Tag: racism

Categories
Opinions

Get Out’s terrifying reality of racism today

Graphic by Florence Yee

How the film’s realistic portrayal of racism shakes audience members

*Spoiler Alert Ahead*

The new horror film, Get Out, which marks the directorial debut for comedian Jordan Peele, is making waves across North America.

It contains many unpredictable twists, as well as exceptional performances by stars Daniel Kaluuya and Allison Williams. However, it is the film’s accurate depiction of racism that really got me thinking after I left the theatre.

In an interview with Fox 5’s Kevin McCarthy, director Jordan Peele, most notably known for being one half of the “Key and Peele” comedy duo, explained how “people need to know that this movie is from a black writer and director. It’d be a different movie if a white guy did it.” Why does the director’s race matter, you may ask? It matters because this film highlights the marginalization of black people around the globe, which is best described and portrayed by someone who has experienced it themselves.

In the film, Chris (Kaluuya) travels to the home of his white girlfriend, Rose’s (Williams), parents, who live in rural New York state. From the moment they arrive, it is clear Chris’ skin colour (of which Rose’s parents had no prior knowledge of) affects the way the parents interact with him. While they do not directly acknowledge the fact that he is black, the father makes comments such as: “I would have voted for Obama for a third term” and “How long has this thang been goin’ on?” As Kaluuya explained in an interview with Fox 5, “acting different around a black person simply because they are black is a form of marginalization.” You don’t need to directly mention a person’s race to make them feel uncomfortable or out of place.

Personally, I can remember times when I have felt awkward because people thought it was necessary to acknowledge my race. Whether they directly pointed out my race, or acted in a way that somehow alluded to it, it just felt weird. Yes, my skin is brown, but I’m also a person with a personality. Do you really need to identify me by my race first?

For some reason, there are always people whose actions and speech reflect the race of the person they’re speaking to, similar to how Rose’s father interacts with Chris. Peele even explained how these actions are sometimes simply a way of trying to connect with the person. Yet, while their intentions may be harmless, it does not mean we shouldn’t point it out for what it is—racially-motivated behaviour.

As co-star Williams explained in an interview with Fox 5, “a lot of people don’t know, but just by saying something you wouldn’t say unless you were talking to a black person, you’re isolating them, or at least giving them some indication that you’re identifying them as black.”

In my opinion, a Hollywood film addressing the issues that people of colour face, everyday, is extremely important. No matter what country or continent you live in, marginalized people go through very similar issues, whether it be through blatant discrimination, or in a less direct manner.

Throughout the film, Chris is noticeably uncomfortable with the way Rose’s family interacts with him. He attempts to talk to the family’s two helpers—a maid and a groundskeeper—who happen to be black. However, he notices they act in a bizarre manner. One example of this is when Chris attempts to greet one of the workers with a fist bump, but the man grabs his fist and looks at him awkwardly.

Throughout the film, it seems as though all of the black people who are surrounded by the white family, including the helpers and friends of the family who visit (some were black), have conformed to their mannerisms.

Here’s where the major twist comes in. The reason the black helpers act so bizarrely is because Rose’s father, a neurosurgeon, perfected a way to transfer the consciousness of one individual to another, through brain surgery. The black workers on his property actually possess the consciousness of Rose’s grandmother and grandfather, while their own consciousnesses have been “sent to a ‘sunken place’” in their own minds, through hypnosis performed by Rose’s mother.

This twist deviates the film into a slightly more imaginative space, which is why the director said in an interview with Forbes that, though the story is “very personal, [it] quickly veers off from anything autobiographical.”

I think that it is our duty, as individuals seeking equality, to educate and speak out to those who may not understand what the issues with their actions are. We must be able to see someone acting in an inappropriate way and tell them what they’re doing is wrong. We need to talk about it. That’s why this film is so important.

Of course race is one of the first things you notice about a person. It’s right there in your face. But it’s the ability to interact and judge other individuals based on their character and actions—rather than their race or ethnicity—that demonstrates respect and open-mindedness.

Get Out has grossed $113.1 million internationally, on a budget of $4.5 million. It is still playing in theatres, and I encourage everyone to go see it—if you don’t mind sitting on the edge of your seat for 103 minutes, that is.

Categories
Opinions

How microaggressions lead to mass shootings

Graphic by Florence Yee

Freedom of speech ultimately translates to the notion of responsible speech

Racism operates on a spectrum, and all of it matters. Its more extreme versions do not appear out of nowhere. Quite like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, racial violence builds itself on top of its smaller forms. Once a part of the pyramid is normalized and accepted by a dominant group, a higher part starts developing. Like racism against any marginalized group, islamophobia is no exception.

In the wake of the shooting at a mosque in Quebec City a little over two weeks ago, many have wondered how our society has come to this. As Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard told reporters following the attack, “We are all responsible,” according to the Montreal Gazette. And it all starts at the bottom of the pyramid: microaggressions.

Yes, a microaggression, despite its unfortunate terminology, does matter. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a microaggression as “a comment or action that is subtly and often unintentionally hostile or demeaning to a member of a minority or marginalized group.” This includes comments about belongings, appearance and preferences (among others) that appear in a person’s daily life.

I won’t bother trying to pronounce your name. Where are you really from? Your parents must be so strict. How’s the war in your country? These remarks suggest that there is an image of who “true” Canadians are, grounded in Eurocentric whiteness and Christianity. The microaggressions alienate people and subconsciously start to form an insidious divide that makes the group as an other in contrast to the imaginary us. They quietly hint that some people just don’t belong.

Then comes prejudice: the over-generalizations, the assumptions and the hatred. Asians are taking my job. All Muslims hate Westerners. Black people are violent criminals. All terrorists are Muslim. The aforementioned divide limits daily experiences that could improve understanding between communities. Instead, the more distant interpersonal relationships become, the less empathetic people are. The marginalized group is dehumanized, reduced to the most sensational headline, and summarized as a general threat to that illusory us.

The fear seems justified now. Time for some old-fashioned discrimination. During the 2013 provincial election, Pauline Marois put up Bill 60: The Quebec Charter of Values—a thinly-veiled attempt at banning civil servants from wearing Islamic headscarves, the most common “obvious religious garment.” While Jews wearing kippas and Sikhs wearing turbans would also be forced to remove their religious items, a poll conducted by CBC in 2014 found that 78 per cent of anglophones and 70 per cent of allophones agreed that the legislation would disproportionately target Muslim women.

Hijabs and niqabs were deemed too conspicuous despite the giant beacon-like cross on Mount Royal and the cross hanging in the National Assembly of Quebec that would be allowed to remain. That bill, along with the many debates on limiting religious accommodation, such as Kellie Leitch’s screening for “anti-Canadian values” and an American travel ban from Muslim-majority countries, turns exclusionary thoughts into discriminatory actions.

The government-sanctioned actions indicate to the general population that this type of discrimination is completely okay. Quebec’s growing xenophobia in “defense of francophonie,” and attitudes adopted from France’s similar anti-immigrant and islamophobic stances set the stage for a terroristic mass shooting. It had all the components of normalizing violence to occur. After all, Alexandre Bissonnette, the alleged shooter, was found to be a keen follower of Trump and Le Pen’s nationalistic rhetoric on social media.

In this whole process, there has been an abuse of so-called freedom of speech. If you think about it as “just political correctness” or “limiting freedom of expression,” I hope you also think about your part in inciting race-based violence in direct and inevitable ways. Nothing you say or do happens in a vacuum. Even the smallest actions can contribute to the greatest tragedies. What you say matters every step of the way.

So act like it.

No one wants to make your comments illegal, but everyone can call you out for their inappropriateness and take measures to correct them. Social consequences should befall anyone who causes societal harm. Just as freedom of the press can be abused, so can freedom of speech. After all, they both influence social cohesion and the well-being of others. Freedom of speech means assuming responsibility for your speech.

Please consider your role in the ongoing tensions. You may not have fired the gun, but you helped load the bullets.

Categories
News

Bringing awareness to indigenous culture

The workshop was conducted by Chantel Henderson and Vicky Boldo on the 7th floor of the Hall building. Photo by Nelly Serandour-Amar

A workshop was given to students and staff on the impact of racism towards indigenous people

It was a powerful afternoon on Feb. 1 during the Arts and Science Federation of Associations’ workshop on anti-racism and appropriation of indigenous cultures. As part of First Voices Week, the session was facilitated by Chantel Henderson and Vicky Boldo, who spoke about the impacts of racism in healthcare, education, justice, employment and housing. They shared their personal stories on how these issues affected their lives.

The event began with Boldo, a board member for the Native Women’s Shelter and the First People’s Justice Centre of Montreal, reciting “Greetings to the Natural World,” a prayer giving thanks for life and the Earth.

“We are all thankful to our Mother, the Earth, for she gives us all that we need for life. She supports our feet as we walk about upon her,” she recited. “It gives us joy that she continues to care for us as she has from the beginning of time. To our Mother, we send greetings and thanks. Now our minds are one.”

Henderson, who recently earned a graduate degree in community economic development from Concordia, spoke about her experience living in what was reported by Maclean’s magazine as the most racist city in Canada: Winnipeg.

She also discussed the KAIROS Blanket Exercise, where participants take on the roles of indigenous people in Canada. It was not demonstrated at the event, however.

“The blanket represents the lands, and the exercise shows the effects of colonization and how connected our people are to our land,” Henderson said. Standing on blankets, the participants walk through pre-contact, treaty-making, colonization and resistance. Facilitators, who play characters such as a narrator or European colonizers, direct the participants.

Henderson added how the exercise also demonstrates the lasting impact of colonization: racism, environmental destruction and loss of culture. “The reality now is that we only have 0.2 per cent of our land, and people wonder why our people are in poverty. It’s because our land was taken away from us and that was our livelihood.”

“We are people who have been discriminated against and have been the victims of cultural genocides for more than 500 years,” said Henderson. “I think people need to understand our story.”

The event finished with some participants forming a closed-session circle, where they shared their own personal experiences regarding racism and cultural baggage.

Categories
Opinions

Washington can’t run out the clock: sack the racism

The offending Washington NFL team refuses to change their name, despite growing calls of racism.” [Press photo from the Washington site]

Team’s caricature of Native culture is way out of bounds

Over the past few months, new voices continue to join the ongoing pressure on the National Football League team based in Washington, D.C.  to change their controversial name and logo.

In the past year, politicians like U.S. President Barack Obama, celebrities like Mike Tyson, John Oliver, Sarah Silverman, and even former players on the team have spoken up about the need for a name change.

Websites like Etsy and Canada’s Apple store have changed their policies to ban the team’s name. Several major newspapers, including the New York Daily News, have also jumped on the ban-bandwagon in the recent months.

In June, the United States Patent and Trademark office cancelled six trademark registrations for the team’s name on the grounds that it is “disparaging to Native Americans.”

Now, owner Dan Snyder and his team are attempting to sue the group of Indigenous people who were responsible for the trademark cancellation—a lowball move in an attempt to curb that growing pressure to change the name.

Sorry to break it to him or anyone that supports the team’s name, but that pressure is just going to grow stronger.

The offending Washington NFL team refuses to change their name, despite growing calls of racism.” [Press photo from the Washington site]

For years, Indigenous people have been expressing how they are offended by the name and stereotyped imagery. Unfortunately, when it comes to Indigenous people, society has a hard time understanding how Native mascotry and other forms of cultural appropriation is a form of racism—something that would not be tolerated if it were any other race, ethnicity or culture.

While opinions toward examples of cultural appropriation among Indigenous people are diverse, nothing is more annoying than having non-Natives trying to disprove what is and isn’t offensive to Indigenous people that speak out against the name.

A team’s traditions and their fans’ attachment to the name seems to always trump our traditions and concerns.  We constantly have to defend our own identities from being mocked, used as a trend, a form of entertainment and giving people a false sense of honoring Indigenous people.

 There is no denying that we have “more important” or “real” issues in our communities, such as alcoholism, drug abuse, housing shortages, healthcare, unemployment, etc.

However, Indigenous people are also seen as less than human by some and that is certainly a real issue too.

The problem with sports mascots and logos using Native imagery is that it is the same issue as other forms of cultural appropriation: they undermine the diversity and true identities of Indigenous peoples by creating highly inaccurate and dehumanizing portrayals.

Our distinct cultures become a fictionalized and heavily stereotyped monolith rooted in colonial ideology. Those images in sports, on television, on the runway, or even Halloween costumes affect what people know and think about Indigenous people. They add layers of misinformation about who we really are. That really affects how society understands those real social, political and economic issues—and it’s kind of hard to do when society’s notion of Indigenous people is bound to something fictionalized and set in the past.

That is reflected in how we are treated by society and the government and poses dangerous implications on how we see ourselves.

According to a 2004 study by Dr. Stephanie Fryberg, when Native youth are exposed to these images, their self-esteem is harmfully impacted, their self-confidence erodes, and their sense of identity is severely damaged.

That impact on our identity is very much prevalent in our communities, such as judging another Indigenous person’s “authenticity” based upon their appearance, internalizing fictionalized stereotypes, focusing on “blood quantum”, or tanning to “look more Native.”

We don’t need our youth dealing those issues. Change the name.

Categories
Opinions

Marketing a culture: dehumanizing Aboriginals

Photo from KrispyKernels.com

The cultural appropriation of Aboriginals is alive and well. The examples manifest themselves abundantly in our society, from the headdress-wearing hipsters, the students from the Université de Montréal who were photographed during frosh week dressed in red face, and H&M’s bright idea to sell neon pink headdresses. Then there are fashion designers like Nathalie Benarroch and her line “Inukt” that recently got pulled from the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, and all the “Pocahottie” costume selfies posted on social media this past Halloween.

Photo from KrispyKernels.com

While cultural appropriation happens to just about every culture, there seems to be a greater amount of ignorance towards the problem when it comes to Aboriginal cultures. Hence, the latest culprits,the Warwick-based company Croustilles Yum Yum, a subsidiary of Krispy Kernels Inc. Earlier this month, the chip company brought back its original 1960’s “little Indian” mascot and logo for the holidays.

Not surprisingly, the company was baffled when Aboriginal people expressed their displeasure with the imagery. By the many paternalistic and racist comments that can be found on social media or in the comment sections of news articles on the story, it seems that many Canadians also do not seem to “get it.”

In several interviews, Yum Yum’s marketing director claimed that the mascot was chosen based on a child’s drawing for a contest, that the company’s founder was of Aboriginal descent and the name of the company means potato in Algonquin.

For one, the word for potato in Algonquin is far from “yum yum.” Second, even if the rest of their claims are true, defending the imagery and racism of the ‘60s because it’s “vintage” is not excusable.

The bottom line is that if Aboriginal people say that the caricature is insulting, offensive and beyond inappropriate to use as a marketing tactic, then it is. Please do not tell us that you know better about what is and isn’t offensive to us. As a proud Mohawk from Kahnawake, I can assure you that our anger is about far more than an oversight in cultural sensitivity or political correctness.

Not only is the imagery offensive, but it is a flashback to a very racist era for Aboriginal people in Canada.  Aboriginal women were prohibited from voting in federal elections up until 1960, Aboriginal children were literally taken from their homes and communities without the knowledge or consent of families. Then there was the 1969 White Paper that proposed assimilation.

Today, Aboriginal people are still affected by forms of institutionalized racism and inequality. Many Aboriginal communities do not even have access to clean drinking water, there are housing shortages, and chronically underfunded education.

While something like fashion, a Halloween costume, or a chip company’s logo may seem minor and frivolous in comparison to these issues, cultural misappropriation is still very much a concern.

Cultural appropriation reinforces stereotypes of our people. It undermines the diversity of all Indigenous people in Canada and the United States. There are more than 1.4 million Aboriginal people in Canada alone and that includes more than 50 distinct First Nations, in addition to the Metis and Inuit, all with their own distinct languages, cultures and traditions.

Whether or not Yum Yum had negative or offensive intentions, their actions and the continued acceptance and perpetuation of imagery like their logo dehumanizes Indigenous people. All our distinct nations become a one-dimensional and fictionalized representation without our consultation or any consideration to the fact that we are real people.

That’s offensive, hurtful, and has dangerous social, political and economic implications on how we are treated by the government, society and ourselves.

Exit mobile version