Open letter from TYP Students in response to proposed administrative change to TYP
Dear Members of the Faculty of Arts & Science Council,
How do you trade 40 years of history for a promise? A promise that offers no solutions. A promise that consists of drastic changes to fundamental components of a program without consideration for the implications of said changes or the opinions of those who would be most affected.
Decisions at the Transitional Year Programme (TYP) are made on a consensus basis, as mentioned on the first page of the Transfer Proposal from the administration. Where is the consensus for the recommendations in this document? There is no consensus – and how could there be – faculty, staff and students found out about this document on Wednesday October 14, after it was posted on the Arts & Science website. In fact, the overwhelming majority of faculty, staff and students are opposed to the recommendations in this document, so of course the section on consultation neglects to mention how people responded to consultations (pg. 5 of proposal). TYP’s internal decision-making process has been subverted to push through a proposal that would otherwise be rejected by those it would affect the most.
The Transfer Proposal refers to the fact that TYP was reorganized in 1976-77 as a separate teaching division with a direct reporting relationship to the Provost, but neglects to mention the reasons for this reorganization. From 1970-76 TYP was administratively and physically housed within a college where it ran into frequent challenges in delivering its mandate to support historically excluded students. TYP was closed for a year in 1976-77. The 1977 Kelly Report, which re-opened TYP made several important recommendations including TYP’s establishment as an independent academic unit with autonomy to serve its students, a direct reporting relationship to the Provost and its own distinct space. This has allowed TYP to excel in its mission to make excellence accessible for 40 years and graduate so many students.
The challenges that TYP faces are clear: funding and prioritization. Access and equity has not been made a priority by the central administration. Un-replaced faculty retirements combined with budget cuts have endangered the program. The proposal in front of you does not contain any solutions to these real and immediate challenges. What is being proposed is an administrative move, not a solution to these problems. In fact, we see more problems on the horizon if this proposal were to pass. These include:
1. Autonomy:Under the proposal, the TYP director will report to the Principal of Woodsworth College, who reports to the Dean of Arts & Science, who reports to the Provost. This new reporting relationship will put TYP in an increasingly marginal position where it will be subject to greater interference and competition for scarce resources. Moreover, as per the proposal, the Woodsworth College Council will be the authority on all decisions relating to curriculum and the program, eroding the democratic, self-governing nature TYP.
2. Space:Administrators have made disconcerting statements about sharing space already in use at Woodsworth and better “integrating” TYP students. TYP is housed at 49 St. George. When you talk to TYP students, they talk about 49 St. George as a place that makes them feel safe and at home. It is a place on campus where we can go to share our experiences with people who have a shared history, and get the dedicated academic and personal support we need. We call 49 St. George home and taking away our dedicated space compromises the delivery of the program.
3. Teaching Staff:By not addressing the issue of replacing retired faculty, the situation will only grow more dire. From 2008-09 to 2009-10 there has been a dramatic shift towards reliance on stipendiary instructors (see pg. 3 of the proposal). Part-time lecturers are simply not given the compensation or hours to support TYP students’ complex intersecting challenges in and out of the classroom.
4. Budget:Like the issue of replacing retired faculty, TYP’s eroding budget is not addressed in the proposal either. Despite its unique function as a special access program, TYP’s operating budget has been halved due to cuts last year. By adding two levels of budgetary competition to defend itself from (in Woodsworth College and Arts & Science), the proposed administrative move is no kind gesture towards TYP or its ability to function in the future.
5. Student Body:One does not need to formally change the admission criteria for TYP or dictate changes to the curriculum to substantially affect the type of students that will be able to access the program. To allow the level of support to drop in the ways outlined above will mean that the program will be unable to fulfill its mandate and that the face of the TYP student body will inevitably change. The program will have to cater to students who face fewer barriers to accessing education. TYP may continue to exist in name but not in practice.
TYP services the most marginalized communities in Toronto. It provides access to a high quality university education to members of these communities. The changes TYP alumni have made to this city are immeasurable. Many minority educators, business owners, social workers and many other marginalized professionals got their start at TYP.
The proposal before you is procedurally out of order. It has not received the consensus support of faculty and staff nor does it offer solutions to very real problems. We ask that the members of the Arts & Science Council not to trade in 40 years of history for an empty promise.
Sincerely,
Transitional Year Programme Preservation Alliance
Hello world!
Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!
Some thoughts on the recent Uyghur uprising
by Edward F. Wong
Recent events in Urumqi have been very disconcerting for me, especially considering how close to home the initial spark for the unrest was. On June 25, in Shaoguan, Guangdong (I am from Hong Kong, which is geographically part of the same province), violence occurred after rumours that some of the 800 Uyghur workers who had recently arrived to work at a toy factory raped two Han women. These rumours were later found to have been fabricated by a disgruntled Han worker who was recently laid off. But because of the racist stereotyping of Uyghur men as sexual predators (ironically, the identical stereotype was made of early Chinese migrants to North America), no questions were asked and the legitimacy of such claims were assumed. Almost 1000 Han workers from the factory approached the Uyghur dorms and assaulted Uyghur workers with pipes and machetes. In the aftermath of the brawl, 2 workers had died and over a hundred injured. There were reports that the police stood by watching, choosing to intervene only at a very late stage.
Such incidents, while unsettling, cannot in itself spark the sort of mass uprising we see today in Urumqi and the rest of Uyghurstan (I will refrain from using the official Chinese name for the region ‘XinJiang’ (New Frontier), given its colonial roots and connotations – ‘frontier? Frontier for Han expansion??). Instead, the Shaoguan incident served as a poignant reminder of the broader structures and history of subjugation faced by the Uyghur people. Probably the biggest benefactors of such ethnic unrest and inequalities are the Chinese capitalists and state officials. Just as capitalists in Canada like Onderdonk had spread racist propaganda to white workers to discourage labour solidarity in the railroad construction, the divide-and-conquer logic can be inferred with the circumstances in China. With the very real inequalities between Han and Uyghur workers, obfuscated is the common enemy of these two groups – the bosses. For example, while the Han workers of the toy factory in Shaoguan may hold certain privileges over the Uyghur workers, they too are victims of exploitation, many of them migrant workers, driven out of their rural homes by poverty.
I feel that it is by a similar logic that the state latches on to incidents of violence against Han workers during the riots. I condemn such acts of violence against Han workers, though I do recognize that the root cause is subjugation and the privileging of Han people. Alarmingly, such acts have been used by certain interests to stoke Han chauvanist fervour. The Chinese state had learned an important lesson from the Tibetan uprising and have switched to a more Western-style of media warfare. Instead of the media blackout, which occurred in Tibet, there was extensive coverage of the riots – with a strong disproportionate emphasis on Han injuries and deaths. Chauvanist fervour has manifested itself in retaliatory attacks by Han people1. Uyghur neighbourhoods and mosques were targeted with an arsenal of meat cleavers, clubs, and rocks. A participant commented, “They attacked us. Now it’s our turn to attack them.”
As stated earlier, the Shaoguan incident alone could not have sparked such mobilization. The Chinese government has time and time again deflected criticism by blaming ‘outside exile subversives’. These claims are laughable and out of touch with reality. If Uyghur workers had truly benefited from the current structures in place, no amounts of persuasion from outside groups could bring them to the streets.
I am aware that the region fell under Chinese control throughout history; likewise, the region has experienced a number of periods of independence, whether de jure or de facto. The historical argument is often been brought up by apologists for the government. In my view, this point is completely irrelevant, let alone important. During a number of historical periods, the Mongolians had ruled over China. Would this historical fact justify the invasion of China and the subjugation of the Han people by Mongolians assuming they had the military strength today? The question instead should simply be: does oppression exist?
Considering the irrelevancy of that specific historical argument, I will begin my analysis with the modern conception of this region as a part of China, the modern conception beginning with the PLA invasion in 1949. Were the PLA greeted as liberators/allies? As with the case of Tibet, there have been reports of such. Are they true? Maybe, I don’t know. It’s certainly plausible; in Tibet, many were opposed to the exploitative feudal social relations in place. Nevertheless, the image of the PLA as liberators would certainly have faded away given the experiences and policies in these regions for the last 60 years, policies which can only be described as colonialism.
Economic development is regularly cited as a counter to claims of oppression. However, economic development figures only tell a part of the story. The more important question is economic development for who? North America has certainly undergone mass industrialization and ‘development’, but to say that this has been to the benefit of Aboriginal people would be ignorant at best. Likewise, the benefits of economic development in Uyghurstan have been unequal.
Since 1949, the demographics of Uyghurstan have shifted from 90% Uyghur to just 45% Uyghur. The Chinese government has encouraged mass settlement of Han people through financial incentives. Most have chosen to stay in urban areas. Indeed, in Urumqi, the capital of Uyghurstan with a population of over 2.5 million, 75.3% are Han and only 12.8% are Uyghur. Most of the economic development have focused on urban regions, a policy consistent throughout the country, and thus, benefiting primarily Han people. In addition, such developments, as described in an article written by Louisa Lim, have sparked processes of gentrification. Open-air bazaars run by Uyghur small merchants selling cheaper goods have been replaced by new buildings, bringing rents up and leading to increased marginalization. Urumqi has become heavily segregated with Uyghurs confined to poor neighbourhoods. Another reason for unemployment and poverty is linguistic imperialism. Characteristic of linguistic imperialism is the privileging of the Chinese language. Many Uyghurs do not qualify for official jobs in the government or in Chinese companies as they lack the knowledge of the Chinese language. Ironically, this has been used as a justification for bringing in Han labour from the rest of the country.
One of the major incentives for the Chinese control of the region is its massive natural resource deposits. Oil refineries have sprung up throughout the area. However, employment and revenues have gone largely to Han people. Wang Lequan, a high ranking government official in the province, defended employment practices by claiming that, “one common problem of the western region is that the education and cultural level of the people here is quite low <…> In Xinjiang, we lack the talent needed for modernization and advanced technology”. In terms of revenue, almost RMB14.8b ($2.5 billion CAD) in taxes were collected from the petrochemical industries. However, only RMB240m ($41 million CAD) were allocated back to the local government. Wong Lixiong, a Chinese intellectual, had written extensively about the growing nepotism and corruption in the resource extraction industries in Uyghurstan. For example, a monopoly on mineral water in the region is held by the son-in-law of Wang Lequan. Resource extraction have not benefited the local people; instead, it has lined the pockets of state officials and Chinese capitalists. A Muslim resident commented, “the Chinese didn’t want to let Xinjiang be independent before, but after they built all the oilfields, it became absolutely impossible”.
Uyghurs who have left Uyghurstan and settled in major cities in the rest of the country have not fared much better. In a recent paper by Reza Hasmath, a professor at Cambridge, it appears that although Uyghur residents of Beijing tend to have attained higher education standards than the average, higher education standards do not correlate with higher wages or employment. Mirroring the experience of the Chinese community in Canada, university degrees have not resolved problems of above-average unemployment rates, and below-average wages. Thus, systemic racism is apparent.
The more important question is where do we go from here? Personally, I do not feel that the creation of a Uyghur nation-state (or a Tibetan one) would solve the root problems. The creation of a new state would only serve to replace Chinese oppressors with Uyghur ones. However, if that is the wish of the people, this must be respected. Instead of separation, I feel that the only answer, the only starting point to meaningfully addressing ethnic inequalities, is to democratize society, to put decision-making in the hands of the workers. And for that, there needs to be a united workers’ movement. To the Han workers: do not fall victim to these divide-and-conquer tactics. We must recognize our privileges within the system, but also recognize that we share with the Uyghur workers a common enemy and a common goal. Our enemy: the capitalist bosses and the state! Our goal: social justice and democracy!
還證於民! Power to the people!
Note: There are a great number of over concerns held by the Uyghur people, including cultural assimilation (book burnings, languages not taught in school) and religious persecution. Unfortunately, given limits in time and the consideration that economic gain has been the major means of justification for gov’t policy in Uyghurstan, I have chosen to focus on economic aspects
Note2: If anyone speaks Turkic, could they tell me what power to the people is in that language. It’s kind of ironic I guess to speak of linguistic imperialism and then not include it.
1(http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090707/ts_nm/us_china_xinjiang )
Film Review – Iron Road: A Disingenuous ‘Apology’
*WARNING: SPOILERS*
In a recent Toronto Star review of “Iron Road”, the writer commented that “for Chinese railroad workers and early migrants to Canada, the new movie Iron Road rivals in significance to what The Pianist means to Jews living with memories after the persecutions during World War II – both dramas give a face to those nameless and voiceless who perished en masse in history.” Unfortunately, Chinese railroad workers and early migrants are more likely to be rolling in their graves, given Iron Road’s misrepresentation and whitewashing of history, whether intentional or not.
That this film might lack in historical accuracy is clear from the start with Chinese workers speaking Mandarin; most migrant workers spoke Toisanese or Cantonese and not Mandarin. But frankly, this isn’t a big deal really, especially when compared to some of the other inaccuracies.
At the start of the film, James Nichol, the son of a railroad contractor, travels to China to recruit workers for the construction of the railway. Travelling up river to the protagonist Xiao Fu’s home village, he asks Xiao Fu about why they were going there to recruit workers. She explains that people there are in destitution after war against the Manchus (I assume they are speaking of the Taiping Rebellion*) and famines. While it is true that there were conflicts within China and other problems that caused great hardship to the Chinese people, it’s a glaring omission not to mention European and Japanese imperialism in China. The local economy of China was destroyed after the Opium Wars, with the carving up of the country into ’spheres of influence’ and the subsequent influx of Western commodities and capital. This in conjunction with massive indemnities forced on to the Chinese government left many Chinese workers and peasants in poverty. Thus, it could be argued that Chinese peasants were left with no choice but to take up work in North America because of the actions of Western capitalists. The Western capitalists should not be seen, as portrayed in the film, as benevolent individuals giving opportunities to the poor Chinese.
The portrayal of these individuals as benevolent can almost be seen as having undertones of ‘white man’s burden’. As stated above, Chinese workers were not being ’saved’ and given ‘honest work’, they were put in that position by these very people in the first place. Whether or not conditions in North America railway construction were shown as poor is besides the point.
Undertones of ‘white man’s burden’ would not be the only example of racist stereotyping. An early scene also alluded to a sort of despotic relationship between triads and the Chinese people, further substantiating the idea that White capitalists were saving Chinese people from destitution of their own making. This fits neatly into traditional Orientalist landscapes that portray Chinese communities, whether in North America or in Asia, as havens of crime. The quite frankly racist imagery is completed when another white contractor comments, “you will find that business is done quite differently here”, juxtaposing the West as the moral antithesis of the East. Ironically, at this time period, triads were not necessarily criminal gangs, and were instead, a major component of the Chinese revolution that overthrew the Qing Dynasty. That said, to be fair to the screenwriters, the gang was not identified as triad.
The problematic representation of history did not end with scenes set in China. Upon arrival in British Columbia, Chinese workers were taunted with racial epithets. However, the lack of critical explanation of how these views emerged leads to assumptions that such behaviour was natural examples of simple xenophobia. In truth, race as a social construct requires institutional legitimization. In the case of discrimination against Chinese workers, a major cause was the dissemination of racist propaganda by Onderdonk, the chief contractor for the Canadian Pacific Railway, presumably to deter solidarity between white and Chinese workers. The movie appeared largely uncritical of the actions of the railroad company. The only wrongdoing apparently was that of bookkeepers committing fraud by continuing to collect the payrolls of deceased Chinese workers. Not much attention was given to how the railroad company contributed to poor work conditions or the differentiated pay between Chinese and white workers.
Lastly, there is a lack of critical perspectives on the Canadian Pacific Railway. This criticism is not only being directed towards this film, as this type of discourse is fairly common. The railway has often been celebrated by white Canadians and Chinese Canadians alike, as an engineering masterpiece that united the Canadian nation. Indeed, it is sometimes argued that discrimination against Chinese should be addressed for the Chinese played an important role in the construction of the railway – as if equity was something to be ‘earned’. What is not recognized though is that the Canadian Pacific Railway allowed for the dispossession of First Nation lands and the continued development of the Canadian colonial project. It is imperative that we are critical of the treatment of Chinese railroad workers; however, it is just as imperative that we, the Chinese community, recognize our role in the subjugation of other peoples – whether or not blame can be assigned.
Raymond Massey, a producer of the film, stated in an interview that “this is our way of saying sorry”. It is clear that this is completely consistent with the kinds of disingenuous apologies given by the Canadian state – whether it is regarding residential schools or the head tax. This film is, at best, well-intentioned but ignorant. At worst, it is a part of continued attempts to erase the history of oppression in this country, masquerading as an enlightened voice.
*Ironically, European powers gave military support to the Qing dynasty during the Taiping Rebellion. Considering how the Qing had hunted down Xiao Fu, it’s strange how receptive she is to these foreign contractors.
Note: This is a review of the two hour cinema version and not of the miniseries.
Europe’s Forgotten Homo Sacer
Roma kids in Belgrade. Source: _sid_ on flickr
Europe’s Forgotten Homo Sacer (1)
Between June 4th and 7th citizens of the 27 member-states of the European Union will elect representatives to the European Parliament. Absent from the voter lists, however, will be millions of internal exiles. Despite having lived in Europe for as long as any other peoples currently residing and working in the European Union (EU), they remain invisible, undocumented, and overlooked. These are the Roma people, commonly known as Gypsies.
Since the end of World War II and the beginning of the Marshall Plan, Europe became more politically and economically integrated and interdependent. The transition to the transnational integration of markets and the free exchange of goods was seen as an essential post-war policy. The United States and Western Europe produced a strategy for the continent to oppose the Soviet Union and its satellite states, who had reached the gates of western Europe and could feel the pulse of western capitalism. What was a largely economic association (known then as the European Economic Community) soon developed into a political body and was renamed the European Union. This body has focused until today on co-ordination of economic growth and universal policy commitments on governance, human rights, culture, and development.
Today, the EU resembles a super-state made up of over two-dozen governments. Beyond the policies of state co-ordination, progress, and growth, strict policies prohibit and restrict migration and immigration from non EU states. Unimpeded freedom of capital and labour within EU borders, however, is encouraged. Undocumented economic migrants and refugees fleeing to the EU are usually interned in camps when caught, deported by member states and organizations like the International Organization for Migration, or join the ever-growing exploited class of workers without rights, status, and protection. (2) “Fortress Europe,” as it is always often called, now exerts immense control over the domestic policy of states, and its influence permeates every sphere of life. Despite this power, the EU has been unable to change the lives of the 12 million Roma who live within its borders. They remain relegated to a status of internal exiles.
Long before the EU was created, the Roma were already “integrated” throughout the states of Europe. Their freedom of movement was not guaranteed by treaties or statutes, but by the reality of their lives. Chased from every corner of Europe and persecuted in every country they settled in, the Roma are met with hostility in lands they have inhabited since the 9th century BCE. Even today, this has not changed, despite the official resolutions, statements, and promises from the EU. Although they share a common Indian ancestry, there are few clear characteristics that allow comparison and identification of each country-specific Roma community with any other in Europe. Dialects, customs, and ways of life vary. The only clear characteristic that all diverse Roma groups have in common is their social status in each country of the EU. In every state, they are poorer, receive less formal education, and more marginalised than their non-Roma compatriots. (3) In many cases, unemployment in Roma communities is over 50%. (4) Access to public health, social assistance, and unemployment networks is restricted and often leads to further persecution.
The genocide of the Roma during World War II, in which 25% of their population was eliminated by the Nazis, is relatively well known. (5) Yet most citizens of the EU do little to address the inhuman conditions that the Roma continue to live in. The cameras and pens of the world press largely ignore the predicament of Europe’s most oppressed minority. Recent events in Italy and the Czech Republic, however, have alerted reporters and citizens about the chronic repression Roma people have been forced to endure. Last May, a wave of anti-Roma attacks dominated the Italian press. These attacks were in response to thefts and rapes that were allegedly perpetrated by Roma youth against what the media called the “domestic population”. In one occasion, a molotov cocktail was thrown into a camp outside Naples. Roma women and children were attacked by far-right gangs, allegedly for stealing. (6) The government responded by proposing radical and drastic measures, including the bulldozing of Roma camps, deportations, arrests, raids, and even called in the army to police certain districts of Rome. (7) Human Rights Watch has often condemned the heavy-handed and repressive policies of the Italian government surrounding the issue of Roma and immigrant rights. (8) Yet media reports surrounding the attacks focused on the supposed criminal nature of Roma populations in Europe and on an allegedly inherent tendency towards illegality. Missing from coverage was the painful history and sub-human living conditions that Roma people are subjected to, and any relation this may have with the thefts.
Neo-nazis and fascists often exploit thefts and crime as a pre tense to launch attacks and campaigns of hate against Roma and other minority groups in Europe. In the Czech Republic, extreme right-wing gangs recently attacked houses belonging to Roma, and in one particularly horrific incident, left a two year old girl burns on over 80% of her body. (9) More troublesome is the fact that nationalist parties throughout Europe have been using the question of immigration and growing minority populations as an opportunity to propose reactionary measures in the forthcoming EU parliament elections. (10) In Italy, Greece, Austria, Switzerland, the Czech Republic and other states, nationalist parties have enjoyed a dramatic ascendance in recent years. They have capitalized on the failed policies of the EU and the resulting anti-immigrant sentiment their failure has generated. Expressing the deep and latent racism of European society, but also flawed EU policies, these parties encourage hatred and propose Nazi-like “final solutions” to the problems that European integration has brought.
The conditions in the Czech Republic became so bad this past year that many Roma people fled the country. Hundreds of them came to Canada. 2008 saw a 993% increase in immigration applications from the Czech Republic. (11) Since the winter of 2007, over 1000 Czech nationals fleeing persecution have sought refuge in Canada, most of them arriving in the GTA. When Canada lifted its visa-requirements for immigration with the Czech Republic in 1994, Canada received over 4,000 immigration requests, the overwhelming majority of them from Czech Roma. (12) These trends reflect the enduringly dire situation the Roma people live in. The European elections will come and go, but the crisis that plagues Europe’s largest and most neglected minority will remain. This crisis must be addressed systemically if the oppression of the Roma, and that of all other minorities, is to be eradicated. Canada remained silent about this issue during its annual Canada-EU summit on May 6th.
The summit, chaired by the Czech president, presented an opportunity to raise the issue directly, however the final declaration of the summit says nothing about the Roma. (13)
We can not allow for the oppression of the Roma to remain invisible. They are now here in their thousands and, like other communities, face a colossal struggle to gain status, find stable employment, and establish a dignified existence. The Roma, like every other immigrant group in Canada, must not be forced to substitute one type of exploitation for another. Only common organization and struggle that will address the greater issues facing immigrants can win justice and freedom for these oppressed communities.
Notes
1. This term refers to a classification in Roman law. It is attributed to a banned, exiled, and ostracized person.
2. http://monthlyreview.org/1107euskirchen-lebuhn-ray.htm
3. http://www.eumap.org/journal/features/2001/nov/romadiaspora
4. D. Ringold, Roma and the Transition in Central and Eastern Europe: Trends and Challenges, World Bank, Washington DC, 2000, pp.10-16.
5. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?ModuleId=10005219
6. http://www.everyonegroup.com/EveryOne/MainPage/Entries/2009/2/8_Criminalization_of_the_Roma_people_in_Italy._Attacks_in_Rome_spark_off_another_witch_hunt.html
7. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/italy-calls-up-troops-for-urban-crackdown-on-migrants-875786.html
8. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/11/07/italy-expulsion-decree-targets-romanians
9. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8015336.stm
10. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rphbBls13-o
11. http://www.canada.com/news/Canada+flooded+with+Czech+Roma+refugee+claims/1499804/story.html
12. http://www.canada.com/news/Canada+flooded+with+Czech+Roma+refugee+claims/1499804/story.html
13. http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/missions/eu-ue/summits_sommets/summit_prague-2009_joint-declaration-eng.asp
Photo Essay: Buying to Belong
Buying to Belong: Art as Action
By Shannon Black
Challenging:
My purchased power,
Fuzzy feeling fetching,
Doing my part-a-part
From giving up my buying to belong,
As others pay the price for my stuffing.
Questioning:
On whose backs is Privilege bord(red)?
On whose backs is Freedom broke(red)?:
Acting:
Using art to taking back public space,
To ask questions,
To start a conversation,
To shake awake the ease of
Citizenshopping, Buyingbelonging,
Mystufflovesme, Nationsonging.
To start speaking, to start listening,
To start ACTING.
To stop buying, to stop trying…
To Belong.
THE WAR IN SRI LANKA AND THE LEFT IN TORONTO
Since the initial publication of this piece, LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran has allegedly been killed by the Sri Lankan forces and the Tigers have surrendered. According to Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaska this victory in his military campaign against the LTTE has ushered in an era of peace on the island. Thus, the demands we made below for a ceasefire may now appear moot. However, because of the Sri Lankan government’s continued refusal to address the structural problems that led to Tamil discontent in the first place and its refusal to acknowledge the horrific manner by which it killed thousands of Tamil civilians in the Vanni in just this latest round of war, there is enough reason to believe that violence will flare up again in the country, perhaps sooner rather than later. Any peace that does not recognise its own limitations will be shortlived. For this reason, despite the ending of Eelam War IV, it is still necessary that we work toward more humane alternatives, involving strategies to push the Sri Lankan state into a political resettlement.
– May 19.
The recent burst of mass mobilizations by sections of the Canadian-Tamil community in Toronto has brought to the fore several contradictions concerning the conflict in Sri Lanka and its presence in and connection to Canada. Mainstream media’s responses to the protests have been overwhelmingly racialist, exposing many of the limits of Canadian multiculturalism. In order for Canadian multiculturalism to accept any given group of people as a cultural community, it must define that group by differentiating it from a supposedly mainstream Canadian identity. This focalising Canadian identity—in effect a non-identity—is white and middle-class. Thus, when the Toronto Star publishes an editorial entitled “Protesters vs. the public”1 it effectively notes that the protesters are not part of the public by pitting (Tamil) protesters against the (Canadian) public. Rather than focusing on the war, media outlets have focused on the inconvenience posed to commuters, thereby shifting attention away from deaths in Sri Lanka to traffic regulations in Canada. Consequently, responses to the protests have largely demonstrated pernicious xenophobia. For instance, in the Toronto Sun, Peter Worthington argues that not using excessive force (e.g., water cannons) against Tamil protesters who block streets is tantamount to “reverse racism” against white Canadians.2
But if the coverage of the protests has made certain contradictions about the performance of cultural politics in public spaces in Canada apparent, other contradictions about the negotiation of those politics within cultural communities have also been rendered largely invisible. The impetus comes, once again, from a multiculturalism that defines ethnic, immigrant identities against a supposedly mainstream, local one. The act of defining a cultural community necessarily ignores the cultural, economic, and political differences that exist within that community. When these differences are ignored, political representation to mainstream political actors (i.e. those in the government, political parties, and state apparatuses) is mediated by non-elected, self-appointed community “leaders” who may not, and often do not, capture all cultural and political differences. In fact, the very articulation of those differences is precluded: a-cultural white English-speaking Canadians may lean left or right as individuals, or as voting blocs based on class and region, but the articulation of such political differences is absent in the representations of the politics of minority communities. The responses of politicians, activists, journalists, police and vocal sections of the public to the rallies protesting the war provide key examples of this.
The responses of politicians and police officials who addressed themselves to “the Tamil community” falsely suggest that all the protesters were Tamil and that all of Toronto’s Tamils supported the protests. The paternalism of Mayor David Miller’s deciding to tell “the Tamil community” what it “needs to hear from us”3 (whoever “us” is) feeds into the blatant racism expressed by other elements of the public. Thus, for instance, in The Globe & Mail Christie Blatchford uses the demonstrations to question not just protest tactics, but also the immigration policies that, according to her, have led to the presence of a worryingly large number of Tamils in Toronto.4
Parallel to Miller’s homogenization, though coming from the opposite direction, veteran dissident leftist Judy Rebick notes on her blog that, “in a brilliant action, the Tamil community [...] climbed the on ramp on to the Gardiner Expressway [...] and sat down blockading traffic for several hours.”5 While the action, as an object lesson in activist tactics, was brilliant, one can say with certainty that “the Tamil community” neither climbed onto nor sat down on the Gardiner. Rather, a more correct terminology would be what Rebick subsequently calls “a group of Tamil activists.” The tenor of her blog post, however, confirms that she views the Tamil community in homogenous terms. She goes so far as to end her post with the note that “we are all Tamils,” a statement that is problematic on two grounds. First, working in solidarity with others requires acknowledging the lived differences that separate us so that we might use those differences for the purposes of justice, rather than discounting them out of an unhelpfully over-forced empathy. Second, that kind of statement presupposes that there is only one kind of Tamil identity, which everyone else can access. Yet if Tamilness is an identity constructed solely on the basis of one’s presence at or support for the protests, not even all Tamils can be called such.
If Toronto’s Tamil population is being flattened into one homogenized entity by politicians and many leftist activists, that process is certainly not being opposed by some sections of Toronto’s Tamil community. The Canadian Tamil Congress, one of Toronto’s more prominent Tamil political groups, notes that it is “the unified voice of Canada’s 300,000 Tamils.”6 Its FAQ page shows that it ascribes to all Sri Lankan Tamils the desire for a separate homeland (Tamil Eelam).7 The history and current reality of a diversity of non-communal and Tamil organizations and individuals within and without Sri Lanka, with varying goals and political objectives—and varying definitions of self-determination for Tamil people—is elided by this construction of Tamil identity. It is impossible for the CTC to be the unified voice of Tamils when Tamils don’t have a unified voice. In other words, to return to Rebick’s rallying cry, we are not all Tamil, if only because there is no one Tamil identity we can be.
At many of the protests, the LTTE-designed national flag of Tamil Eelam (which shares the Tiger emblem) has been a prominent fixture, LTTE soldiers have been venerated as freedom fighters, the prospect of Eelam has been seen as a necessary solution to the war, and LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran has been venerated as a national leader. While this set of views may be influential and even hegemonic within Toronto’s Tamil diaspora, it is not universal. Just as the actions of many of the Tamil demonstrators are not and cannot be the actions of “the Tamil community,” so too are the opinions expressed at these demonstrations not those of “the Tamil community.” In fact, those are not even necessarily the views of all of the protesters present at the rallies, but dissenting, non-LTTE views are not being heard.
To signal toward complexity and difference within Tamil communities is not to deny the Sinhala ethnic chauvinism of the government of Sri Lanka; its use of undemocratic and authoritarian practices to crush dissent; or its use of mass murder, ethnic cleansing and internal colonization against Sri Lankan Tamils. Nor is it to deny that militant Tamil nationalism in Sri Lanka has largely been a response to the systematized and legislated discrimination of the Sri Lankan state. The LTTE is, in fact, a legitimate national resistance movement and was—until recently— the de facto governing entity in several parts of Sri Lanka. However, in its progress toward and current operation of that position, it too has often represented an ideology of ethno-religious chauvinism; has used undemocratic and authoritarian practices to crush resistant views and movements–including against dissident Tamils; and has used mass murder, ethnic cleansing and internal colonization against Muslims. The point here is not that the LTTE is just as bad as the government of Sri Lanka—which many Sri Lankans, Tamils and otherwise, think it is—but that a critical left view cannot support the LTTE, except tactically in opposition to the oppression of the Sri Lankan state. Nor can it support the LTTE’s ideology or practice. Thus, the assumption should not be made that support for Tamils in opposition to Sri Lankan state oppression is consonant with support for the LTTE.
It is important that critical leftists in Canada take concrete steps, working with members of the Tamil population and the Sri Lankan population more broadly, to bring to an end the oppression being perpetrated by the Sri Lankan state, but without steamrolling the complexities of the conflict and those affected by it. We must stand for an end to Sri Lankan state aggression, but also for an end to the LTTE’s aggression toward dissident and minority groups. Toward these ends, some concrete steps we should seek to take include:
1. Demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire.
Critical leftists must stand up for the thousands being massacred in Sri Lanka. To this end, we should engage with supporters of the LTTE and others in demanding an immediate, permanent, and confirmable bilateral ceasefire. Protests calling on the Canadian government to take an active role in bringing about such a ceasefire are important and should be supported, though not uncritically.
2. Oppose the complacency and racism of the Canadian state, media and vocal sections of the general public; and oppose police violence.
The Canadian government continues to turn a blind eye to the conflict, tacitly supporting the Sri Lankan state’s actions. Politicians at all levels have spoken to “the Tamil community” in condescending ways. The media has focused more on the plight of commuters inconvenienced by the rallies than on the thousands of dying civilians. Many Canadian citizens have expressed their xenophobia calling upon Tamils to “go back home”.
Meanwhile, at the rallies, protestors have on several occasions been literally caged into tight areas and police officers have often used excessive force on them. Protestors have been arrested merely for speaking out,8 and, at times, have been brutalized with no provocation.9,10
Police violence and the complacence and racism of Canadian foreign politics, the media and vocal sections of the general public must be opposed loudly and forcefully.
3. Push for a political solution.
This conflict has no military solution. Critical leftists must not stop at the call for a ceasefire, but also push for a comprehensive political settlement that involves more than just the Sinhala-dominant Sri Lankan state and the LTTE. There are many more legitimate representatives of Tamil (including Tamil-speaking Muslim) aspirations and political views than the LTTE, whom the LTTE has repressed. Support must be given to them. However, there can also be no political settlement without the involvement of the LTTE.
The Canadian government does not label organizations as terrorist on the basis of objective criteria, but politically opportunistic ones. Moreover, designating certain groups as terrorist does little to clarify conflict situations, but more often obscures issues. Canada’s banning the Tigers as terrorists suggests that the problem of Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism is not one of discrimination and disenfranchisement, but of immeasurable violence and terrorism, and that therefore the solution to this conflict must inevitably and solely come through the military elimination of said terrorist group. Critical leftists, however, must remain firm that any long-term and viable solution to the Sri Lankan conflict cannot be military; it must involve a political settlement.
4. Work toward cross-ethnic solidarity.
Following from the support for repressed and marginalized voices, critical leftists must promote cross-ethnic solidarities in Sri Lanka and in the Sri Lankan diaspora. The fictions of ethnic homogeneity constructed by Sinhala nationalism and by Tamil nationalism must be punctured and repudiated. This does not mean an opposition to the principle of self-determination. Yet however the majority of Tamils in Sri Lanka choose to define self-determination, a lasting peace has to be based on the recognition of the vast complexity, intermingling, and transcendence of ethnic boundaries that constantly occurs in Sri Lanka – both in Sinhalese-dominated and in Tamil-dominated areas. Non-communal political formations must be supported.
To that end, critical leftists in Canada should work toward facilitating the kinds of cross-ethnic solidarity movements and conversations that have been mostly foreclosed by the terroristic strategies employed in Sri Lanka by the armed forces and by the LTTE. While acknowledging and addressing the limitations of Canadian multicultural policies here, we need to capitalise on our distance from the conflict, and the relative peace afforded by that distance (however racialised and restricted it is), to facilitate dialogue.
5. Oppose the Sri Lankan state; criticize the LTTE.
Successive Sinhala ethnic chauvinist governments have precipitated the crisis in Sri Lanka. They continue to do so with impunity. Critical leftists must be absolute in their opposition to the ethnic chauvinism and practical depredations of the parties controlling the Sri Lankan state. The Sri Lankan state has been one of the most significant obstacles toward the achievement of a lasting peace.
At the same time, the LTTE has used civilians as human shields and has engaged in forced conscription. It must be therefore also be criticized and its particular human rights violations not excused or glossed over.
6. Oppose the role of international imperialism in the conflict.
The ideology of twenty-first century imperialism is manifest worldwide. In particular, in South Asia, the discourses of “wars on terror” in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India are smokescreens for governments and imperial actors like NATO and the United States to obscure real, legitimate and popular grievances by focusing instead on military campaigns. This is precisely the strategy currently being used by the state in Sri Lanka against its local Tamil grievances. Furthermore, the Sri Lankan state receives military aid from, among others, Pakistan and Israel—lackeys of American empire. China, too, in increasing its international political reach, has steadily provided arms and funding to Sri Lanka for several years. India has also played a major role through its intervention or absence of intervention, in line with its hegemonic designs in South Asia. Moreover, it should be noted that the governments of Russia, China, Iran, India, and many others are no better for the people of South Asia than traditional Western imperialists. The political elite of all these countries contributed heartily to the massacres of thousands of Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka.
The international dimensions of the conflict are too complex to be examined in detail here, but we should engage in further study of the conflict’s global connections, because in resisting the violence of the Sri Lankan state, we are also taking a stance against certain operations of international imperialism. We must recognize, however, that ultimately the problem is one of Sinhala ethnic chauvinism and the lack of meaningful political representation of national minorities in Sri Lanka.
In conclusion, it is important to note that these six items should be regarded as points of departure for critical leftists. By no means is this a conclusive programme on how activists in Canada, whatever their ethnicity or personal connection to the war, should approach the conflict. That sort of conversation is much more difficult, and must be had in conjunction with all the members of Canada’s Sri Lankan diaspora, including its Sinhalese, Tamil, and Muslim communities.
1 http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/626522
2 http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2009/05/15/9464696-sun.html
3 http://www.thestar.com/article/632692
4 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090512.wblatch12art2244/BNStory/National/
5 http://transformingpower.ca/en/blog/support-tamils-and-learn-them
6 http://www.ctconline.ca/index.htm
7 http://www.ctconline.ca/faq.html
8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qcQ-P5IYWg
9 http://basicsnewsletter.blogspot.com/2009/05/basics-condemns-arrests-police.html
10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V95sGJz_Rto
The World’s Greatest Poet
You say the World’s greatest poet is William Blake
I say the World’s greatest poet is a sistah with no name
You say the World’s greatest writer is Shakespeare
I say the World’s greatest writer is Zora
You proclaim Karl Marx to be the World’s greatest theorist
I proclaim Audre Lorde
You insist on giving me Rudyard Kipling and T.S Elliot and Walt Whitman
But what about all my sistahs whose voices were stolen from them?
What about the pieces of scrap paper on which they struggled to write on?
While their husbands beat them mercilessly
And their colonizers brutally raped them
What about them?
What about them?
You say the World’s greatest poet is William Blake
I say the World’s greatest poet is a sistah with no name
In this country not of my own
In this strange country
I feel the weight of one hundred years of oppression
One hundred years of misery
One hundred years of solitude
In a country far from my own
I feel the weight of one hundred years of colonization
One hundred years of beating
One hundred years of rape
In a strange country far from my own
I feel the weight of one hundred years of displacement
One hundred years of forced labour
One hundred years of rebellion
In a strange and far-away country
I reminisce over many sun-kissed days
The custard apples in my mother’s hands
And the vibrant laughter that echoed in the hills
In this deafening country
I despise the silence
I despise the rotten smiles
And I long for the kindness that has the power to heal
In this country with people not of my own
I long for the still quiet waters
And the roaring mountains
That dared to be
In this country not of my own
I long for people to wake up
To quit talking about post-colonial discourse
And realize that we are still living in a colonial era
In this country not of my own
I long for many things