"Group of Seven Awkward Moments" by Diana Thorneycroft: Exhibit Review

At the Skew Gallery in Calgary Alberta in 2009, Diana Thorneycroft made her debut with her new exhibit featuring a series of works on Canadian Nationalism. The artist combines a painting from the famous Canadian Group of Seven with other objects telling a story about the Canada we all know so well and the Canada that non-Canadians think they know. What makes her artwork so unique is that she brings dark humour into the sometimes awkward discourse of Canadian nationalism.  The following are the three works that stood out to me:

In “Northern Lights (2007)”, we see a group of children playing in the snow with a close up of an Aboriginal girl by an igloo, and in the background we see an RCMP officer. This is a classic example of what Americans and other people around the world insist on what Canada is actually like.

“Beavers and Woo at Tanoo (2008)” confronts what many discourses on Canadian nationalism acknowledge but mostly try to avoid. It shows a Canadian lumberjack holding a chainsaw with his gang of beavers with what looks like a disaster zone of broken down Totem poles and a destroyed land. This represents the Indigenous past Canadians know about but try to avoid when talking about Canada’s heritage. The comic relief comes from the lumberjack with the beavers, which are also two of the biggest stereotypical assumptions of Canadians that people from other parts of the world have.

“March Storm, Georgian Bay (2007)” is a comical depiction of a Canadian get together during a good old March snow storm. With bears and other woodland creatures on one side and congregating community members on the other, a hockey game proceeds in the middle. This symbolizes the nationalism of hockey and how it brings people together, no matter where they are or what the weather holds.

What makes Thorneycroft’s artwork so valuable to Canadian Society is that she opens up a new discourse through her art. She does not ignore the sensitive topics that arise in Canadian nationalism discourses; she tackles some of the issues of Canada’s past and then throws in a Tim Horton’s cup to add to the comic relief. By using the serene backdrop of Canadian landscape with the Group of Seven paintings combined with symbols of nationalism like hockey, Tim Horton’s, and community, she gives us a representation of the Canada we all know and love. She then adds symbols of disaster like guns and torn down trees from snowstorms to show that Canada is not perfect.

What stood out to me the most is the reality she adds to her art which confronts anxiety in Canadian society while still having a sense of humour. I also respect her as an artist because she is respectful of all cultures, histories and perspectives of Canadian history.

See Her Website               

Guess Who (2005): Movie Review

In the 2005 movie starring Ashton Kutcher and Bernie Mac, many issues involving modern-day racism were confronted. The movie is about a black woman and a white man who are planning on getting married and the nerve-racking process of the man meeting her parents. The father of the woman is very hard on her boyfriend, and the script makes us reflect on whether it is because he wants the best for his daughter or if it has anything to do with the fact that they are a bi-racial couple. Some scenes that suggest there is tension between the father and soon to be son-in-law includes a scene in which the young man (Kutcher) accidentally tells an extremely racist joke. Another scene that confronts this issue is the scene in which the girl’s father is about to meet her boyfriend and he thinks/hopes/expects it to be the black taxi driver that dropped them off. As this is meant to bring humour to the movie, I think it is also intended to confront racism that is still present in today’s society.

            The thing that stood out to me most about this movie is the fact that it is a remake of a 1967 film called Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. This movie involves a black man and a white women, the man of course having to meet the white woman’s family. This movie is focused on the unique situation of bi-racial couples in the 1960s and therefore has many racist tendencies.

            What the comparison between these two films brings to Canadian racial discourse is the fact that if the movie was made in 2005 with the exact same premise as it was in 1967 (a black man and a white woman), it would probably be banned due to the racism and would be damaging to society.

            In a way, Guess Who (2005) is a symbol of the progress that is being made when it comes to racial discourse in Canadian society. The mere fact that it is becoming acceptable for a white women to marry a black man and a black man to marry a white women is an improvement from how it was in the 1960s. The movie however also shows how some people take racism and racialisation as a joke and that it is still apparent in our society.

Gender Roles in Tide laundry soap Commercials: TV Ad Review

                 There is no question that over the years the media has portrayed women as a domestic woman whose favourite past-time seems to be chores and cooking, but it is significant to look at how little has changed over the past several decades. When people think of the 1950’s housewife, what comes to mind is the woman with her perfect hair and make-up, dress and apron, holding a pie welcoming her husband home from work. The media, in its films, TV shows, comic strips, and ads, shows representations of the ‘American’ or in our case, ‘Canadian’ dream, much like the family in Leave it to Beaver. Over the years there have been progressive changes in the role of women; voting rights, education, wage increase, and overall success, and the media has adapted to these changes by portraying less of the typical domestic housewife we all know so well from the 1950s. It is a passion of feminists in Canada to ensure that the respect of women is upheld, and this includes not narrowing their role down to being a housewife with goals that do not matter.

            An example of a TV ad that illustrates the gender stereotype in the 1950’s is a vintage Tide laundry soap commercial. In this ad the woman seems to be having the time of her life doing her laundry in a breezy field with her box of Tide. This ad combines a desirable situation with the role of the woman in the family in the 1950s suggesting that she is happy with her role and is doing this for the people she loves.

            Again, there have been many changes over the years concerning the role of women. Women are doctors, lawyers, professors, politicians, writers, etc. This does not mean that the role of women has completely changed; there are still many women who take pride in raising their families and staying at home taking care of the household while her husband works, and this is still considered a ‘success’. There is nothing wrong with this because women know they have the option to do whatever they put their mind to, and there are many men who become stay-at-home-dads without public scrutiny.

            So, with all of these progressions in our society, why does it seem that gender roles still exist in the media? To be specific, Tide commercials from this decade still seem to insist that women are the only ones in the family who use this product. In ads such as these, the actors/actresses in the commercials are meant to represent the demographic to which the commercial is intended for. This suggests that the media and those who create advertisements still follow the stereotypical nature of gender roles, whether it be showing a woman’s hand turning the knob on a washing machine, a mother helping her daughter get a tough stain out of a pair of jeans, or a phrase thanking mom’s for doing laundry. It is extremely unlikely that a man ever appears in these commercials using the product. To add to the issue, the portrayal of women in this manner may also single out men who are stay-at-home-dads suggesting that they are going against the norm.

            While the portrayal of women as domestic is not as harmful as other stereotypes such as racist stereotypes, it is still important to acknowledge that in our day and age it is not efficient to place responsibilities on people according to their gender, and the media still has room to grow in adapting to the changing roles of men and women.

Reflection 5

People place themselves and are placed by others in Canadian Society based on what they believe their identity is. In the past few lectures we have been talking a lot about people’s sexual identity, how they perceive them self when it comes to nationalism, and indigenous peoples. All of these topics have to do with identity, and I think it is important to reflect on how someone’s identity can affect how they are perceived through the eyes of other members of society. This reflection will mostly focus on identity; how it is perceived by other Canadians and how members of society identify themselves.

            As far as sexual identity goes, I have already written on my stance in the fourth reflection. I believe that people should be able to live their lives based on what they feel their sexuality is, regardless of how they were born. This is especially important for those born with both female and male biological characteristics because if they identify themselves as female they should not be scrutinized by society or the media for being partly male. When it comes to sexual orientation, heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality are three forms of identity and, according to Whitehead in Cannon’s article, “Western society foregrounds erotic orientation as the basis for dividing people into socially significant categories.” (Cannon, 1998:5) This can be problematic because as we all know and have seen in the media recently people endure negative treatment when their peers realize they are a different sexual identity than the ‘norm’ (heterosexuality is seen as the norm in Canadian society). According to Nelson and Robinson, ‘gay’ is a sexual identity and ‘homosexual’ is a sexual preference (Nelson and Robinson, 2002), therefore when people put homosexual in such a narrow category and assume their identity is based on that sexuality, it can also be problematic.

            When it comes to nationalism and multiculturalism, Canada’s identity is sometimes considered to be based on its generosity when it comes to letting people from other parts of the world come to the country to migrate. In other words, multiculturalism is a symbol of nationalism and therefore part of Canadian identity. Therefore, those who have come to Canada from another country and are now a Canadian citizen may identify them self as a minority in Canada. This, similar to sexual identity can determine how they are socially organized in Canadian society, which can be positive or negative. Bannerji wrote an article on this subject and she is an example of someone who identifies them self and feels identified by others in Canada as a minority. Her and many other immigrants view European Canadians as a separate category than those who came from another country based on how they are treated in Canadian society. She asserts that Canada is a “construction, a set of representations embodying certain types of political and cultural communities and their operations.” (Bannerji, 2000)

            Aboriginal peoples seem to have a firm belief on what their identity is. As said in class, there are several Aboriginal groups in Canada and it is incorrect to identify all Aboriginals as being the same. Because of their history in Canada and their treatment in society their identities socially organize them in a way that is separate from many Canadians in that they have experiences that we should aim to learn about and understand. In class we watched a video on Aboriginal students speaking about their experience in classrooms where other students made comments that deeply offended them. The comments made by the other students were ignorant in that they assumed Aboriginals to all have the same stereotypical identities and this is unfair and I believe that education is fundamental in taking care of this problem. As Aboriginal peoples have a certain identity, this identity can be sometimes misunderstood by other Canadians.

            Identity is fundamental for Canadian society because there are so many diverse groups of individuals, whether is be based on race, sex, gender, or social group. Canadian citizens deserve to be able to identify themselves however they feel, and these identities cannot be generalized or discriminated against. Ladner puts it perfectly: “We must come to a new understanding of the role of non-state actors...in sustaining our agenda, in protecting the people..., in educating others, in inspiring hope and creating change."

Works Cited

1.      Bannerji, Himani (2000). The Dark Side of the Nation: Essays on Multiculturalism,

      Nationalism and Gender (pp.63-86). Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

2.      Cannon, Martin (1998). The Regulation of First Nations Sexuality. Canadian

Journal of Native Studies, 18(1), 1-18.

3.      Ladner, Kiera (2010). From Little Things…. In Leanne Simpson & Kiera Ladner

(Eds.), This is an Honour Song: Twenty Years Since the Blockades (pp.299-314).

Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring.

4.      Nelson, Adie and Barrie W. Robinson. (2002). Gender in Canada (pp.1-21). Toronto:

Pearson Education.

Reflection 4

            In their article Gender in Canada, Adie Nelson and Barrie Robinson describe the differences between sex, gender, sexuality, and how each is perceived in Canadian society. According to the article, western culture has an obsession with defining a person’s status according to their biological sex. (Nelson and Robinson, 2002) Gender is whether someone is male or female, but is not solely based on biological makeup. (Ibid, 2002) This becomes complex because there are three types of relationships between sex and gender: sex determines gender; sex is arbitrarily related to gender; sex influences gender. (Ibid, 2002) The first relationship implies that biology determines someone’s gender. The second relationship suggests that gender is socially constructed according to ones social environment. The third relationship then argues that biological makeup and social environment interact to determine one’s gender.

            I think that it is valuable to recognize these relationships because it is very common in Canadian society for people to be treated differently based on their gender representation. This is a result of people only being aware of the first relationship described by Nelson and Robinson.

            As a result to this assumption, gender stereotypes become far too common. Nelson and Robinson define gender stereotypes as widely held beliefs about the defining characteristics of masculinity and femininity which influence perceptions of ourselves and others. (Nelson and Robinson, 2002) For instance, if a woman with a female biological makeup does not fit in with the ‘normal’ traits prescribed by gender stereotypes (emotional, weak, gentle, passive), she will be considered masculine. In my opinion, these stereotypes cause a plethora of social problems that affect the lives of men and women who do not possess these certain characteristics. Not only are these social problems because they are common and result in the negative treatment of these individuals, they also define what is appropriate for certain genders. Nelson and Robinson’s studies find that a masculine woman is described as someone who is superior, active, competent and ambitious. (Nelson and Robinson, 2002)

            

 An example of this stereotype in American society is illustrated in the example of Caster Semenya. She was tested to determine her biological sex after coming in first place in an 800 meter race. (Vinton, 2009) According to an article written on the issue, “there have been numerous instances of outright deception, as well as more ambiguous cases in which athletes classified as women have lived their whole lives with male chromosomal material,” (Ibid, 2009) and this is why they decided to go through with the testing of Semenya. In my opinion, the testing was sparked by the qualities that Semenya possessed that were masculine; her being active and strong, and not showing the typical qualities of women.

            The treatment of Semenya, and eighteen year old woman who should be applauded for her success resulted in negative media feedback, masculine photos portraying her in a distorted way, and embarrassment and shame for Semenya. When she returned to the public sphere after keeping a low profile in her country, she presented herself on the cover of US Magazine with a feminine make-over. If this was truly how Semenya felt about herself then that is perfectly fine, but if it was a direct result of the treatment she received and to make herself appear more female, than this is an example of how when someone goes against a gender stereotype it results in unfair treatment.

            Semenya’s gender was a product of the third relationship described by Nelson and Robinson because her biological make up combined with her social environment was that of a female with traces of some male chromosomes (As explained by Darryl Leroux in Lecture 8). The social conditions that make up her gender are the conditions that accept women as successful athletes. I personally think that this is a positive thing and Canadian and American society should adjust their standards to allow for people to not have a self fulfilled prophecy according to their sex. In addition, I believe that transgendered individuals should be treated as the gender that they consider themselves to be. 

            In my research I was pleased to come across a bill recently passed by the NDP party in Quebec. It is called the Trans Rights Bill (Bill C-389) and adds gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. (Page, 2010)  It also aims to amend hate crimes and sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada. (Ibid, 2010) This bill is a positive thing for Canadian society as a response to those treated differently because of their gender.

Caster Semenya before and after her makeover.

Gender Stereotypes.

Works Cited

1.      Nelson, Adie, and Barrie Robinson (2002). Gender in Canada (pp. 1-21). Toronto: Pearson Education.

2.      Page, Jill. (2010, November 4). Trans Rights Bill. Montreal Gazette.

3.      Vinton, Nathaniel. (2009, August 19). IAAF asks South Africa to Conduct Gender Verification Test on Rising Track Star Caster Semenya. New York Daily News.

Reflection 3

            When I think of a multicultural nation, what comes to mind is an ideal place that welcomes people from around the world to work or live. These people leave their original countries in hopes to make a better life for themselves. The country that welcomes these people is doing so with selfless intentions; it is a country that has the resources available to provide jobs and living conditions that are more suitable than someone’s original country, and for the sake of humanity and to also contribute to the economy, jobs are provided and immigrants are able to live their lives without fear of poverty or death. In his article entitled “Cultural Pluralism and the Limits of Diversity”, Bikhu Parekh describes the ideal circumstances of immigration in regards to immigrants being able to keep their culture in a new society. He says that immigrants have moral rights that are inherent; these rights do not go anywhere when someone leaves their country. The country that is bringing in the immigrants have obligations, including protecting and welcoming the newcomers, trying not brainwash the children in schools, and respecting the culture, even if it is unique. (Parekh, 1995) The term ‘multicultural’ should assume that when immigrants come from all over the world they are able to live in a culture while still living with aspects of their own culture. This is why it is called multicultural and not multiethnic. In saying this, it seems like multiculturalism is a perfect solution to problems in third world countries and countries that are torn apart by war and poverty; immigrants are able to live in a country where they can become citizens or become temporary workers, while at the same time not losing any cultural ties with their homeland.

            However, there are many people who may argue that multiculturalism is not as attainable as this ideal assumption. In the past few weeks in class I have learned a lot about the true aspects of multiculturalism in Canada; how hard it is for immigrants to come to Canada without being exploited, and the poverty rates of those who immigrated to Canada from another country.

            Last class we talked about Eva Mackey and how her definition of multiculturalism creates a discourse to put a positive light on multiculturalism. She provided this definition as a response to the Quebec separatists, Aboriginals, and minority groups in Canada who felt like multiculturalism in Canada was not something that needed to be focused on. Her definition of multiculturalism is: “Multiculturalism was developed as a mode of managing internal differences within the nation and, at the same time, created a form through which the nation could be imagined as distinct and differentiated from external others such as the United States.” (Mackey, 2002, p.50) Mackey’s definition creates a discourse for multiculturalism in Canada that is similar in some ways but differs from my previously stated view on what multiculturalism should aim to be. To review, discourse governs the way that a topic can be meaningfully talked about and reasoned about. Discourses influences how ideas are put into practise and used to regulate the conduct of others. It rules in and rules out certain ways of talking about a topic. In this case, Mackey’s definition of multiculturalism creates a way of talking about multiculturalism that focuses on comparing Canada’s generosity to immigrants with other countries by looking at the multiculturalism that is present in the country. When she refers to multiculturalism as “a mode of managing internal differences within the nation,” (Ibid, 2002) I believe this may be the direct response to the Quebec separatists, Aboriginal groups, and minority groups by aiming to create a discourse that shows that, although Canada has its problems with these groups, it does the rest of the world justice by allowing immigrants to live and work here, resulting in multiculturalism. The second part of her definition creates a discourse that is actively talked about in Canadian society; Canada differs from other countries like the United States because of the multiculturalism it possesses.

            I think that instead of focusing on multiculturalism in this way, that is, multiculturalism as a way of differentiating Canada from other countries like the United States and multiculturalism as being a thing that Canada has done for the rest of the world, a discourse should be created that focuses on the lives of the other cultures in Canada and how improvements can be made based on the aspects of multiculturalism in Canada that do not benefit those who migrate here. This can be done by looking at poverty rates of minority groups in Canada and also looking at the Tamil discourse that is going on in Canadian society right now.

           

Works Cited

1.      Bhikhu Parekh, Cultural Pluralism and the Limits of Diversity. (1995)

2.      Eva Mackey. (2002). The House of Difference: Cultural Politics and National Identity in Canada (pp.50-70). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Reflection 2

Nationalism is believed to be a set of characteristics that define a nation. For example, according to national discourse, a nation is a group of people who share common traits, history, territory, and homogeneity. It also defines who is included in a nation, who belongs, and who can be considered ‘Canadian’. One of the problems with this concept is that there are many people in Canada who do not believe that these characteristics apply to them; therefore they question whether or not they can be considered Canadian. For example, an immigrant who has recently become a Canadian citizen is technically ‘Canadian’, but does not necessarily fit into the characteristics of nationalism. This raises the question of ‘what is Canadian’ because there are also members of the Canadian population who have lived in Canada their entire lives but also feel they do not fit into these characteristics, i.e. Aboriginals.

            A few Canadians from the CRB foundation saw an opportunity to create a discourse in the form of media; videos that would portray epic moments in Canadian history that would show on Canadian television stations during commercial breaks. In her article entitled The Other Heritage Minutes: Satirical Reactions to Canadian Nationalism, Katarzyna Rukszto describes this project, called ‘Heritage moments’, which was intended to enhance Canadianism through the transformative power of mass media. “The minutes attempt to reproduce the dominant discourse of Canadian identity, focusing on a multiculturalist idea of national unity out of difference.” (Rukszto, 2005)

            Discourse in this sense is a set of practises that allow for certain ways to talk, conduct, values, rituals, and ways to write about a topic. National discourse, then, is a way to produce ideas about a nation, like Canada.

            I believe that these Heritage moments are extremely selective in what is shown and do not display an accurate history of Canada. However, I also believe that the content of these videos for what is shown is important to Canadian history and does teach viewers about their nation in a way that textbooks cannot. For example, I learned things I did not know about Canada by watching some of the videos shown in class, and therefore I do respect the motives of the creators of the moments. The fact of the matter is that these clips do include important moments in history but limit themselves to those that only focus on the positive moments in history, and fail to include many of the facts of how Canadian came to be. For instance, If someone knew nothing about Canadian history and watched all of these videos in order to grasp the basic idea of the story, they would not be aware of the colonization, slavery, and how many people were killed for Canada to become what it is today.

            An example of one of the Heritage moments that does show a prominent moment in history but shows it in a way that is distorted and inaccurate is the meeting between Jacques Cartier and the Iroquoians that resulted in the naming of Canada. In this video there is group of French settlers led by Jacques Cartier and a group of aboriginals, when they meet it is peaceful greeting, Jacques Cartier and his men are speaking English and the Iroquoians are speaking a different language. Knowing the many stories of colonisation I find it hard to believe that this meeting was this peaceful and smooth, but the way it is displayed in the Heritage moment suggests that it was, which can give people the wrong idea of exactly what the aboriginals endured during the European finding of Canada. This adds to the national discourse that makes people think and feel national pride about Canada based on these stories.

In Rukszto’s article, she talks about the parodies that have been released as a result of the distorted reality displayed in the Heritage moments. A comedy show that has taken these moments and inverted the discourse to mean something else is This Hour has 22 Minutes. This show gives a critical perspective on nationalism because, as the creator of the show, Mary Walsh asserts, the discourse resulting from the Heritage moments masks the Canadian past and present. (Rukszto, 2005) It is for this very reason that This Hour has 22 Minutes feels that it is important to direct attention to what is being left out and how that can affect nationalism. (Ibid, 2005) The show uses comedy, sarcasm and irony to compare what is being shown in the Heritage minutes to what is being left out and how that can affect nationalist discourse. “The parodies call into question whose interests are supported by the nationalist agenda, and which voices are heard in the nationalist imaginary.” (Ibid, 2005)

            I think that since laughter makes Canadians interact with each other, media displaying moments of Canadian heritage that are more relevant and entertaining at the same time creates the right kind of discourse that teaches Canadians about their history and what is means to be part of a nation. This is why I feel that, while the parodies may not be appropriate to be displayed during commercials on Canadian stations, they should be more well known, because it is the discourse created by these parodies that are accurate in teaching Canadians about their history and giving them an opportunity to think about who the Heritage moments are intended for.

When many Canadians think of nationalism, for them what comes to mind is Canada's game- hockey. Whether it brings people together or represents national untiy and sportsmanship, it is up to Canadians if they agree that hockey is a symbol of naitonalism.

Citizenship as a symbol of Canadian nationalism.

Works Cited

1.      Katarzyna Rukszto. (2005). The Other Heritage Minutes: Satirical Reactions to

Canadian Nationalism. Topia: Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies, 14, 73-91.