thoughts. Not one action. Not one thought. The sum-total of all our actions, since the time we are mature enough to make our own decisions to the day we die.

I realize that in such a reactionary world this has become an unpopular opinion, but it is precisely why we need to pay attention to this. One action doesn’t define us, because if that was the case, then I am quite certain that none of us would be free of charge. What’s more, what constitutes right from wrong, socially acceptable behavior, attitude and norms are constantly evolving, as we become more aware of the diversity of identities that exists around us.

We also need to consider at this point whether one action from the past is all it takes to discount the evolution that we might have made as a person since then. Is there no room to recognize that people grow and learn from their mistakes?

Again, I feel I must emphasize here that this doesn’t discount Trudeau whose privileges should have made him more aware of various social considerations.

Moreover, with a highly-charged political environment, these stories have the effect of distracting one from the more serious question. Was brownface stupid? Yes, a hundred times yes. But, is it as worth our attention as much as immigration policy, climate change, the refugee crisis? No. A thousand times no.

Am I positioning one issue above others? No! What I am simply saying is that the tendency of getting swept away in the social media world is far too great, while the current political situation demands that we do just the opposite – that we stay anchored and vigilant. That one individual’s stupidity and lack of sensitization to other people’s identity doesn’t let us become insensitive in return to the impact our lack of attention can have on millions of others.

As a brown person, who because of her student status has no voice in the outcome of the Canadian election, I feel it is critical that we maintain focus on the issues that go beyond this. And yes, one can correctly argue that such incidents pile up to bigger crimes of violence against minorities, which is why we need to move forward now and look out for and work against those greater structures of violence.

 

Graphic by @sundaeghost

Categories
Opinions

Anti-immigrant: nationalist, or downright racist?

I can’t count the amount of times I’ve heard someone say “I’m not racist, but…” and every time I hear someone say that, I think to myself: either you are, or you aren’t.

A lot of the time, people will try to avoid being condemned as a racist by hiding behind other concepts and terms, often trying to make themselves look patriotic in the process. They often say things such as “I’m only trying to protect our country’s values,” or “I’m trying to preserve our history.”

In a country as socially-advanced as Canada, it’s sad to see that some are still behaving in such a way: going against immigration and diversity because it threatens their way of life – a life in which white supremacists hold most of the power.

On Sept. 7, readers of the Vancouver Sun witnessed such behavior when they came across an article called “Can Social Trust and Diversity Co-Exist?” written by Mark Hecht. Hecht was nothing more than a racist white supremicist who disguised his thoughts as a concerned nationalism.

The Vancouver Sun pulled the article from their website within a day of publication, but there is nothing they could do about the paper that was sent out. The damage was done and now thousands of people have read the article.

While Hecht wasn’t upfront with his racism, he encouraged and praised homogeneity; as well as discouraging diversity and inclusion. In his article, Hecht argued that our country is becoming less and less socially trusting, and to counter this, “the minimum requirement is that we say goodbye to diversity and inclusion.”

He wants everyone to be the same; to have the same values and to fit in perfectly with his idea of the proper Canadian society.

But we aren’t robots, we aren’t programmed to think the same way, to value the same things. We’re humans, and as humans, we have the ability and the right to express different opinions and values, so long as it doesn’t hurt the person next to you.

What people like Hecht need to understand is that Canada is a country built on immigration and diversity. When British and French settlers came here in the 1600s, were they not immigrants themselves? What about in the early 1900s, when Ukrainians and Polish people settled here?

All of these people came from different parts of the world in search of a better life and better opportunities, which is the same reason people come to Canada today.

Can you imagine what Canada would be like if everyone who immigrated here had the same beliefs, the same values and the same origins? Think about how bland it would be. Think about everything we’d be missing out on: the food, music, movies, art, etc.

There’s so much that we benefit from living in such a diverse country. We have a more open minded understanding of the world, and this allows us to grow as individuals and as a country.

While I understand that Hecht’s article is an opinion piece, and that he has every right to express his opinion, I find it hard to stay quiet and say nothing about it. Before writing an article on how Canada would be better if we stopped being so diverse, take a minute and remember where you came from.

We’re a country that prides itself on our rich and diverse culture, and every new-comer adds to that.

Everyone here deserves to be respected; regardless of their status, their religion, or the color of their skin. Without them, there would be no us.

 

Graphic by Victoria Blair

Categories
Opinions

Editorial: Hideous figures in history must be taken down

graphic by @sundaemorningcoffee

You’ve probably heard of the debates surrounding whether or not certain statues of historical figures should continue to be proudly displayed. The reason for removing these statues is often that they’re celebrating historical figures that promoted and perpetuated oppression. Take the statue of Sir John A. Macdonald in Montreal’s Place du Canada, for example. Just last week, a group identifying itself as part of #MacdonaldMustFall drenched the statue in red paint, according to the Montreal Gazette.

In a statement, the group said, “Macdonald statues should be removed from public space and instead placed in archives or museums, where they belong as historical artifacts.” Similarly, the statue of Queen Victoria in front of McGill’s Schulich School of Music was coated in green paint on Sunday, according to the Montreal Gazette. An anti-colonial group called the Delhi-Dublin Anti-Colonial Solidarity Brigade said it was responsible. In a statement published online, the group said, “the presence of Queen Victoria statues in Montreal is an insult to the struggles of self-determination and resistance of oppressed peoples around the world, including the Indigenous nations of North America (Turtle Island) and Oceania, as well as the peoples of Africa, the Middle East, the Caribbean, the Indian subcontinent, and wherever the British Empire committed its atrocities.”

We at The Concordian  strongly agree with groups like #MacdonaldMustFall and the Delhi-Dublin Anti-Colonial Solidarity Brigade. Proudly displaying figures like Queen Victoria and Sir John A. Macdonald means praising their actions––actions which, in reality, are nothing to be proud of. As most know, Sir John A. Macdonald was a part of the approval of the first residential schools in Canada, according to Global News. He set up treaties with Indigenous Peoples and broke them, and starved thousands who lived on reserves, according to the same source. The Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario (EFTO) has called him the “architect of genocide against Indigenous Peoples.”

To this day, many of the struggles Indigenous communities face in Canada can be seen as results of Macdonald’s legacy. How can we praise a leader who helped create these hardships? The same goes for Queen Victoria––how can we praise a leader who perpetuated oppression for so many around the world? How can we support colonialism, imperialism and repression of self-determination?

The answer is, we can’t. And we won’t.

We at The Concordian support groups who dedicate their lives to combating and resisting against symbols of oppression––symbols like statues, plaques or any other form of commemorating a hideous figure in history. The call to remove these statues reminds us of another event two years ago, where counter-demonstrators in Charlottesville, Virginia clashed with white supremacists who were protesting against the removal of a statue of Confederate icon General Robert E. Lee. The protest turned violent, with a car ploughing into the crowd of anti-racist and anti-fascist protestors, killing one and injuring 19 others, according to Al Jazeera.

We at The Concordian believe statues of oppressive historical figures is one of the many ways white supremacy is still upheld in our society. We’re proud to see groups and people that fight against this in proactive ways, by choosing to attend anti-racism protests. We must remain vigilant, and we must become more outspoken against all forms of oppression. For those who think this is an old conversation, it’s too close to home for us to turn a blind eye—our current CAQ government is playing a role in upholding racist ideologies, by establishing values tests and French-language tests for immigrants. Canada’s complicit too—Barbara Perry, a professor at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology and an expert on hate groups in Canada, believes between 120-130 hate groups exist in Canada today, according to Al Jazeera.

Some of these hateful people exist online, in the darkest corners of the internet and some even in broad daylight on Facebook comments and Twitter threads. Others form and join far-right groups like La Meute in Quebec, the Proud Boys, Soldiers of Odin and anti-immigrant group Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident (PEGIDA). Perry told Al Jazeera that this onslaught of hate groups is “a unique era in our history.”

Unique, indeed. Uniquely terrifying, wrong and downright disgusting. We at The Concordian fiercely denounce all oppressive acts, figures and groups. We stand by those who fight against this systematic oppression and white supremacy that continues to see the light of day in our society.

Graphic by @sundaemorningcoffee

Categories
Student Life

Memories of the SGW Affair

From left: Clarence Bayne, H. Nigel Thomas, Philippe Fils-Aimé, Brenda Dash and Nancy Warner spoke at De Sève Cinema on Feb. 8. Photo by Alex Hutchins

Re-examining the socio-political climate of 1960s Montreal

In light of the 50th anniversary of the 1969 Sir George Williams Affair, Protests and Pedagogy, a two-day conference commemorating the largest student occupation in Canadian history, took place at De Sève Cinema in the LB building on Feb. 8 and 9.

The series of panels saw speakers, academics and activists from across the country join together to share information and memories of the events on Feb. 11, 1969. Resituating the occupation within the broader socio-political context of racial tensions in the 1950s and 60s in Montreal, as well as globally, underpinned each discussion.

Michael O. West, professor of sociology, Africana studies and history at Binghamton University, kicked off the conference by giving some much-needed historical context to the occupation. On April 28, 1968, eight students approached the Dean of Students with the initial complaint regarding their biology professor. “1968 was a year of protests and rebellion worldwide,” said West. “The Sir George Williams Affair was deeply rooted in the revolution of 1968.” Twenty-two days before the students came forth with their initial complaint “was the assassination, on April 4, 1968, of the King of Love,” said West. “Martin Luther King.”

Following West, H. Nigel Thomas, an author of various novels, poems and scholarly texts, chaired the second panel discussion between four individuals who were all involved, in one way or another, with the events surrounding Feb. 11.

Clarence Bayne, a then-professor at Sir George Williams University; Philippe Fils-Aimé, one of the Hall building occupants as well as one of the 97 people arrested that day; Brenda Dash, a Montrealer who vocally supported the students and was also arrested; and Nancy Warner, then a student-supporter from McGill who was outside the Hall building on Feb. 11. Every panelist had unique, insightful details of the intentionally misrepresented protest-turned-riot, all to convey one theme: it’s time the truth got a fair hearing.

The 9th floor computer centre after Feb. 11, 1969. Archive photo courtesy of Concordia University.

“Many people saw a face of Montreal that they had never seen before. The sheer hostility, the racism, the things that were said to people,” said Warner. “The degree to which what we thought were the rules of due-process, of the people being treated like they had some kind of civil liberties, were dashed.”

Some major news outlet headlines from Feb. 11 and onwards read: “Police Stay Cool in Chaos” and “Riot Squad Impressive” (The Gazette, Feb. 12, 1969) in which police are praised for appearing “relaxed and in good humour,” as well as “Student Moderates Alienated—Extremists go it Alone,” (The Star, Feb. 12, 1969) which stated that black students wanted to “burn down the university.”

“Much has been said about the destructive danuma of February 11,” said West. “A favourite description became and remains: riot. It being assumed that the rioters and protesters were one and the same.”

To this day, the administration and major news outlets present the mysterious fire as a point of contestation from the riots that day, despite the fact that students were arrested and charged with arson, among other offences, in the ensuing trials.

“I am going to also make a few comments on the question of this fire at the computer centre. I will tell you things that I have never said or mentioned before,” said Fils-Aimé. “As we were in jail, I had the chance to talk with Rosie [Roosevelt Douglas] and I said ‘Rosie, did you start this fucking fire, man?’ and he said ‘Phillippe, I must tell you, I didn’t have to.’” Fils-Aimé went on to explain how Rosie speculated that an individual whom they knew to be a devoted anarchist was the arsonist.

Details of the brutal events that took place once the riot squad stormed into the Hall building have not been downplayed—they have been left out of the history books altogether. “It is true that a riot occurred at the computer centre,” said West. “Except the riot only began with the arrival of the Montreal police riot squad.”

“The black occupiers were singled-out for especially brutal retribution. Black women, as could be expected, got the worst of it,” said West. “Subjected to bigoted bile as well as sexual violence. [Black men’s] bodies were ground in broken glass, they were kicked in the groin and genitalia.”

The students who made the initial complaint were taking a biology course, many of whom had dreams of attending medical school and ascending to the professional realm of society. “In sum, the police riot was also an attack on black sexuality and black reproduction,” said West.

West explained that, in regards to holding the police and the university accountable for the riots, “that has occurred to no one; that is, no one in a position of authority.” Fils-Aimé left attendees with a metaphor: when history is written by the lions, you’ll never hear the side of the antelopes. “In the process, truth became another victim,” said West. “It’s time, officially, that truth got a hearing at Concordia University. It’s time.”

Feature photo by Alex Hutchins

Categories
Opinions

Don’t touch my hair, don’t speak on my behalf

graphic by ana bilokin

We must avoid generalizing and include specific people in discussions about race

“Can I touch your hair?”

I don’t think I’ve ever asked anyone that question in my life, and I have a very hard time imagining a situation where I would. I’ve never walked up to a total stranger or someone I barely knew in a bar, at school, or at the water cooler at work, and asked them if I could touch the hair on their head, with my fingers eagerly stretched outwards.

It sounds absolutely disgusting to me, yet it is a question I am asked a minimum of once a week, and that’s just because I wear a toque most of the time.

Yes, as you must have guessed, I am black, with long, beautiful, natural hair. Locs to be exact (not dreadlocks, because there is nothing dreadful about them), and yes, the people requesting to touch them are typically white. After politely saying no, I am usually asked insulting, but amusing questions like: “So you don’t wash your hair to get it like that, right?” Or, “Do you have any weed?”

Black people’s hair has always seemed to be a fascination for some white people. Some seem amused, and others puzzled by it: wanting to touch it, asking questions about it, and even sometimes attempting to emulate it. And some seem to fear it: wanting us to shave it off, cover it, or straighten it, wanting it to mimic theirs so that they feel more comfortable when we’re around.

Luckily, in Canada, we don’t seem to hear as many stories of discrimination against natural black hairstyles like in the United States, where their justice system found it legal for Catastrophe Management Solutions to rescind Chastity Jones’s job offer because she didn’t comply to their grooming policy, which is supposedly “unrelated to race,” by having locs. Or, where recently, Andrew Johnson, a high school varsity athlete, was forced to cut off his locs or forfeit a wrestling match.

Last month, a comedian was told he couldn’t perform at a comedy bar ironically titled “Snowflake Comedy Club.” He also couldn’t perform at another event held at the Coop Les Récoltes, a bar and solidarity co-operative operated by Université du Québec à Montréal’s Group de Rechercher d’Intérêt Public, because he has locs.

Well, actually because he’s white, and has locs.

In an extremely long message posted on their Facebook page, the Coop defended their decision to ban Zach Poitras from performing at their establishment. Essentially, they explained that they operate what they call a safe space exempt of oppression, in which no discrimination or harassment of any kind will be tolerated. They stated that they consider a white person with locs to be a form of cultural appropriation, which they describe on their post as: “the fact that a person from a dominant culture appropriates symbols, clothes or hairstyles of people from historically dominated cultures.”

They continued by saying that: “It is a privilege to be able to wear dreads as a white person and to be seen as fashionable, or as being edgy, while a black person will be denied access to job opportunities or spaces (housing, schools, parties, sports competitions, etc.).” Are white people with locs, like Poitras, racist, cultural appropriators? I don’t know––the few interactions I’ve had with them, I usually just sign for my package, and they ride off on their bicycles. I’ve never felt oppressed.

The incident and the message posted by the Coop has sparked a nationwide conversation on cultural appropriation and racism over the last few weeks. Well, a conversation that’s had mostly among white people, in my opinion.

Journal de Montréal columnist, Richard Martineau, ridiculed the matter, stating that this situation has opened his eyes, and he will no longer use numbers because they were invented by Arabs, and the fact that lithium batteries were created by a Moroccan man will cause him to stop using his cellphone, because he now realizes that would also be a form of cultural appropriation.

On Twitter, many debated the matter, like user @LavenderBlume who posed the question: “Why is #CulturalAppropriation so hard for people to understand?” Alongside a meme asking: “What if America loved black people as much as black culture?” This was then answered by user @thurnuz, who claims Poitras is innocent of what he is accused of, stating that locs “have been found depicted in frescoes from Mioa over 3,500 years ago, and were worn in ancient Greece and Sparta.” Therefore, a white person wearing locs is not appropriating black culture, the user argued.

Yes, I do believe a conversation should be had on the matter, but as Poitras himself said in a statement obtained by Radio Canada, “I do not think it’s up to whites to decide what is racist, or cultural appropriation.” This is not a conversation white people should be having alone. Not only should minorities be involved in the discussion being had about their cultures, I believe they should be leading them.

In a second message, posted to Facebook a few days later, the Coop attempted to further explain their decision not to let Poitras perform. They stated that they wished to clarify that they didn’t speak on behalf of all “marginalized” populations, and they never intended to suggest that the comedian was racist. But they reiterated their belief that his presence would not have been in accordance with their “inclusivity” policy. A policy, which along with their previous post, they now claim was written by “racialized” people.

The word “racialize” is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as the act of giving racial character to something, or someone. I know what “racialized” means, but I looked it up because I would like to know exactly what the Coop meant by “racialized.” I may be reading too much into it, but it sounds a little condescending to me. It appears to me as if they are speaking of defenseless victims, or fragile creatures who have been made victims of their own race.

I hope the Coop is referring to particular people, in their particular group, because as a black person, I only speak for myself. I would feel pretty insulted if they are insinuating that Poitras wasn’t allowed to perform in their space on my behalf, as well as by being called “racialized.”

Personally, my concerns when it comes to cultural appropriation are less about whether or not Poitras can have locs, but whether or not the “genuine” red, gold, and green Rasta hat he might hold them in was bought from real Rastafarians, or from an American company that also sells sombreros, dashikis and chopsticks.

It’s the context of the hairstyle that might hurt, or anger me, not the hairstyle itself. If we are going to accuse him of appropriating Rastafarian culture, examples of real issues for me would be if his comedy routine consisted of him being a caricature of that culture; if he was claiming ownership of its rituals and practices; if he was trying to rewrite its history. If he was trying to commercialize it, presenting a whitened, watered down, or cartoonish version of it to consumers, or if he was trying to profit off of it by misrepresenting it as a dangerous culture of violence and drugs––then, I’d be upset.

Although the social justice warriors at the Coop may have had good intentions, I believe they should consult more sources than just the “racialized” people in their social justice circles. They should consult people other than Greg Robinson, the UQAM professor specializing in black immigration in Canada, who appears to have been quoted in all the articles I’ve read on the matter, and seems to claim that white people with locs equates to white people wearing blackface, or using the n-word. I’m hoping he was misquoted, because I don’t feel like going on to explain how those are completely different things.

In my opinion, the Coop’s actions created an opportunity for detractors of real racial oppression to downplay the notion of cultural appropriation, and for those unaware of it until this situation, to believe it is a topic of no merit. Again, they might have had the right idea, but they must be wary of the battles they pick, and on whose behalf they are supposedly fighting them. Because, as philosopher and writer J.P. Satre said, “When the rich wage war, it’s the poor who die.” Or, in this case, the “racialized,” I guess.

Graphic by Ana Bilokin

Categories
Opinions

Learning from the 1969 Computer Centre Occupation

Graphic by Ana Bilokin

50 years ago, a riot called the Sir George Williams Affair occurred at Concordia University. About 200 students occupied a computer centre here at Concordia for 14 days to protest institutional racism. What resulted was the largest student occupation in Canadian history and two million dollars in property damage.

Rodney John, one of the eight students who raised the initial complaint of racism against the university’s administration, said of the event’s survival in public consciousness: “The only thing people know is that there was an occupation, that the computers were destroyed,” in an article by CTV. We at The Concordian think that it is important to revisit the overlooked details in order to remember the event in its entirety, as the specifics may hold relevance to some of our own campus initiatives today.

Here is a brief timeline of the protest according to an essay titled “The Georgian Spirit in Crisis: the causes of the Computer Centre Riot,” written by Keith Pruden in 2004.

On Apr. 29, 1968, a cohort of eight students approached the Dean of Students, Magnus Flynn, with the claim that a lecturer in the biology department, Perry Anderson, was influenced by racial bias. The Dean promised to look into the matter, and students apparently “trusted the university to deal with the situation fairly.” On June 14, the university declared that “there is no substance to the charges of discrimination and racism leveled against Mr. Anderson,” and in the fall semester Anderson was promoted from lecturer to assistant professor.

On Dec. 5, the students approached the school principal, Dr. Rae, to find out why Anderson had been cleared. Dr. Rae knew little of the situation and agreed to set up an investigative committee. On Dec. 6, there was an emergency meeting in the Faculty of Science, and another on Dec. 12, both of which were unproductive and the students’ faith in the institution was diminishing. That day, Dr. Rae resigned from his position as principal. After several more meetings, the university set a hearing committee with the first meeting on Jan. 26. Students refused to comply with this procedure, however, since the committee was entirely chosen by the administration, and thus was obviously biased.

Only after all this—nine months of unresolved complaints—did the students’ frustration culminate into their occupation of the computer centre. The occupation was intended to get the university to agree to five specific demands concerning the judicial process around the Anderson matter. According to CTV, it remained peaceful until the police were summoned to remove protestors, which triggered a fire. It is disputed whether the fire was started by the police or by the students, but it had the immediate effect of smoking protesters out of the building. Also, this led to the physical destruction of the computer centre and the arrest of 97 students, according to the same source.

It is troubling that what is remembered most about this event, as Rodney John notes, is the occupation and destruction of property. Modern retellings fail to recognize that the university initiated the violence by sending in the police (who are no doubt responsible for some—perhaps all—of the property destruction in the centre). Instead, the media paints protesters as impulsive and destructive, when in reality, several attempts over almost a year’s time were made to negotiate with the university administration on their terms prior to the occupation.

This event can teach us about a strategy that seems to be used all too often—either intentionally or unintentionally—by the university, which is to lose people in the paperwork. Often, when bureaucratic issues like this are raised, the process is drawn for so long that complainants either forget, lose interest, or feel too helpless and move on from the issue. The 1969 protesters didn’t allow the university to get away with this strategy, and it resulted in them gaining coverage from every major news source in Canada, and being remembered 50 years later.

Students like the ones who took part in the Computer Centre Occupation have gradually helped to establish Concordia as a progressive school—or at least one with politically-conscious students. This can work in favour of current student-activist groups, since the student body’s potential for disruptive protests is well known, which gives certain bargaining power to campus groups. The computer occupation and similar protests serve as reminders to the administration that students are willing to persist and even put themselves in danger for issues that they feel strongly about. We feel that this reminder can only be effective, however, if we commit to remembering these events in their entirety.

Graphic by Ana Bilokin

Categories
Opinions

Standing stronger in solidarity

Graphic by @spooky_soda

It hurts our hearts to write this editorial. On Oct. 27, 11 Jewish people were gunned down in a synagogue in Pittsburgh.

Just three days earlier, a man killed two black people at a Kroger grocery store in Kentucky. These horrific events remind us of another massacre close to home; less than two years ago, on Jan. 29, six people were killed in the Quebec mosque shooting. These fatal shootings have one key thing in common: minorities targeted by hateful white men.

When he opened fire on the worshippers in Pittsburgh, the gunman shouted, “All Jews must die,” according to CBC News. He had a far-right social media presence, especially on the website gab.com. Before the shooting, the gunman posted: “HIAS [an American non-profit group guided by Jewish values] likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”

The gunman in Quebec held similar sentiments towards Muslims and was pushed over the edge when he saw a tweet from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promising to accept more refugees. According to the Montreal Gazette, the day the perpetrator saw the message, “he took his gun into the mosque and started shooting ‘to save people from terrorist attacks,’ he said.”

Before he was captured by police, the gunman in Kentucky told a bystander that “whites don’t shoot whites.” According to CNN, he tried to enter a predominantly black church shortly before he shot Vickie Lee Jones, 67, and Maurice E. Stallard, 69, at a grocery store. The shooting is being investigated as a hate crime, according to the same source.

What are the common denominators here? The truth is, these are all hate crimes, whether or not they’re labeled as such by authorities. We must recognize the fact that when hatred brews and explodes in such violent and extreme ways, these acts are not “senseless” or “random.” They are vicious attacks on people who are constantly demonized. All of these gunmen were white and were fueled by ignorance, anti-black racism, anti-Semitism, and Islamophobia.

These tragedies are all the more difficult to process and reflect upon when the 24-hour news cycle seems to churn out such stories every single day. We must find a better way to interact with these occurrences and understand that they are more than just news stories.

Most importantly, we need to show solidarity. Even if we don’t identify as Jewish, Muslim or black, we cannot simply express shock when violent acts happen. When we stand together and condemn hate crimes, we are not only showing support for victims—we are telling the world that we vehemently disagree with those who perpetuate hate crimes. We are rejecting the motivations that spur white men with guns on. We are choosing to emphasize our humanity and renounce intolerance.

It warms our hearts to see people around the world attending Shabbat services, even those who don’t identify as Jewish. Seeing Muslims forming human defence lines around synagogues, the same way the Jewish community did after the Quebec mosque shooting, is uplifting to see. Watching Montrealers rally against anti-Semitism and attend vigils for the victims reminds us of the strength of community. Hearing members of a black church in Kentucky express solidarity with victims at the Pittsburgh synagogue reminds us of an important trait we all share: compassion.

Graphic by @spooky_soda

 

Categories
Opinions

OPINION: The scary use of the “R” word

Photo by Katelyn Thomas.

Today, we can’t be just not racist––we must be anti-racist

If you feel like you have to explain why something isn’t racist, a) it probably is and b) you’re on the wrong side of history. At an event organized by the Federal Liberal Association in St. Jean on Aug. 16, a woman interrupted Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s speech by incessantly yelling his name until he had no choice but to acknowledge her.

“I want to know when you will give us back the $146 million that we paid for your illegal immigrants.” Those are the words that Diane Blain shouted at the top of her lungs (and into my ear) in a corn field off Highway 133 in Sabrevois, Que. Surrounded by flabbergasted Liberals who were just there to have a good time, Blain threatened to throw a punch at any person who asked her to calm down.

In the midst of the madness, Trudeau attempted to appease the woman by outlining a few ways the government is giving back to Quebecers. Once Trudeau felt he had given her an appropriate amount of attention, he resumed the speech he had come to give. But she wasn’t satisfied. “You didn’t answer my question,” Blain said. As she repeated it, a man found his way to her side to chime in with, “We are not on Mohawk territory.” (We were, in fact, on Mohawk territory).

So, Trudeau put aside diplomacy and called it like he saw it. “This intolerance regarding immigrants does not have a place in Canada,” he said. “Canada was built by waves of immigration that were welcomed by First Nations, who showed us how to build a strong society, and the people who come here, generation after generation, to build stronger communities, this is what makes us stronger as a country. Madam, your intolerance does not have a place here.”

The crowd erupted in cheers, and Trudeau exited stage left. But later, the internet exploded. I was shocked to find that even some Liberals felt Trudeau’s reaction was a little uncalled for. I later realized this reaction was largely due to the footage that circulated online shortly after the event. The video conveniently begins later than the kerfuffle did, meaning you don’t hear Trudeau’s initial level-headed response.

Some say Blain’s question was valid and that Trudeau called her racist to avoid having to answer it. I call bullshit. Trudeau called her racist because he, like any compassionate person, doesn’t believe the borders of our country are where we should draw the line between which humans we care about and which ones we don’t. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to asylum, reads: “If you are persecuted at home, you have the right to seek protection in another country.” It saddens me that this concept continues to be questioned today.

Racism isn’t always blatant; it manifests itself in many different forms. Trudeau recognizing and denouncing an instance of subtle discrimination means he has an awareness that we should expect from all our leaders as well as ourselves. Being non-racist simply isn’t enough. We have to be anti-racist. We have to actively denounce everyday racism in our thoughts, speech and behaviour. The first step in doing so is calling it by its name.

Racism has always been racism. People aren’t taking things more personally than before. We’re just reaching a point in time where people feel empowered to demand better. And they should.

If there’s one thing I was left with after the bizarre evening I spent in a corn field, it was immense faith in the leader of our country and a sense of hope that change is on the horizon.

Photo by Katelyn Thomas

Categories
Opinions

Focusing on the problems in front of us

We’ve all heard the comments about Canada being a safe haven for Americans. We’ve seen Americans flee their country after electing President Donald Trump to avoid the heated political climate or deportation. Given our close proximity, comparisons are continuously made between the United States and Canada in terms of our politics, economy, healthcare, news industry and even entertainment. In most cases these days, Canada seems to come out on top.

Statistically speaking, Canada seems better than the United States on many fronts. According to Maclean’s, Canadians live 2.5 years longer than Americans; we’re also six times less likely to be incarcerated. In the United States, 46 per cent of the population obtains a college degree, whereas 59 per cent of Canadians have one.
The World Economic Forum ranks Canadians as the sixth happiest people in the world, whereas Americans rank 13th. The Cato Institute’s Human Freedom Index claims Canadians to be the sixth freest people in the world, and Americans are 23rd—even though they boast being the “land of the free.”

When considering these factors, it’s hard not to argue that Canadians are living a better life than their southern neighbours. Yet this mentality can often result in Canada’s problems—of which there are many—being taken less seriously or even ignored.

Take Indigenous issues for example. Canadians and Americans alike closely followed coverage of the Standing Rock protests against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which threatened Indigenous land and water supplies. Yet when was the last time we checked up on the progress of Canada’s national public inquiry into the murders and disappearances of Indigenous women and girls? How often do we read news stories about the numerous Indigenous communities in Canada living without access to clean drinking water, adequate healthcare or accessible education?

Similarly, from the Ferguson riots in 2014 to the recent comments made by President Donald Trump about “shithole” countries, news stories about racism seem to pour out of the United States, diluting any incidents happening here in Canada. This does not mean the treatment of marginalized groups in our country is any better.

As journalist Desmond Cole once said, “People in Canada generally will do anything to avoid talking about race.” But we need to talk about the fact that, between 2005 and 2015, the number of black inmates in Canadian prisons jumped by 69 per cent, according to The Guardian. In Toronto, 41 per cent of youth in the child welfare services are black, despite representing only eight per cent of the city’s youth population. In 2015, Canadian police recorded 159 hate crimes against Muslims, according to Global News. This was up from 45 in 2012—a 253 per cent increase.

So while Canada may seem better than the United States by comparison, that in no way absolves us of our many shortcomings as a progressive society. We must peel our eyes away from the car crash on the other side of the border, and focus on the road in front of us. We are so caught up in what’s happening on the other side of the highway that we’re creating traffic in our own lane.

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth 

Exit mobile version