Vancouver's Chinatown

       

                                 (These Photos are taken from Vancouver's Chinatown)

          In the paper “Race, Place, and the Power of Definition” Kay Anderson addresses radicalization in Vancouver’s china town.  China town came into existence due to Canada’s demand for cheap labour.  Eventually the population grew so large that they had created their own area now know as China town.  However this seemingly nice little community became marginalized and radicalized by the white British Columbians.  Robert Miles coined the term ‘radicalization’ to refer to the process by which attributes such as skin colour, language, birth place, and cultural practices are given social significance. (Andeson,  P. 18).  I believe that rationalization is still strong and existing today in our society. The only difference is that it is not socially acceptable therefore people disguise it or keep it to themselves. This reflection is going to look at how radicalization occurs by location, as well as culture.

Often time’s people who are already socially marginalized can only afford to live or migrate to ecologically degraded spaces. This increases their marginalization in society at large. An example of this is given by Anderson in reference to the Chinese in BC. “Their residential segregation was not a direct result of government fiat but the officially sanctioned process of race definition in Vancouver certainly influences the social organization of that cities territory.  The Chinese settlers were confined through informal suasion and defensive reaction to a swampy settlement close to the business centre.”  I can’t help but wonder why is it that man is so threatened by a person of different decent cohabiting with him?  Biologically we all carry the same genes the only part that differs is some people carry more or less of one gene. (Anderson P.11).  The way society has radicalized people today, you would think they are being asked to cohabit with another species!   

Anderson also addresses how China town’s spaces are perceived. “They are viewed as either a ghettoized minority community or as an ethnic community.” Often times we don’t think about why and how a space becomes ghettoized. We just understand it as so.  The Chinese migrated to Vancouver in order to fill labor positions that the white British Columbians would not.  These positions were often dangerous and physically demanding.  The Canadian government implemented head taxes on the Chinese immigrants which often resulted in them unable to bring their families.  Vancouver’s China town became populated with men which lead to prostitutes coming into the area along with drugs, and alcohol.  This eventually turned into a space that was/is known as   dirty and dangerous.  We have now radicalized these people by their space.  Once a space is known as dangerous, it is hard to correct that.  Other people will go to that space and perform ‘dangerous’ acts they would not do in their own community.  This reinforces others opinions, and in turn never changes that space.  As discussed in class, nobody wonders why these areas are known as dangerous, we simply accept them as bad and different.  I believe we do this because it is an easy way out.  As long as you can avoid it, it doesn’t exist.  However, due to Vancouver’s increase in Asian gang activity the problem can no longer be overlooked.  On November 24, 2010 police seized what they believe was up to 9.8 million in chemical P2P (a substance to make crystal meth or ecstasy).  They also uncovered credit card counterfeiting machines, and materials for identity theft. (CTV, British Columbia). 

Next time you are walking through a poor or marginalized area, stop and think why this space has become the way it is?  Imagine that this is the place you lived and grew up in!  If we can put ourselves in others shoes perhaps we will better emphasize with them and move away from radicalizing that space.  With higher levels of education being completed in our society today the radicalization of people and space will hopefully decline.  As for me, bringing awareness and more insight really made me think about race and space differently.  To be honest I never really over thought it.  As mentioned in class, I just accepted it and never put a second thought to it.  However, now I have put a lot of thought into it and have been sharing/discussing these ideas with my family and friends.  The discussions generated a lot of good conversation and ideas, just as hoped.

Does Canada Live up to It's Multicultural Claim?

During our first class, students were tasked with brainstorming words that aptly describe Canada.  The most common and resonating word that sprung from this discussion was the term ‘multicultural’, which then inspired an exploration into the definition of multiculturalism in the context of Canadian society.  In the article, ‘Managing the House of Difference’, Eva Mackey provides a definition of multiculturalism and states that “‘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 Sates” (MacKay, 2002 P.50).  Canada distinguishes itself from other nations by pledging an unwavering support for ideals such as freedom, democracy and multiculturalism.  However, I believe that under these norms exist mechanisms of hegemony, especially within the concept of multiculturalism in Canada.  To illustrate and explore this notion, I will highlight examples of British cultural hegemony in a multicultural society in MacKay’s article. 

My first example of British multicultural hegemony is under the subtitle Post-war transformations.  Due to the prosperity and growth after the Second World War, Canada was in need of laborers (Mackey, P. 53).  It was at this time that mass migration began.   The nation started to grow in its diversity and became the multicultural nation as we know it today.  However, there were preferred immigrants, and those that were not were weeded out through certain clauses “concerning  ‘unsuitability of climate’ and ‘inability to become assimilated’” (Mackey, P.53).  Another concern was to ensure that the immigrating population did not grow stronger than that of the British.  In 1964 that was just the case in southern Ontario.  Italians, Portuguese and Greeks flooded in to fill the labour market.  In order to correct this problem “a minister of immigration toured northern France looking to ‘balance’ the flow”. (Mackey, P.53). This demonstrates the mechanism in which the state supported and sustained British cultural hegemony in Canada.    

My second example is under the subtitle Making the Indians Ethnic.   “The celebrations of 1967 put great emphasis on the inclusion of Native people.” (Mackey, P.60).  ‘The Commission provided grants to Native communities for the travel and athletic programs, and for projects which focused on the “rich heritage of native customs, legends, stories, songs, and dances…displayed in pow-wows, potlatches, sports meets, pageants, exhibitions and ceremonials”’ (Mackey, p 60). This act created a way for the Natives to practice their cultural ways and be financially supported to do so.  Canada was looking to reignite the founding people of our Nation. 

However, to me it was simply another act of hegemony by the government and ‘elite’.  While providing all of the above, the government at the same time was scooping the Native children from their homes and community’s without the knowledge or consent of their parents.  The children were placed in adoptive white family homes in order to practice Canadian culture.  This was known as the 60’s scoop.  In the eyes of the nation, the government was including the Natives into our new multicultural country.  Little did they know that their children where being abducted and forced into practicing Canadian culture.  Is this what celebrating multiculturalism is?  Or was the 1967 celebrations a way for the government to appear benevolent to our nation?    

In conclusion I believe multiculturalism was introduced as a way for the government to maintain British cultural hegemony.  Primarily they made sure that the British where not out number in population or power by any other immigrating group.  But at the same time made sure that all immigrants felt wanted and accepted.  I believe had they not introduced multiculturalism the Natives and immigrating groups would have organized themselves together to take on the British.  However, making the moves they did, kept the country consenting to their ways. 

Pink or Blue?

After reading the Social Construction of Sex, Gender, and Sexuality I gained a new perspective on gender stereotyping.  The definition of gender given by Nelson & Robinson reads "Gender refers to the designation of feminine and masculine, as identified from a sociocultural standpoint.  Their term ‘gender’ is of relatively recent origin, having been introduced into our vocabulary by psychologist John Money in 1995” (Nelson & Robinson p.144).  This definition applies to wetsernized cultures.  We learn from a very young age that gender follows sex.  Right from birth you are introduced to your gender colour, pink or blue.  Having lived in Canada for my whole life, I fit the typical feminine gender role.  I am a sucker for beauty products, clothes, fitness, and have typical mannerisms that define femininity.  This reflection is going to look at how gender stereotyping has affected women in various ways.

 In Canadian and other western cultures, it seems as though we are obsessed with “defining a person’s ‘master status’, the status by which a person is chiefly identified” (Nelson & Robinson p. 147).  A person may fall into one of two categories, male or female. We have only two male female.  However the Northern First Nations recognize, and accept more than two status’s.  For comparison sake, I am going to use the example of the ‘berdache’.   "It is a person usually a biological male, who effects a change in his or her gender status by adopting the clothing styles, occupations, and behaviors of the other sex" (Nelson & Robinson p.146).  I find this and enlightening and, unexpected.

            While reading the Social Construction of Sex, gender, and Sexuality my immediate and most powerful thought brought me back to grade one and two.  I had a best friend who I spent all my time with. Some times we got to hang out with her older sister; who was in our eyes, ‘cool’ and athletic.  This led us both down the road to the love of sport.  However, there was one slight difference.  My mom dressed me in very girlie attires along with matching bows or ribbons in my hair.  I think you get where I am coming from.  Where as, my best friend, was quite the opposite.  She took after her older sister who had short hair and wore more, let’s say, not so feminine clothes.  I remember one day she came to me very upset.  She was at a restaurant with her parents the night prior and was on her way into the lady’s washroom, when a woman stopped her to say "the little boy’s room is next door".  Need I say more?  From that that point on, she fell into the typical western role of what a girl “should” look like.  This example perfectly exemplifies the power and expectations of what we know as gender stereotypes.  Our culture is so fixated on genders following their stereotype, that people who don’t comply can experience feelings unacceptance.  

            In class we discussed the story of Castor Semenya, a South African middle distance runner.  Her sex came into light due to the speculation that she may have been a he.  Unlike her competitors, she wore long shorts and had a more masculine appearance (Picture 1).  The IAAF put Castor through public humiliation and infringed on personal privacy all in the name of gender stereotyping.  I believe she posed for the cover of You Magazine (having been made over) to show the world her feminine side.  This is just another example of how western culture smothered a girl, until she eventually complied with her stereotype. 

            In the age of mass media we are surrounded by thousand of ads everyday.  It does not take long till the majority of people fall into the gender stereotype trap. Men and women in North America spend billions of dollars on products, procedures etc to meet the ideal image that we know as femininity and masculinity.  We are turning men and women into narcissistic, debt ridden, clones!  After researching many advertisements, I came across a picture of Cinderella dancing with her prince. (Picture 2)  Who stereotypes gender roles better than Disney?  The female is always passive, pretty, slender and awaiting her rescue.  The male character is most often physically fit/strong, handsome, and displays qualities of courage, and confidence.  To me, this is North America’s idealism of men and women. 

            Some last hypothetical thoughts that come to mind are: Am I a result of North America’s stereotype?  Would I dress or act differently if I wasn’t natured or nurtured the way I was?  Would we live in a more positive society if we were more accepting of different roles like that of the First Nations?  Or perhaps my friend would have taken a different path.