This video was released for YouTube Comedy Week, starring Stella Choe and Scott Beehner responding to the kind of questions Asians get from white people about their race.
Now, unfortunately (but unsurprisingly because it’s YouTube), that video got a bunch of horrible, ignorant, racist comments. Ingeniously, the creators decided to make a second video with the original actors giving a dramatic reading, mocking some of the comments:
-Jarrah
Selena Gomez wearing a bindi at the MTV Movie Awards
by Akta Sehgal. Akta Sehgal is currently at the University of Toronto, working on her undergrad focusing on a double major in Women and Gender Studies and Equity Studies.
When I was first taught about cultural appropriation, I learned about the examples of individuals adopting certain practices of Indigenous peoples while not fully understanding the implications. For example, people wearing Native American headdresses as a form of fashion accessory, or putting dream catchers in places not appropriate to Native American culture.
Examples of this are demonstrated through artists, musicians, models and incidents such as the Victoria’s Secret fashion show last year where model Karlie Kloss donned a Native American headpiece as a fashion statement. Another example would be musicians such as Ke$ha, Lana Del Ray or Nevershoutnever donning Indigenous headpieces and clothing.
These types of practices contribute to negative or at least inaccurate stereotypes about Native American culture and beliefs and the use of the symbols is not taken seriously even though they might have a serious meaning to Indigenous people.
For me, the issue of cultural appropriation popped up when I was sitting with my brother and watching the 2013 MTV Movie Awards (don’t judge, I was really bored). I came across Selena Gomez’s performance of her new song “Come and Get It”. She performs while wearing an Indian religious symbol, a bindi.
This affected me more personally, because as an Indian woman I felt it to be disrespectful for someone to wear the bindi just as an accessory with no understanding of the symbol.
When I was growing up, my mother would always attempt to get me to wear the bindi. She used to tell me to be proud to wear a bindi because it was beautiful and that it signified the third eye, which is important to the Indian culture.
So it confused me to see a pop singer prance around wearing the bindi, having no idea why she was wearing it. To give her the benefit of the doubt, I did search up one of her interviews about the song and was astonished to see her talk about her new song having a “tribal, Middle Eastern feel to it”. This offended me even more because I can’t understand her ignorance of grouping people and cultures together. Middle Eastern culture and Indian culture are different from one another and for her to wear a bindi and claim that she wears it because her music has a “Middle Eastern” feel to it is just inappropriate. Read more
Emily and her Great-Uncle Roy
by Emily Yakashiro. Emily is a 23 year old third-generation, mixed-race Canadian strongly committed to feminism and anti-oppression. She has a background in anti-violence work, and is the founder and editor of The Closet Feminist, a Canadian website focusing on fashion, personal style, and of course feminism which launched in December 2012.
One year ago I had the privilege of graduating from the University of British Columbia with my Bachelor of Arts. More importantly, I had the honor of graduating with my great-uncle, Roy Oshiro. I was 22, he was 90. My family picked me up and we drove to the Chan Centre; Uncle Roy jumped a plane from Okinawa. The journey we both experienced graduating from this particular institution was certainly a momentous one for my family, and has had me reflect a lot over the past year about what our graduations and education have meant to me.
I spent my entire undergrad degree at UBC. I was accepted easily, I got into all the courses I wanted to, I met a bunch of cool people and got my degree. My Uncle Roy, on the other hand, was kicked out in 1942 after his first year, and sent to work on a sugar beet farm in Lethbridge with the rest of my grandpa’s family. No UBC degree for him, on account of him being of Japanese descent in World War Two.
He eventually did return to post-secondary education, but not UBC. Seventy years later, my great-uncle did receive a degree from UBC, in an honorary ceremony recognizing the many Japanese-Canadian students the university dismissed during World War Two. Mind you, it is important to note that he received this honorary degree not because of initiative on behalf on the university to right this historical wrong, but because of the persistence of an amazing local woman named Mary Kitagawa.
What is especially remarkable about Kitigawa, is that prior to her campaign to grant the degrees, she had had no connection to UBC; her efforts were those of a conscientious activist from the community-at-large. I personally had no idea that my Uncle Roy had experienced this particular encounter with my alma mater, nor anything about Kitigawa’s lobbying until I was informed by my family that we would be in the same graduating class.
It really is amazing that both Uncle Roy and I could share this experience. Nevertheless, this experience has really had me thinking a lot about access, inclusivity, and institutionalized racism.
A quick view of the special honorary degree ceremony itself was certainly revealing. I attended the whole thing along with much of my family, and it was indeed a beautiful ceremony. I was surprised, therefore, that it wasn’t entirely sold out. From what I could see, the Chan Centre actually had quite a few seats available to an interested public. I also noticed that there weren’t as many people who appeared to be faculty members present as I would have thought. Note, of course, that during the time when the Japanese-Canadian students were banned from attending school at UBC, only a handful of professors spoke out against this injustice. In fact, from what I could see before, during, and after the ceremony, the majority of attendees (aside from the graduates themselves) appeared to be of Asian descent. Interesting.
My graduation ceremony was pretty standard, and thankfully reflected the diversity of students and faculty that UBC is known for. I did remind the Dean of Arts and Chancellor, however, as I crossed the stage and shook their hands that, “education is a right, and to please protect that right.” Though surprised, the Dean of Arts agreed with me heartily, which was a relief, and so did the Chancellor, though she had lost her voice from all the speaking she had had to do during all the ceremonies.
During the actual process of getting my degree (Major in Religion, Literature, and the Arts, and a minor in Political Science), a few things happened that made me think that maybe, just maybe, I wasn’t quite as welcome as I thought I was, being a third-generation, mixed-race Canadian. Read more
I love this rant by slam poet Rachel Rostad, who takes J.K. Rowling to task for her treatment of characters of colour in the Harry Potter series.
Check out more of Rachel, and some of the dialogue surrounding this piece, at http://rachelrostad.tumblr.com
Earlier this week the Associated Press made a crucial decision to eliminate the inaccurate and dehumanizing phrase “illegal immigrant” from their 2013 style guide.
But even though the New York Times is “considering a change”, they haven’t yet dropped the term, which means this video from Colorlines’ Drop the I-Word campaign is still very relevant:
From A Bride with a Hanzo Sword to a Damsel in Distress: Did Quentin Tarantino’s Feminism Take a Step Backwards in Django Unchained?
by Tracy Bealer
One of the pleasures of being a Quentin Tarantino fan for the last (gulp) twenty years has been enjoying his development as a writer-director, especially in terms of his ever more complicated representations of women. To move from Reservoir Dogs, the female characters of which are limited to “shocked woman” and “shot woman,” to Kill Bill volumes 1 & 2, a film (Tarantino insists they be considered a single work) that masterfully investigates the multiplicity of feminine identity, is a dizzying and exhilarating evolution.
However, Django Unchained, Tarantino’s eighth feature, seems to further expand his interest in exploring the intersection of cinema, history and violence, but is rather regressive in terms of female characterization.
-Spoilers follow- Read more
This past week the Supreme Court of Canada issued a ruling on whether Muslim women have a right to wear a niqab in court.
A Muslim woman who is the complainant in a sexual assault trial in Toronto has lost her bid before Canada’s top court to have an unimpeded right to wear her niqab while testifying.
In a split Supreme Court of Canada decision released Thursday, the seven judges largely upheld a lower court’s ruling that the woman, known only as N.S. to protect her identity under a court-ordered publication ban, may have to remove her niqab.
[...]The Court of Appeal had ruled the woman may have to remove her niqab if her credibility became an issue.
The court also set out criteria that a judge must consider in such cases, including whether the veil would interfere with cross-examination and whether the witness would be appearing before a judge only or before a jury.
Toronto’s Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic was one of three intervenors in the case, arguing that “removal of a complainant’s niqab would be a disincentive to the reporting of sexual assaults and impede access to justice for an already marginalized group.” The Clinic stated they felt the split decision recognized the complex rights’ issues, and they thanked Justice Abella for her dissenting opinion, which stated in part that: “the harmful effects of requiring a witness to remove her niqab, with the likely result that she will likely not testify, bring charges in the first place…is a significantly more harmful consequence than not being able to see a witness’ whole face.”
Here’s what three Gender Focus contributors had to say about the ruling.
Jessica Critcher
I’m an atheist– and a really militant one at that. I even won a scholarship and landed my first publication ever because of how unimpressed I am with god and by extension every religion ever (especially yours).
With this in mind, I would like to express my disapproval for the SCOC’s ruling with regards to NS wearing a niqab, because this has almost nothing to do with religion. Reading the news coverage, it’s obvious what the problem is:
Lawyers for the two men accused of sexually assaulting her when she was a child argued that a fair and open trial means the face of a witness must be seen because facial cues are important to establish credibility.
Bolded for emphasis. Rape survivors have to establish credibility. NS is on trial just as much as much as her rapists. And now, in addition to being assaulted, in addition to facing her rapists in court, she may have to be similarly violated and humiliated by the legal system.
I’m not a fan of gendered religious head coverings. But here’s the thing, my opinion as a white person and as someone who does not participate in that religion is irrelevant. Regardless of whether head coverings are oppressive or not, (which is complicated!) and whether NS wears her niqab as “a religious requirement, or as ‘a personal preference and a matter of comfort’” or not, the legal system is already failing her, and her case hasn’t even made it to trial yet. I’m not literally praying for her, but you get the idea.
Sarah Jensen:
This is a really tough one. I disagree with outright niqab bans, such as those enacted by France and Belgium. I can see the necessity of removal in certain circumstances, though, such as when getting a photo taken for identification. The line blurs for me when it comes to testifying in court. I think that the Supreme Court came to the right decision– that the niqab’s allowance is best decided on a case-by-case basis.
I see both sides of the argument, but in this particular case I would be more inclined to let N.S. keep her face covered. Testifying in court can be extremely traumatic for sexual assault victims, as they must face those who harmed them, while simultaneously recounting the painful details to strangers. Many victims already grapple with feelings of shame and exposure, and forcing N.S. to unveil may amplify these feelings. It may also discourage other veiled Muslim women from pressing charges.
Jasmine Peterson:
The Supreme Court’s ruling on requiring a woman to remove her niqab during her testimony is not only disappointing, but it’s paternalistic and, as far as I’m concerned, an impediment on an individuals’ rights. What is particularly disconcerting about this decision is the composition of the individuals who have passed this ruling – none of whom appear to be themselves Muslim women. I think this is a huge (and consistent) problem in Canada in making decisions regarding minority groups, that those making the decisions are not minorities themselves and therefore lack essential insights upon which to base their decisions in a more nuanced and informed manner.
What is perhaps particularly problematic from my perspective in this case is that the defense lawyers asserted that “facial cues ‘can be significant information that help the observer understand what a witness is attempting to communicate and get a sense of who the witness is and how he or she is reacting to questioning.’” Having studied forensic psychology, I worry that the premise behind this requirement is faulty, at best. It is certainly not supported by research. A witness is not on trial, and this seems to me to be a sort of revictimization. But even more than that, juries are not particularly good at judging a persons’ honesty by their demeanor or their facial expressions. In fact, people are not particularly good at detecting lying most of the time. So the facial cues alluded to by this defense lawyer are likely inconsequential to getting to the truth anyhow.
Finally, I think the idea that the niqab “undermines gender equality” is also based in misunderstanding and wilful ignorance. That is not to say that, for some, the niqab is not experienced as an oppressive garment. However, for many, the niqab is worn not out of some oppressive imposition but because of personal and religious beliefs. It is experienced as a positive thing, not a negative. I find it troublesome when I hear essentialist statements about the oppressiveness of the niqab when I have heard it spoken of very positively by some Muslim women who choose to don the garment for spiritual reasons. Unfortunately, I think this widely held misconception of the niqab as only being oppressive influences decisions like these being made by people who are on the outside looking in. Too often our Western views are imposed upon others; as a multicultural country I think it time we become more sensitive in addressing the diversity which comprises Canadian citizens, and their rights.
(photo via Wikimedia Commons)
