From Prada to Nada and Old El Paso

source: http://www.daemonsmovies.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/from-prada-to-nada-movie-photo-04-550x309.jpg

I recently saw the movie From Prada to Nada, a movie about a pair of Mexican American sisters who live the high life until their father dies. When the father dies they discover they are in debt and in turn are forced into moving to their aunt’s home, who lives in a low-income neighbourhood with a high Latino population. During the duration of the movie I really did not know if I should laugh or cry. This movie is a parody of Mexican culture. It is built of stereotype after stereotype.

You can watch the trailer here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvY6WPO5DMc&ob=av3e

First one of the daughters claims she is not Mexican. This reinforces the image that Mexicans are ashamed of being who they are and that they wish to be American.

There is, however, one well-educated Mexican depicted in the movie (which I appreciate) – he is a university professor. However, he is the Mexican with the lightest skin in the movie, reinforcing the belief that lighter means better education, more money, and overall wealth. I want to note that I appreciated a light skin Mexican was included in the movie, to show that we do not just come in one shade (an issue I mentiond in my other post here: http://the-needle-in-the-haystack.blogspot.com/2011/07/little-to-think-about-when-it-comes-to.html).

Even though I was drooling at the sight of our delicious traditional foods, I had to laugh at the fact that every woman in a house party was dressed in traditional Mexican clothes. Nobody really does that in any of our parties. Yes, there are always the extra enthusiastic people who dress up for Independence Day, and it is a lot of fun, but nevertheless it is not the norm to find a whole party dressed up.

What I found most offensive was that the aunt seemed to be running a type of sweatshop in her house with a bunch of ladies working making clothes and whatnot. To add to this, when a well-dressed individual knocked on their door they immediately hid all their work because they believed it was la migra (immigration), who was there to deport them.

At the end the “good” Mexican heartthrob, was depicted as handsome, rugged, poor and with a macho attitude. This “good” Mexican ends up with the sister who did not like to acknowledge her roots. The second sister, who is studying to be a lawyer, ends up with the handsome, rich and white lawyer. Because of course in a movie full on Mexicans, if there is a successful and good person he has to be white right? He cannot be Mexican as well.

What also annoys me is that the half-brother of the sisters, who in fact is the one who buys their home, is married to this mean white woman. Why couldn’t he be married to a mean Mexican, or a mean black, or Chinese woman? It reinforces the stereotype that Mexican have this messed up dream to find a white person to love even if they are horrible people. It is ridiculous that to end up with a white person is somehow a “success.”

I hated that movie and I hated the fact that Televisa (a major Mexican television company) was part of the production. But I will talk about that next week.

To end this post I would like to invite you to watch two short commercials which air daily here in Canada. It is advertising Old El Paso Tacos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3KXaF2_UzU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSTJ5Xe-E8c&feature=related

First of all, I do not know any fellow Mexican that eats that food. Real tacos are not that crunchy nonsense. There are all types of tacos and the only “crunchy” tacos we have are not even crunchy. They are called tacos dorados, and they basically consist of rolling your chicken (or whatever you prefer) in a soft tortilla and then frying them: all fresh and all delicious.

Not only do we not eat that food, they are trying to make it seem like it is all we eat. Then they depict everyone as being less than intelligent and having these huge dilemmas over soft or hard tacos, over how not to make them fall over. They also show us as all being rural and again in traditional clothes. In fact the real rural people of Mexico are the ones who eat the best and most delicious food one could find in Mexico.

Ask any Mexican you know, we do not eat that stuff and neither should anyone else because it’s really unhealthy and looks disgusting. I think it’s really unfair not only to our image, but to the public who thinks that they are eating Mexican food.

Moral: Make a real Mexican friend and go to their mom’s house to eat some delicious food, or better yet, come to my house; I’ll make you some great tacos dorados.

With love your Mexican blogger,

Belisa

Birth control and the Pressure on Women

I have decided to look at something that everyone sees as “normal” in today’s society.

Before you immediately jump to conclusions about this article, please note that I am not advocating premarital sex, taking the pill, or anything of the like.  I am merely saying that if it is out there, it needs to have adequate research.  I also hope that those of you who are against the whole idea remember that some women are forced to take the pill for reasons unrelated to sexual activity, out of medical necessity.  Some women have irregular periods and experience hormone fluctuations which affect their body in negative ways and are thus prescribed the pill.  If it is being given out for medical reasons as well, that is even more reason to provide adequate research on its effects and risks.  Finally, I just want us to examine what we all consider "normal"; we are in a society where it is "okay" for women to take more responsibility, risk, and even sometimes, stigma, to avoid getting pregnant.  We are responsible as if a man has no role in pregnancy at all, and he does not have to face any additional health risks or trouble.



Ladies, if you do not want to get pregnant then you have to take birth control.  Just go to your doctor, tell them you are sexually active, and they will do a few tests and give you the pills.  You take one every day around the same time, and there you are.  In fact it even regulates your period!

Sounds great right?

Wrong. 

Health risks

There are other countless health risks such as high blood pressure, hypertension, changes in vision, increased risk of heart attack, blood clots (sometimes fatal), gallbladder disease, gallstones, resistance to insulin, immune system suppression, strokes, tumors, ectopic pregnancies, cervical cancer and even jaundice.

Then there are the “regular” side affects such as changes in mood, including depression.  Obviously it’s perfectly fine for a female to experience things on a daily basis since we are “more emotional” already anyway right?  It’s fine, we deal with it all the time.  There’s also the unpleasant 1-2 weeks of vomiting at least one of your meals out while your body adjusts to birth control.  Very nice.

Lack of Research

There is not nearly enough research on the effects of birth control or even what interferes with its effectiveness and what does not.  For instance, did you know several supplements, even natural ones, can make birth control less effective?  One such example is St. John’s Wort.  No doctor ever told me this, and it is not even widely-known in research.  This was through my own research that I later found this out.  I had to go out of my way to check; nobody told me when I was buying it, there was no warning on any labels, and nothing to even make me suspicious.  These kinds of things should not be hidden and hard to find; they should be out in the open for all of us to know.  There also needs to be more research as to the effects of smoking either nicotine or even marijuana and how that might interfere with birth control.

Still, we need more definitive answers.  Telling me what “may” or “may not” happen does not really help me.  Tell me why something might happen, what is more likely to happen, what is less likely to happen, and for what reasons.  The fact that these really serious issues are brushed over like they are nothing means that people are not taking the risks seriously in accordance with their own bodies.  When you hear “may happen” you think “probably won’t happen” and never think about it again, until you’re in the hospital and you lose your life and the whole thing comes as a shock to everyone around you.

Sexism

The main issue that lies behind this lack of research is the fact that this is a female-related issue.  This makes it both i) taboo as women should just be quiet and deal with whatever is thrown their way quietly, and ii) sexism in the sense that female medical issues are never taken as seriously or as widely-researched as male medical issues; just look up the differences between heart attack symptoms for males and females; I bet you didn’t know that the symptoms will be different; oh wait, that’s because nobody educates us on this).

Additionally I’ve noticed that it is women that have to worry about taking the pill on time, women that have to worry about missing one or two, women that have to go to the trouble of making sure to go to the doctor regularly, women that have to deal with all of the symptoms that they hardly even know about.

What I would like to know is why there has never been a “pill” for men.  Something to control the flow of sperm perhaps; something to prevent it from impregnating a woman.  But no.  Instead, a woman is faced with the burden alone.  Doctors don’t even think that such a thing should be developed because women got it covered.  Why should men worry?  It’s the woman that gets pregnant.  Not like it takes two people to make a baby or anything like that. 

All men have to worry about is slapping on a piece of latex and then taking it off, and sometimes if they are aware a female is on the pill, not even that much. 

-Nancy L.

Have Some Respect for the Dead

I am not sure if the rest of you are aware of these trends, but I have been seeing a lot of videos around where the head has been removed from a frog or a squid (thankfully they do not show this process) leaving the rest of the squid and basically the frog’s legs.  The “cool” part starts when they pour either salt or soy sauce (high in salt) on to these and the squid’s tentacles or the frog’s legs begin to “dance.”

If you want to see what I’m talking about or don’t understand, watch the following video (I warn you, if you have a problem with watching these sorts of things do not watch the videos; I personally found them disturbing).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YZJt_Bw3eo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RcZkrz3lmY&feature=related

I did not really know anything about this but according to the info on the second video with a squid the user writes: “This Japanese delicacy known as odori-don or "dancing squid rice bowl" is a variation on traditional squid sashimi and uses soy sauce to create the disturbing illusion of bringing a dead squid back to life. The dish comes with the head cut into small sashimi slices and the rest joins as a side plate once the "performance" is complete. This controversial method of preparing sashimi while it's still alive is known as ikizukuri, and is banned in Australia.”

So what exactly is my problem with all of this?

Beyond being disgusted by looking at dead “food” moving (how cooked is it if it still has these capabilities?) I am equally disgusted by the fact that people are so entertained by it.  I am not disrespecting a cultural food or tradition but what I am trying to say is if you choose to eat animals/living creatures for food (which I do) I think that there comes some responsibility with that. 

You do not need to further disrespect the animal by having fun with its corpse.  Those that prescribe to religion will attest that while God has given us the right to eat other animals for our livelihood, we are to be thankful and not to let it have died in vain – that is, by not wasting it, and also by not disrespecting it by mocking it.  Whether you believe in God/religion or not the theory behind this makes perfect sense.  If you are going to kill an animal, do so respectfully.

These kinds of practices make me feel like we are all just animals ourselves with not an ounce of understanding. These things once had lives and why would anyone enjoy making a show out of its corpse? 

If you are going to take the life of a living thing to eat it there is no need to add further insult to injury.

-Malcolm

My Experience Donating Blood

Last year I donated blood for the first an only time. I stopped not for lack of altruistic spirit but because I found something within the procedure that offended me completely. For those who have never donated blood let me break it up a little bit, you basically go to a station at your school or a mall when the Canada Blood Services are up taking donations. They ask you if you ate today, and if you haven’t, they send you to eat something so you do not pass out. You also have to be a minimum of 110 pounds, again so you do not faint. They also ask you if you have given birth within the last six months or if you are breast feeding. This is all to keep you safe from becoming too weak when the blood is taken out from you. All this is perfectly fine…

After you are told to sit down and fill a questionnaire, the questions you are asked to answer alone also seem very much standard, such as; “Are you feeling well today?”. When you are through with that questionnaire you are called to speak with a nurse to fill out another questionnaire. This is where the problems start.

This part of the questionnaire is racist, homophobic and discriminatory on so many levels. You are asked if either you or your mother or grandmother were born in Mexico or Latin America. It asks if you have visited these countries for a significant amount of time. Yes, I was and so was everyone is my family, so? If they tell me we have some blood problems, then ok go ahead and believe that lie, but they are going to test everyone’s blood before putting it in a patient right? So what is the problem? Why do you have to make people feel like they are somehow inferior if all they are doing is trying to help?

The questionnaire asks if you have ever been a prostitute. It asks men if they have ever, even once had sex with another man. Excuse me how is this their business? How is this relevant? If they think homosexual men have aids and other diseases, good for them, they are going to test the blood first anyways. There is absolutely no need to be homophobic and ask these private questions to anyone.

Then the women are asked if they have had sex with a man who has ever had sex with another man. Huh? Who cares! You are going to test the blood! And honestly if you have you probably do not know anyways… They are also asked if they have been sexually active with anyone born in Africa. Wow… I feel like I being redundant here but they are going to test the blood! What is the need for this?

So not only are you giving your time to donate blood, being poked with a needle for around 30 minutes, but before all this fun begins your privacy is violated and you are expected to answer homophobic, racist and overall discriminatory questions.

That was the only day I donated blood and I refuse to do it again until these outdated methods are changed. I do not feel comfortable participating in something that is so discriminatory without the need to be. The blood is going to get tested before it is given to anyone; all of these questions are simply unacceptable. While I was being asked I felt like saying “Yes, I am a Mexican bisexual with a bisexual African boyfriend, oh and I have multiple tattoos and piercings”, just to see what they would say.

I want this to be changed because I definitely believe donating blood is something positive, and I like to help. We never know who needs the blood and what life we could be saving by donating. However, not in this manner, I do not want to be part of it. I also ask myself why is it that the first part of the questionnaire we answer by ourselves and then the racist part we do it with a nurse? Are they aware that people are more likely to walk out if they are seeing that? What do you guys think?

I leave you with the link so you can see the questionnaire for yourselves. Read it all over, the invasive questions are the ones shaded in grey at the last section.

 

http://www.bloodservices.ca/CentreApps/Internet/UW_V502_MainEngine.nsf/resources/Eligibility/$file/ROD2011-05-01.pdf

-Belisa

Speak Whatever Language You Want If You Are in America, or Elsewhere

I recently had the displeasure of finding this site:  http://www.notracistbut.com/  -  this tumblr is dedicated to showing public Facebook posts which start off saying “I’m not racist but” followed by something extremely racist.

This site is great in that it serves as a constant reminder of the kinds of backwards and racist thoughts that are still prevalent in much of the population (that age-old argument that we now have “equal” rights, or we now have a African-American president, so we cannot be racist is silly).

However, this site is not so great because it serves to infuriate me on a daily basis.

This post in particular caught my eye today: http://www.notracistbut.com/post/8799368871/bahahahahaha

Besides the obvious irony here that this person is actually at fault of not using proper English (your and you’re are not the same word), the claim itself is really foolish.  

ISSUE #1: NOT SPEAKING ENGLISH IS SOMEHOW BAD

Why do people assume that English has some kind of higher legitimacy than other languages? Granted it is most commonly used and blah blah blah, but it is really up to people to speak whatever they want, and if you can’t understand them that’s really your own problem.  I’m not talking about a business where a Japanese customer insists on speaking to a clerk in Japanese when the latter does not understand it - but let people converse with other people how they choose (i.e. Arabic speakers speaking in Arabic with other Arabic speakers). 

Why is this such an issue to everyone?  They feel more comfortable.  They are expressing their ethnic identity.  They are conversing with others and finding some kind of common ground, and most of them are either learning English or know it FLUENTLY – don’t assume that because someone is speaking in another language they don’t know English just as well or even better than you do. Moreover, every language has its own intricacies and things to offer.  We celebrate works written in English, but do we ever stop to think how many great pieces we are missing, hidden away in the languages many of us cannot speak? 

Before anybody gets angry I’m not saying that people should not learn English, but I am saying do not assume that i) they are not currently learning it or ii) do not already know it.  Moreover iii) It takes time to adapt to a new place and a new language.  There is nothing more annoying to me than when people laugh at accents or at somebody's inability to immediately master the English language.  If you suddenly found yourself in China (assuming you are not from there) and couldn't speak Chinese would you want everyone to laugh at you, to make fun of you, and tell you to go back home?

ISSUE #2: BE AMERICAN

Now on to the second issue: this whole “be American” thing; does speaking a language other than English make us less American? 

What is American?

The only thing that I can deduce from these claims that speaking English is “the American way” is that we are too ignorant for our own good.  This country earns its profits from the labour of all kinds of people; all types of people contribute to the economy.  All types of people reside here.   Not only that, but Native Americans are the true “Americans” for having come here first (if we are going to use that logic); so maybe we should have all learned their languages instead of English.  Or maybe the citizens of Jamestown should have left because they could only speak their “foreigner” language of English and maybe they should have gone “back to their own country”.  When we start using this kind of logic in these examples everybody will scoff at them and dismiss them as nonsense – but when we use this kind of logic to target minority groups and really, moreso anyone who is not European we often take such claims more seriously.

Let’s be honest: the majority of people are really aiming these types of comments at anyone who is not European; speaking French or German is not nearly as “offensive” to these people as speaking Spanish or Hindi is, again because of this ethnocentric view that anything European is progressive, forward, modern, professional, and any other language is backwards, traditional, unprofessional, "fobbish" (don't even get me started on that word). 

And that my friends is the great hypocrisy of people that make these kinds of comments. 

But I leave you with this thought:

I myself speak 2 other languages in conjunction with English and am also learning my fourth.  So when people imply that those who don’t speak English are somehow less, lower, or unintelligent, you tell me who is smarter or at least making more use of their brain: the person who can speak one language or the person who can speak 1 (and in some cases, more) and is perfecting another one (like English) and will soon master it, someone who can come to a brand new land and learn to adapt themselves very quickly, or someone who thinks they are somehow better than everyone because they were born there and never faced much difficulty with having to integrate with what surrounds them?

Us being in these countries is not some great favour to us, we do not have to be "thankful" to the people that reside here.  Instead, just like any other human being, we deserve to live in a place that is safe, free from war, that offers more than poverty and low-wage, low-skill jobs.  We do not create the circumstances of our home countries, nor do we choose where we are born.  So if we are here, then we have the right just like anybody else, to speak or indulge in our own cultures.  Yes, we should learn English if you want to fully be able to take advantage and integrate with the society you find yourself in.  But to embrace our own culture is not something that is wrong - only to be looked down upon for doing so is.

-Malcolm

*For more reading on the concept explored in the last part of this post, I invite you all to read this: 
http://southasia.oneworld.net/weekend/migration-and-unfreedom

 

Toddlers and Tiaras.

There is a show on TLC called “Toddlers and Tiaras”. It has been running for 4 seasons, and it premiered in 2009. There is so much I have to say about this show I do not even know where to start. The show exposes the world of child beauty pageants in the USA.

First of all to me, all children are beautiful. Ok, some are cuter that others I am not going to lie. However from birth to about seven years old, all kids to me are beautiful. It is unlikely for them to be again as beautiful and perfect as they are at that age. They have no pimples or cellulite, but most importantly they possess the most beautiful thing in the world: innocence. Now tell me how anybody (especially parents) dares to challenge that?

We are always complaining about eating disorders, suicide attempts, bullying in kids and teens. So do these parents see anything wrong with this picture? To allow their kids to be judged by their looks at such an early age, and compete is horrible to me. Every little girl should be the most beautiful girl in the entire world in her eyes, and every little boy should be the most handsome in the world. Why are these parents playing with their children self-esteem, especially at such a vulnerable age? These little girls are likely to become depressed or have an eating disorder as they grow older because they have only been taught that their worth is in their looks.

Not only are the kids judged on their looks, but they are made up into these ridiculous drag queen miniatures. It is absolutely absurd, little kids have perfect skin and face and hair. However they are turned into these horrendous little adult-looking kids. They don’t look cute, it is actually disturbing. The girls wear big fake hair, more make-up than most adult ladies I know and inappropriate clothing. They are continuously told they need to tan. What message does it send? “Your skin in not beautiful enough, you need to change it”. They need to wear fake eye lashes, and fake hair, because their own does not make the cut in these competitions.

On top of being clowned up they have to learn how to do tricks. Some do routines, dancing as if they were 20 year old women and not little girls. They are trained to laugh, smile and flirt with the judges. There is no component at all that asks for any type of educational skill, like a spelling bee or something of the sort. Putting all the weight on the ability to act like little brainless, fake women, sending the message again, that their value is only measured in what they look like.

The little girls that win get huge crowns and bags of make-up. Do the parents not feel bad when their children are sad that they did not win and they don’t get a crown and prizes?

Most kids I have seen on that show hate participating in pageants. Once I saw a lady who begged her daughter to let her dye her eye lashes because hers were “too blond”. That same lady would bleach both her son’s and daughter’s teeth (both participated in the pageants), and put immense amount of pressure on them winning. It seems to me that all these parents have issues and dead dreams that they are trying to fulfill with their children, which is simply not fair. Oh, and of course there are money prizes which I am sure go to the children’s college fund huh?

In my opinion I do not think tanning and make-up is appropriate for kids. Neither is this notion that their worth is measured by their looks. Do these parents not realize that their life will be hard enough already as adults? Why put this burden on them?

However what alarms me the most, secondary to the self-esteem issues imposed on the kids, is that pedophiles must have a field day when it comes to these pageants. Little girls dressed in little clothing meant for adult women? Flirting around with their practised walks? It is ridiculous that parents do not think about this when parading their children at these events.

Children should be allowed to be children. Their skin should not be tanned because it is perfect, they should not wear make-up, their face is perfect, and so is their hair, smile and personality. No more and no less. If these parents want to enrich their children’s lives they should take them to piano lessons, ballet, swimming, or soccer lessons. Enrich their lives with real skills that will follow them through their lives and make them more secure within themselves and their abilities. Instead of parading them around for a whole bunch of people to pass judgement on them, tell them that they are the best in the world, because in your eyes the always should be.

- Kevin Alcott

India, Pakistan and the Pain of 1947

It still irks when people today that I encounter don’t realize that India and Pakistan (as well as Bangladesh) all used to be the same country.  Partition tore India into two to become India and Pakistan in 1947.  Bangladesh later separated from Pakistan in 1971.

While I do not think we should ever forget the violence that ensued, the bloodshed, the migrations, broken homes, the pain, and the suffering (all tensions that were aggravated by the British presence who used the "divide and rule" strategy), I also do not think that we should let such events tear us apart from one another as people.  Obviously yes, we are still divided as countries.  Yet to constantly create further distinctions and divisions between ourselves is to forget that we were all once living together in peace and that our cultures are the same.  Our languages are the same.  (Many people are confused about the whole Urdu/Hindi issue – they are in fact the same language but Pakistan uses the Arabic-influenced Urdu script, whereas India uses the Sanskrit-influenced Hindi script; spoken, they are the same). 

In our parents’ generation, the pain is still quite fresh.  After all, their parents and elders were directly affected.  Grandparents were lost as well as countless friends and relatives.  Entire families were forced to leave their homes and go where it may be safer for them – for instance, Muslims living in India no longer felt safe there and left their homes of generations to relocate to Pakistan and start all over again.  The same can be said of Hindus living in the area that was now to be Pakistan.  Truckloads of the bodies of the massacred were on both sides of the border. I once heard a horror story from a family friend that many people would rush onto trains to quickly escape and yet those people would become targeted somehow anyway; so then sometimes a train would arrive, only to find that all of the people inside of it, men, women, boys, girls, the elderly, were slaughtered inside.  In fact, this was one of the only truly horrific things I was told by anyone, because they told me I would rather not hear the true extent of the horrific events that occurred in 1947. It seems entirely reasonable to me that our parents may still hold resentment, anger, and sadness over these events. 

But it seems to me that it is our parents that are the most forgiving.  Places where South Asians are many seem to show that Indians and Pakistanis live in peace with one another, and make good friends with each other also.

Rather, I have seen more open hatred between the younger generations.  Once when I was in class a friend of mine asked the girl next to me if she was Pakistani.  She curtly replied, “No of course not.  I’m Indian.  Pakistanis are stupid.”  I was totally enraged and asked her how she could make such a comment.  “You’re the same people,” I said.  “No,” she said.  “We’re completely different.  Look at them and their backwards country.  They don’t know what they’re doing.  And those Muslim people are crazy.”  I don’t need to mention that India is corrupt as well, though it is an economically-booming country.  And I’m also going to point out that violence between Hindus and Muslims back home is equal.  It is not just Muslims that dislike Hindus, but Hindus that dislike Muslims (I’m referring to when things do occur; I’m not saying all Muslims hate all Hindus or the reverse). 

Obviously comments like the one this girl made are not always out in the open.  You can have two friends that have known each other for years but when something happens to again highlight that “difference” between them – that one is Pakistani and Muslim, and one is Indian and Hindu, there are divisions. 

For instance, to illustrate this, I will talk very briefly about the aftermath of 9/11.  In the old neighborhood I used to live in, the majority of people were Indians and Pakistanis.  The stores were all Indian and Pakistani.  The people made friends, everybody was friendly to one another.  After 9/11, the comments started to create divisions between people that had known each other for 20-30 years.  A store we frequented run by an Indian Hindu family was heard saying that “those extreme Muslims” [she was referring to all Muslims] “are the reason for these attacks and that’s why I never liked them in the first place.”  Another Indian Sikh family said “Muslims were not to be trusted.”  Then when these comments were circulated, and others like them, the Muslims in the area began to hear of them and also became enraged.  Some said “It was obvious that those Indians never liked us in the first place.”  Others said “I’m so tired of them thinking they are so much better than us.”  Some people I knew began to only support businesses and only talk to those who were the same religion as themselves, and from the same country, out of spite and anger over these comments. 

Another less expected example was that the area I grew up in was officially called “The Indian Bazaar”; when it was suggested that they change it to “The Pakistani-Indian Bazaar” to more accurately reflect the great variety and diversity of the stores and restaurants, as well as the people, there was a huge uproar.  Again, people that had been friends for 20-30 years were divided.  Many of the Indians said that they would not support putting both country names in the title and would not even want to live there anymore.  The Indian people were the majority, and so the name was never changed.  Pakistanis felt the sting and held quiet resentment.

But I think that some of that resentment is misplaced.  Some of, (or most of) that resentment should be aimed at the British monarchy which tore us apart from one another.  This is why I have never taken part in any celebration of Victoria Day.  This is why I refuse to subscribe to views such as the British made us “more civilized” or “organized”; the British made us more “technologically advanced”; the British with their light skin and light eyes and “eloquent” speak are, basically “better than us”; no.  The British monarchy was actually arbitrary, careless, and threw us out of order.  They sparked violence and hatred; they created divisions that now feel like they are irreversible.

With the independence days of both countries fast-approaching all I can say is that the remembrance of 1947 is more a painful reminder of the people we could have been and used to be.  The achievements of our great people are scattered across both of our nations and it feels odd to me for them to be arbitrarily divided between us.  I do have pride as a citizen of my country but I have more pride knowing the greatness of all of our people together. And I have hope that one day we can bury these hurts and come together once again.

image source http://www.indianchild.com/images/indiaflagbig.gif 

image source http://flagspot.net/images/p/pk.gif

More on this later.

-My Name is Not Raj

EXTREMISM HAS NO RELIGION - What The Oslo Terrorist Attacks Teach Us About the World We Are Living in Today

I am not going to provide a summary for what happened in Oslo because it was all over the news.  I would like to call attention to some of the comments that were made by media in wake of these terrorist attacks:

“This is a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists. [...] Some irresponsible lawmakers on both sides of the aisle…would have us believe that enormous defense cuts would not affect our national security. Obama would have us believe that al-Qaeda is almost caput and that we can wrap up things in Afghanistan. All of these are rationalizations for doing something very rash, namely curbing our ability to defend the United States and our allies in a very dangerous world.”

“…in jihadist eyes, [Norway] will always remain guilty of being what it is: a liberal nation committed to freedom of speech and conscience, equality between the sexes, representative democracy, and every other freedom that defines the West. For being true to those ideals, Norwegians have now been asked to pay a terrible price.“

           
“Norway also drew the ire of al Qaeda for publishing the controversial political cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed that appeared in a Danish newspaper and sparked outrage in the militant Islamic community.”

 “I think the betting is on terrorism. We don't know for sure, yet. But you've only got to look at the sort of blast that occurred. You've only got to look at the target - prime minister's office, the headquarters of the major newspaper group next door.

Why would that be relevant? Because the Norwegian newspapers republished the cartoons of Prophet Mohammad that caused such offense in the Muslim world. When that happened, the Norwegian telecoms offices in Pakistan were attacked and ransacked. The Norwegian embassy in Damascus was attacked. That is an issue that still rankles amongst Islamist militants the world over. So, that fact that Norwegian newspapers did that makes them a target.”

According to the article by Gharib and Waldron for ThinkProgress (found here: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/07/23/277310/wapos-jen-rubin-wsj-right-wing-pundits-jumped-to-blame-muslims-and-jihadists-for-norway-attacks/) the second comment was initially in the Wall Street Journal but was promptly re-written when news of the real attacker was discovered.


As everybody is aware now, the terrorist is actually one that no one would have thought –

32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik, who is apparently a right-wing extremist and not anti-Western but anti-Muslim.

Since the world has learned of this, there has been little usage of the words “terrorist”, “fundamentalism”, or “extremism”.  Why not? He committed acts of terrorism; he was an extremist, and a fundamentalist.  But no; instead of calling his attacks what they were, we seem to have a special group of people for whom these labels are reserved for – regardless of if they have done anything or not.

The point of this article is to say that violence, extremism, hatred, and fundamentalism come in all forms.  They are not inherently Muslim; the fact that the media immediately jumped to the conclusion that these acts must have been committed by Muslim terrorists is saddening and offensive to the vast majority of Muslims who are against these violent acts. 

The world hates them.  The world likes to pin every fear, every violent act, every problem on them.  After all, it is because of Muslims we are in Iraq or we are in Afghanistan.  It is because of Muslims that there are problems at the Gaza Strip.  It is because of Muslims that airport and border security has to be more strict. 

But the reverse is actually true.  It is because of stereotypes that they are blamed for every problem.  It is because of these viewpoints that innocent people are being killed and their homelands are destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other places.  It is because of these wars that Muslims are treated as less than people.  It is because of these viewpoints that the prevailing viewpoint is that Palestinians are in the wrong, even though they are denied property, and healthcare, and the actions of a few destitute citizens result in disproportionate violent retaliations from Israel and others.  It is because of these widely-held beliefs of Muslims that when they are completely innocent, they are still nervous to cross the boarder or pass through airport security.  It is because of these viewpoints that time and time again, innocent people are held and tortured in Guantanamo Bay.  Muslims are victimized, searched, questioned, humiliated, and hated. It is because of these viewpoints that regular citizens are afraid of their own government.  They are afraid to say they are Muslim.

President Obama was often “accused” of being Muslim, as if being a Muslim, had he been one, was one of the most offensive things you could say to him.  He even venehemently denied it, because he saw it as such as well.

Many places in the United States have opposed mosques being built (with the ever-famous and incorrectly-named “Ground Zero Mosque”) which was clearly a “slap in the face” for Americans since they were “fighting Islam”; I must have been under the incorrect impression that they were fighting extremism – not the very religion.

And in doing  just that, the West is itself guilty of extremism in the name of Islamaophobia.  Muslims can no longer feel free to say and act how they want. They cannot openly express their religious beliefs through manner, speech, or dress, because they will be victimized and frowned upon. Having just a Muslim name or so-called “Muslim features” (“looking” South Asian or Middle Eastern) immediately labels them as extremists.  Simply attending a mosque becomes evidence against an innocent citizen.

The media consistently discusses the race and religion of suspects in “terrorist acts”; meanwhile, I have yet to hear a news anchor discussing the religion or race of a Christian white man who is committing similarly terroristic acts.

It is interesting that with such new ideas that people so quickly forget that there are Muslims who are citizens of our country. They contribute to the economy. They work hard just like anyone else. They pay their taxes. Muslims are signed up in the army. They also work as police officers, fire fighters, and other “patriotic” occupations.  They have families. They raise their children.  They want a good life.  There are Muslim teachers, professors, scholars,…the list goes on. They were affected by events like 9/11 just like “we” were; many Muslims lost their lives in those attacks as well, and in fact had to deal with a repercussion that most of us are not familiar with.  Following the attacks they were victimized and sought out; many were killed by angry citizens forgetting that the people they were targeting were citizens as well.

It seems that Islamaphobia has spiraled out of control so much that nobody thinks to question it.  Islam is simply bad and we do not want “those people” to express their “crazy” or “backwards” or “violent” religion.  We will do anything to keep them under control and hate them for being in “our” country.

But when I watch the news that tells me another school has been blown up in Afghanistan, or another cab driver was killed for being Muslim, or another person is tortured in Guantanamo, given no trial, or disclosure as to why he is a suspect, before being set free and found to be innocent, I ask myself yet again, “Who are the real terrorists?”

-Nancy L.

Sources           

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/22/blast-rips-through-norways-capital-injuries-reported/

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/22/qa-why-norway/

http://alhittin.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/are-the-anti-islamic-bigots-disappointed-that-the-oslo-bombing-is-not-from-an-islamic-organisation/

 

Herman Cain and Mosque Bans

Hi.  My name is Not Raj, which seems to come as a shock to many.  This is my first post on The Needle in the Haystack, and I hope it will show you what is in store from me.  Let the blogging commence:

Herman Cain of Georgia is aspiring to be a possible presidential candidate for the Republicans.

In response to the events taking place in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, wherein a proposed mosque has resulted in protests, legal challenges, and arson, Cain replied, "Yes, [the people of Tennessee] have the right to do that" and even referred to the proposed mosque as  an “infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion" adding it “isn’t an innocent mosque.” 

I thought it could not get any worse, until I read the rest of the article.  Cain went on to claim that "[The American] Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. Islam combines church and state…[Opponents] objecting to the fact that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws," Cain said of the opponents.

First of all, this mosque is supposedly an “infringement” on freedom of religion, but certainly both denying Muslims the right to establish a mosque and claiming, without basis that they are terrorists is not an infringement at all.  Really Cain?  And you want to run this country?

And further, if simply establishing a mosque means that this goes against rules of “separation of church and state” then maybe Christians should not be allowed to have churches in America either.  Or maybe state-instituted Catholic schools should not be established.  But that is just as ridiculous.  

Just like everyday Muslims do not practice Sharia Law, everyday Christians do not go around stoning adulterers or anything else of the like mentioned in the Bible, which arguably has it’s own “set of laws” that would equally “offend” the separation of church and state.

Additionally, just an afterthought, you would think someone like Cain, whose ancestors and people have faced centuries of oppression, hatred, and stereotyping, you would think he might be more sympathetic to other groups now facing similar struggles and issues.

All I can say is let alone a possible presidential candidate, I cannot understand how someone like this is any position of political power at all.

Fuming,

My Name is Not Raj.

This blog post is written in response to the story found here:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/herman-cain-backs-mosque-bans-152052930.html

A little food for thought…

Just because someone has an accent and drives a cab does not mean he is stupid… more likely than not he is a Doctor and has gone through more education than you ever will.

Homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, and is well documented for 500 of them. So much for the “against nature” argument huh?

The Mayans, which are amongst the oppressed indigenous groups of the world (but really what indigenous group isn’t oppressed beyond belief in our world?), and invented many things, and even had a symbol for zero, while in Europe they didn’t even like to bathe.

Vernon L. Smith, Nobel Laureate in Economics, Satoshi Tajiri, creator of Pokémon, just two of the many talented people with autism. Do I need to mention Helen Keller, couldn’t see, hear or speak yet she became more successful that most of us? Yes, you may be “normal”, but is that necessarily a good thing? Normal never makes history… extraordinary does.

Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz… nun, autodadict, poet, feminist, rumoured lesbian, Mexican of the 17th century. “I dressed up as a nun because I couldn’t dress up as a man”. I’ll leave you to think about this one…

Point being, question everything, try to learn from everywhere possible. If you open your mind and let go of your biases you will be thankful. If you decide to hold on to your prejudices you are only cheating yourself. There is so much out there worthy of an ear. If you give yourself a chance you might have your mind blown when you realize how cool some people are, put down the magazine that talks about celebrity divorces, really what is new about that? Give your self some credit; you are smarter than that, fill up your brain with awesomeness!

- Kevin Alcott

Why SAT Results Were Not Reflective of Student Ability, & Why This Is Still Relevant

Early SATs had questions like this:

RUNNER is to MARATHON
(RUNNER : MARATHON)
is the same as

A) envoy : embassy
B) martyr : massacre
C) oarsman : regatta
D) referee : tournament

E) horse : stable

In this case, C is the correct answer.

First of all, why is this a clear reflection of biased testing? Because only people of a certain class have ever encountered a “regatta” and know what it is (I sure didn’t). So if there are questions that privilege upper class individuals (and because wealth is racialized) what these crafty test makers concluded was that those students who were of a certain economic and ethnic background happened to be “less intelligent” all because the questions were ethno- and culturally- centric. Obviously such blatant favoring of particular classes and ethnic groups (i.e. upper-class white Americans) no longer occurs in the test.

Yet this is still of relevance. Not only did decades of such views on Black students or of students of lower classes change how society saw and treated them, but it has lent itself to a historical conception of the aforementioned groups; ideas like this only added to already negative stereotypes of these groups and stereotypical views can become so ingrained that even after knowing the tests were skewed these underlying ideas of such groups never really go away. This is just one miniscule example of why history is not really over after the events pass because they remain a part of the inner conceptions of both actors involved.

In the same token the British may no longer be colonizing South Asia, and the United States is no longer enslaving African Americans; but both of these practices brough with them conceptions of the aforementioned people, whether it was that they were “backward”, “savage”, “uncivilized”, “unintelligent” (etc.) and while the practice went away these conceptions did not necessarily disappear.  They were in fact still relevant in the subsequent treatment and general view of these persons colonized, enslaved, or not. such conceptions can be carried over decades, even centuries, and this is why history is never “over” – it remains relevant and very much alive.


Consciously yours,

Malcolm [Exorcise the Demons]

Try the Real Paradise

Cenote Dos Ojos

I would like to share a tendency I have. I tend to view the world in a practical way; I like practical solutions to the problems we face. Of course the first step to changing our world is being as aware as possible about the problems in the world, but awareness needs to be followed by action. That action is in fact practical, doable in the society we live in, and fit to the lives we lead. We may not save the world, but can hopefully help at least some with our actions. So for this blog, I would like to share a little bit about a different type of tourism, an alternative tourism, in one of the most popular vacation destinations to us, Mexico.

I want to shed light on an alternative option to Mexico’s resorts because this supports Mexico’s indigenous people. Indigenous people all around the world are amongst the most alienated, poor, and abused populations that exist. To this day, they are still paying the consequences of colonization. The abuses they have suffered (and still suffer) throughout history have left them not only an embedded negative emotional impact, but also a social and economic impact. In their towns they lack access to education, appropriate health care, and sometimes their basic needs. According to Mexico’s Government Agency for the Development of Indigenous People, the average indigenous family lives on less than a US$1 a day. This is obviously problematic, as most of these people live below the poverty line. So let’s talk about what we can do to support them.

Everyone that I have ever met loves going to Mexico, or if they haven’t been able to travel there, would like to do so in the future. Reasons are clear: Mexico is globally known for its beautiful beaches, its beautiful and hospitable people, its amazing food, its rich culture etc…

Why not enjoy all of these aspects that make Mexico a world renowned touristic destination while supporting its local indigenous communities? Next time you are planning to visit Mexico make a reservation at one of the hotels that are provided all over the country (Riviera Maya, Michoacán, Campeche, Oaxaca, Chiapas, Hidalgo, etc…) by local indigenous people. But I’ll focus on the south of Mexico because I know that is a very popular choice. The hotels in the Yucatan have in their backyard the famous Mayan pyramids, and what better than to be bumping elbows with Mayans themselves? It is Mexican culture at its finest, at its purest, coming back into the pre-Hispanic roots that started it all. I am sure it is close to impossible to find better hospitality, because the native people will be glad to have you; will be pleased with your interest in their culture. These little hotels offer a variety of tours and activities, such as swimming in the gorgeous cenotes (underwater caves), of Yucatan, bike tours, bungee jumping, snorkelling, finishing, and much more... They also offer all-inclusive packages, which means absolutely mouth-watering authentic all-you-can-eat food (nothing North American- washed like the food you may get on main stream resorts.  After all, you’re in Mexico right? You want the real deal). All of this is just minutes away from the gorgeous beaches and the amazing archaeological sites, such as the pyramids. Because these hotels are owned and operated by the local indigenous people, you are guaranteed to be helping their community, and not just some rich person who owns a mainstream resort, and it’s all at a fraction of the usual price. Not only that, but as part of this program, the indigenous people are trying to promote eco-tourism by offering environmentally-friendly activities to the tourists, and their hotels are built with local grown materials that they have built themselves. Cool huh?

So I invite you to meet the wonderful Mayans, eat their food, share a laugh, share their art and history, and have a toast (with tequila of course) to a more united world. Once you have tasted what Mexico has to offer look into what the other native people around the world have to offer when you visit their homeland. I bet it’s awesome. 

 -Kevin Alcott

Resources:

Cenote of Yucatan picture:

http://nauticajonkepa.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/cenote-dos-ojos.jpg

Guide/ List of Alternative Mexican Tourism:

http://www.cdi.gob.mx/turismo/

Videos and Phone Numbers to resort in Yucatan:

http://www.cdi.gob.mx/turismo/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=133:cenote-ecoturistico-x-canche-sc-de-rl&catid=50:yucatan&Itemid=54

http://www.cdi.gob.mx/turismo/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=134:centro-ecoturistico-cabanas-ecologicas-uh-najil-ek-balam-ac&catid=50:yucatan&Itemid=54

http://www.unajilekbalam.org/

Women Who Choose to Cover Themselves Are NOT Backwards

My name is Nancy and I am a liberal woman from a conservative place.

I recently saw an old friend post this picture up onto their Facebook, and this is what sparked the idea to write this post – about Muslim women, and then any other women for that matter, who would rather not show off their bodies.

(Obviously I am not talking about people who are actually are forced to hide their bodies beyond their will. I am talking about the women that choose to do so.)

The Western conception that anybody who does not like to wear (sometimes overly-) revealing clothes  (e.g. short skirts, “booty” shorts, halter tops, tank tops, low necklines, crop tops, leggings, etc.) means that they do not like their body, are ashamed of how they look, are ashamed even, to have the female form, is ridiculous. 

We live in the West assuming we are more forward-thinking than every other culture and country yet we still do not really understand the conception of liberty in so many ways. 

Telling women, or even merely judging them when they cover themselves up is backwards.  Why are we trying to enforce “liberty” on others? Does the phrase itself not sound oxymoronic?

While I agree that women’s faces should be shown for photo identification cards (e.g. faces should be showing, hair is not necessary) I do not see why women have to face both outward scrutiny and informal stigma of those surrounding them in society. I thought living in Western countries meant we were FREE to do as we chose as long as we did not harm others (thank you Mill); judging these women and unfairly calling attention to them in settings such as schools, the workplace, and then in broader ways through the media and in society in general is what causes harm to others.

A woman who chooses to dress modestly has as much right to do so as a woman who chooses to show herself; in fact, the former is not ashamed of herself, rather, this is the look she prefers and there is nothing wrong with that. So to simply assume that such women are “backwards”, “confused”, “too traditional”, “ashamed” and importantly, “forced” to do so, is ignorance. Some women prefer to be this way and some women do not. We cannot tell women how to dress and if that involves allowing them to show their bodies without assuming they are “sluts” then it also means allowing them to cover themselves without assuming they are “old fashioned”.

Yours sincerely,
Nancy.

What's on Your Status?

This is Kevin Alcott.  I do not feel the need to make much of an introduction because I hope my words will speak for themselves.

We all seem to claim to want privacy and feel safe wherever we are. We want to feel safe in our schools, in our neighbourhoods and we expect the best client privacy policies with the companies we deal with. That is very understandable; I am one of those claimers. What I find ironic is that at the same time most of us (including myself) fall into the Facebook mania. Approximately everyone we know in real life (and some internet loners who just add you as a friend for lack of real interpersonal skills) knows if you got drunk last weekend and were showing off your granny panties down Peter Street. We voluntarily expose details of our lives that maybe we shouldn’t.

Why shouldn’t we? Well maybe it’s not entirely safe to have your whole school and neighbouring community know that you were getting busy at a party instead of being at work. Maybe not everyone on your Facebook friend’s list is worthy of your trust, and (to be fair) maybe you aren’t worthy of theirs.
Think about it: your pictures with your better half in the hands of your archenemy that just happens to be armed with Photoshop….the possibilities are endless.  With Facebook everyone knows (the minute it happens), if you are in a relationship, with whom, and when you break up. If the breakup does happen, you will get amusing little comments from people that you never really talk to such as; “aww what happened hun?”. Like come on; do they really care? No. Why do we expose ourselves like that? Is it maybe a mutual agreement? I’ll show you mine if you show me yours? I’ll expose my life if you expose yours? The times when I have deactivated Facebook I have had numerous texts and complaints from my friends asking me if I was mad at them because I didn’t show up on their list of friends. No. I’m not mad my lovely friends/acquaintances/weird internet loners. Sometimes I just get tired of wasting my life on that webpage and not even knowing why. A very ironic part of my personal Facebook life is that I have my whole family and friends/acquaintances blocked. Why? Because I am paranoid someone is going to tag me in a picture from Saturday with a tequila shot in each hand looking like I’m about to fall over and my dad will see it. Or someone who knows my mom will tell her how I seem to be the life of every party. Does that make me a hypocrite? Yes. Will it make me unblock my family? No. But nevertheless, I let a whole bunch of randoms know my personal life while I hide it from my family. Why? I’m not sure. Do I like the convenience Facebook gives to keep in contact with people I would otherwise not talk to? Again, I’m not sure. To all of you who do not use Facebook, good for you, I admire you for not following the norm. Fight the man!

Maybe I’ll set an example and go deactivate my account, but for now I’m going to go update my status.

-Kevin Alcott

A little to think about when it comes to racism…

My name is Belisa. This is my first contribution to The Needle in the Haystack which I am sure will turn out to be a wonderful project.  Without further delay:

This little piece is to question the internalized racism I have experienced all my life. People sometimes without even realizing it, have these internalized notions that white- lighter- Anglo- is somehow always better. The truth is that there is a big difference between patriotism and being racist. Yes, you can (and I believe you should), be proud of your roots and what your culture has to offer. However, racism falls into believing a race in superior to others, which is completely absurd. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, this is a true cliché. I wish the problem would stop there, that Caucasian people think white is better, but internalized racism is such a big part of our society that even non-Caucasian people think white is best. Many people no matter their background including Latinos, Middle Eastern, African, European etc… have this belief that lighter is better, just because it’s just that, lighter. Lighter features are preferred all over the world for some reason they are thought as more beautiful. In my country, Mexico, the gueritos get so many more people interested in them, simply because they are lighter than the rest, they don’t even have to be actually good looking, but to many people just the fact that they are lighter makes them more desirable.

I beg to differ, lighter is not necessarily prettier. Beautiful eyes are beautiful no matter their colour; features are beautiful no matter their colour. However, I think a big part of the blame still has to be put on colonialism. By now most of the world is a colonized society, which helps to put an explanation about this belief of white supremacy. People who come from colonized parts of the world have this embedded code in their upbringing that white is superior, that is why white people always win, that is why white people can take whatever they want and nothing happens, they are boss wherever they go. This of course is no longer true, it was before when their countries were being colonized, but the pain and the feeling that they are not as good enough as the colonizers remains in their education. This may seem farfetched to you, but there are innumerable examples we can extract from. Why are there skin lightening creams? Why are people fascinated with bleaching their hair to look unnaturally blonde? Why do people insist on pretending they have blue or green eyes by wearing contacts? Why is it that the African American women who are considered desirable in the media are mostly the lighter skin ones such as Tyra Banks, Rihanna and Beyonce? This is something I believe we have to fight to get rid of, and truly analyze it and ask ourselves where this comes from, because if we really take a look at it, it really makes no sense. This only feeds oppression, insecurities, racism and pain. There is no point in keeping this notion alive.

Here is some food for thought: did you know that genetically the black race is considered the perfect race? That is part of why they were enslaved, they are the strongest, most agile, and most resistant. Did you also know that genetically light eyes are considered a deformation? That is why over 50% of the human population has brown eyes; they are the normal and healthy shade of eyes to have. The point is to appreciate who you are, and stop internally degrading some races and upholding others, it does not make sense and it only leads to hate. Here is a little piece I did out of frustration I have felt all my life from by culture being degraded…

You tell me I don’t look like the people from my land and you expect me to take it as a compliment.

Why are green eyes and light skin valued over my brother’s dark skin and my mother’s gorgeous brown eyes? He has the colour of the sun surrounding him, the beautiful colour of bronze infused in his skin.

If anything these traits that I have inherited are my least valued.

These green eyes and this pale skin are prevalent in the land of the people that raped and killed my people, that slaved them, degraded them, tortured them, humiliated them, and stole from them. Would you like to be told you are lucky to look like the man who raped your mother? No? Neither do I.

I do not pride myself in these and I do not take it as a compliment that you make my mild differences come to light. I embrace my looks, but when you try to make my "lighter" features appear to be more beautiful than those more common in my people then we have a problem.

If you are going to compliment me compliment me in my curves that the women from my land are well known for, compliment my natural rhythm that we are blessed with and the warmth in our manner that comes so naturally to us.

Do not tell me I do not look Mexican, you do not know Mexicans.

 -Belisa