CANADA'S HUMANITARIAN SECTOR GEARS UP TO ADAPT AND INNOVATE

KEYWORDS: Canada, Humanitarian, Cross-Sector, Partnerships, Adapt, Innovate

Listen to AUDIO Recording
Read STORIFY Version

SUMMARY: Canada's long-standing humanitarian sector needs to adapt and innovate to meet its humanitarian goals. The Canadian Humanitarian Conference is a new platform to bring together actors within the sector to learn just how it can adapt and innovate in ways that effectively address the complex set of problems it now faces.

Adaptation. Innovation. These words are usually associated with the private sector. It’s a well-practiced mantra that business, management and employees must adapt and innovate in order to thrive in the frenetic global marketplace. Now there are signs that the humanitarian sector is cautiously following suit. The sector, made up of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that deliver aid and assistance during human-made and natural disasters, is vast. Ironically, it’s also at a crisis point: it not only faces more demands on its resources but more complex problems related to climate change, conflict and extremism that simply have no easy solutions. To weather these changes, the Canadian humanitarian sector is coming together to learn how adaptation and innovation can improve its ability to respond effectively to the record number of people in need of assistance.

Opening Day Plenary

The 2nd annual Canadian Humanitarian Conference (CHC) held at the Aga Khan Foundation of Canada in Ottawa from December 4-5 was the result of intense collaboration led by the Humanitarian Coalition (HC) and its five core member NGOs: CARE, OXFAM Canada, OXFAM Quebec, PLAN, and Save the Children. Founded in 2007, the HC “brings together Canada's leading aid agencies to finance relief efforts in times of international humanitarian crises”; it calls itself a “one-stop-shop” for individual Canadian donors. The CHC is also emerging as the one-stop-shop for Canadian humanitarians to meet and exchange knowledge and know-how. It’s also where humanitarians can build relationships with practitioners from vastly different sectors that wish to support humanitarian goals.

Accordingly, cross-sector collaboration was a recurring theme of the conference. As experienced as they are, humanitarian organizations can still afford to learn from the private sector. Assembled for the 2nd opening plenary, delegates heard Valerie Amos, UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs & Emergency Relief Coordinator, declare: “We must reform.” 

Humanitarian workers restore lives and dignity, Amos reassured delegates, but changes in the world demand that the sector reform itself to stay relevant. As she pointed out: over the last 10 years, the number of people in need of humanitarian assistance has trebled; displaced people spend an average of 17 years in displacement; attempts to politicize humanitarian work has become all too common; and, finally, women and children are the face of the crisis. Inviting businesses to help it respond better to emergencies by sharing “resources, expertise, and technology” (CHC) would put the Canadian humanitarian sector on a path of genuine adaptation and innovation that - one hopes - results in greater, sustained impact on people’s lives. 

I’m not a humanitarian worker. I’m a budding sustainable development researcher who wishes to understand why humanitarian crises happen in the first place; that’s a challenging task. However, the sectors are undeniably linked as both pursue an international development agenda that aims to basically improve people’s quality of life. Of course, this aim is highly political as everyone will not agree on what constitutes “quality of life.” I attended the CHC to learn how my colleagues, bound by the humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and independence, perceive the impact of their work. There is no question that we both wish crises could be averted. The reality is that we are both - researcher and practitioner - needed to help untangle the problems and identify root causes. How to bridge the development-humanitarian divide will likely become part of the adaptation and innovation process we are now witnessing. 

The cross-sector partnership panels provided highly interesting perspectives on how NGOs can deepen their collaborations with urban planners and engineers, on the one hand, and corporations like MasterCard and Ericsson, on the other. Panelists demonstrated respect and openness yet remained grounded. Reminding delegates that NGOs possess “reputational capital,” Rosemary McCarney of PLAN Canada warned that they would need to choose partners wisely if they wished to protect that capital. The issue of mutual benefit is central to these partnerships, perhaps more so if businesses wish to do more than offer cash donations. Sorting out those benefits shouldn’t serve as an obstacle to working together though it might mean that trust and understanding among partners needs to be built up first. This inevitably takes time and perseverance as misunderstandings surely will occur; however, if CHC2014 is any indication of the humanitarian sector’s desire to reform, it will, in due course.

The conference energized delegates, many of whom were returning to the field that very week. We should see the dynamic conversations begun inside the conference hall develop outside, where, let’s face it, adapting and innovating really matter. The CHC, in spite of being just 2 years old, is creating the foundation for a new chapter in the decades-long story of Canada’s global humanitarian contributions. Canadians should be proud that their NGOs see generous collaboration as the way forward. 

ADDENDUM: 2015 State of Civil Society Report

THE HUMANITIES MATTER, THAT'S A STATEMENT (UPDATED: Aug. 25th)

KEYWORDS: Humanities, human condition, technocrats

Listen to AUDIO Recording
Read STORIFY Version

SUMMARY: The humanities reflect us, shape us, provoke us and can even help us become better human beings. Yet, as an increasing number of technocrats raise the alarm about the lack of jobs and skilled people, studying the humanities is becoming less desirable. This pragmatic turn has cost the humanities their earlier lustre and meant that more of us humanists need to defend the field's enduring value.

The Human Condition, Dir. Masaki Kobayashi

The humanities matter. I admit this might sound defensive. There's been a lot of criticism directed at the field during the recent economic crisis, so humanists like myself might be accused of overreacting. But what if I put it to you as a declarative statement: the humanities matter. Now we're asked - well, you are - to at least consider that certain intellectual pursuits might be perennially important. Anthropology, philosophy, religion, literature, music - the list goes on - permit us to travel across time and space asking questions that move us toward a deeper understanding of concepts like change, place and the human condition. 

As academic disciplines, the humanities are essentially inquiry-based communities. And, even if they aren't card-holding students themselves, people from all walks of life can engage with them. Through lectures, exhibitions, film, libraries, the Internet, alone or with friends, the humanities can be accessed. What other field permits the kind of self-gazing that helps us see who we are and who we wish to become? And where the 'we' is none too specific or general? Admittedly, all this might be too existentialist for them, but the technocrats in our midst stand to gain from the humanities' ability to highlight that we are - them included - a diverse, values-driven, messy lot, and that no one group will ever hold all the answers. There's humility in that lesson. And, if we know anything about today's state of affairs, it's that humility is sorely lacking. Now, how can we say that self-gazing is just a time-waster?

Maybe I take for granted that social and self understanding are an essential part of my life. In writing this article, I need to ask myself why the humanities matter to me. After some self-gazing, I've concluded that I'm troubled that we struggle to co-exist and prosper on what is now - yes, science has proven to be helpful here - a damaged planet. Knowingly, I turn to sources like poems and stories, philosophical musings, old and new music to make me feel more connected to the continual flow of pain and suffering. Does this inclination which I've turned into an ability make me employable? Is feeling others' pain and suffering, including my own, a skill? I think so. It even has a name: empathy. Those same sources also make it utterly clear that the past informs the present; that change might be constant but feeds on change itself; and that our place is as much about status as it is about geography. The humanities can facilitate these kinds of profoundly meaningful lessons; indeed, they have for me. 

Critics tend to undervalue the transferable skills gained through formal studies of the humanities. Thinking skills like analyzing and synthesizing, communication skills like speaking and writing, and general organizational skills like project and time management, are examples of transferable skills. Also known as 'soft skills', they don't, however, amount to subject matter expertise. A humanist is not an economist, a political scientist nor a financial analyst, and that is viewed as a weakness. The humanist cannot "fix" social or economic problems, say the critics. According to their (narrow) perspective, intellectual pursuits are rather useless given the sheer quantity and urgency of today's problems: we need people who know how to fix problems not just deconstruct them. 

May Day celebrations in Paris, France (2014)

Yet something rather sinister happens when human knowledge, exploration, and growth start to be conflated with things like 'market economy,' 'commodity,' and 'output': we begin to lose a sense of perspective - or should I say perspectives? As a result, our emotional life flattens and we become less empathetic. Our fellow human beings start to appear one-dimensional, like sheets of paper rather than corporal souls. And while paper is malleable, in the end, it's also disposable. Without the ability to connect, people can no longer see themselves reflected in others. Disconnection grows into something far worse, dislocation. 

Writing, speaking, making, composing, devising, unearthing, these are acts that the humanist performs. Through them, she connects, locates herself in the broader social context, and helps untangle her society's problems. In other words, the humanities help to preserve her humanity. Yet this achievement benefits us all: through the humanist, we see what it is we can become - what we forgot we could become. As we regain perspective, our memories start to return. We fold ourselves into paper planes and once more travel across time and space. 

Let the technocrats raise their alarm, we humanists shall rise above the din and co-create a gentler home.



ADDENDUM: Click here for YouTube video of Kobayashi's Human Condition, Part 1 (1959).

TO BE WOMANLY

Dr. Vandana Shiva, Eco-Feminist

KEY TOPICS: Eco-feminism, Monsanto, Dr. Vandana Shiva, karma

Listen to AUDIO RECORDING // Read STORIFY version

SUMMARY: In our era of neo-liberal capitalism, which has accelerated global income inequality and ecological degradation, Dr. Vandana Shiva offers this overarching solution: be more womanly. To many, this may sound merely philosophical, perhaps even fanciful; but it really is a practical solution, if one considers what it means. Mahatma Gandhi, himself, thought so and now in our new millennium Dr. Shiva exhorts us all to care for and share with our fellow human beings. 

Mahatma Gandhi wanted to be more womanly, Dr. Shiva tells the Toronto audience assembled in The George Stroumboulopoulos Show's CBC studio. He wanted to inhabit the virtues of caring and sharing as he recognized their value in not just enriching but sustaining life. Gandhi was certainly prescient for at no other time has our species' survival rested on us caring more about and sharing more with others. Dr. Shiva, herself, is womanly and not because she dresses in elegant silk saris and maroon bindis that fill the gap between her brows. (Though her external appearance does, in my opinion, buttress her feminist views.) Trained in quantum physics, that opaque field of science, Dr. Shiva chooses instead to apply her specialized knowledge to the science of farming and food. In protest of the corporate hijacking of both farming practices and our global food supply, she is devoting her days to creating an alternative reality that is indeed more womanly: an earth shared by all, not one controlled and manipulated by a few.

Durga Mata, Hindu Goddess

"We are diverse; we have pluralistic ways of thinking," Dr. Shiva tells the audience, alluding to Durga Mata of the Hindu pantheon. So any attempt to turn industries and practices, like agriculture and farming, into a single, monolithic entity that disproportionately serves the owners is not just unwise, it is morally wrong. Stated differently, these attempts are antithetical to being womanly. As the evidence has borne out, life within this kind of reality is unbearable for the masses and, in many ways, our planet. Whole farming communities and swathes of land will continue to be damaged because of unwise farming practices devised and controlled by big business. This kind of future is unsustainable. 

Monsanto and other large agro-companies that work to own - literally, own - nature have been condemned by many for their lack of caring. Unsurprisingly, Dr. Shiva's dissenting voice is one of the loudest. If nature, in general, and seeds, in particular, provide humanity with basic sustenance, how else can the commodification of 'life' by these capitalist behemoths be regarded? We have a right to be angry. Dr. Shiva's own anger does not consume her, it propels her into ever more creative action against those she has dubbed "Life Lords" of the planet. With this, her host is decidedly impressed, as is the audience no doubt. Dr. Shiva is a doer; and when we listen to problems that seem insurmountable, we like to listen to those that "do". Depending on our own position, Dr. Shiva can make us feel energized, optimistic, even - forgive the cliche - empowered to act.

"[W]e are very good as humans at figuring out how we can exploit something, this is what we do with everything," Dr. Shiva's host claims as he leans forward in his red leather chair to receive her reply. She agrees. But how she sees it such behaviours stem from an inhumane masculinist mode of thought which, sadly, is so prevalent. However, to be inhumane is not innate, she is quick to add. We can act differently. Dr. Shiva's spontaneous hug shows her young host that being caring is not something we need to figure out, it is already within us. 

Imagine if hugs could re-humanize the Monsanto executives who lead the charge today. Fanciful, yes, to think that in the hard-nosed business world hugs alone could disrupt an established operation. The corporation is too caught up with itself and has ensnared too many equally self-interested entities (let alone individuals) to care like a human. The problem is not just big, it is enormous.

(Source: www.alt-market.com)

The "Life Lord," himself, is enormous; however, history - as recent as the last decade - has shown us that nothing is "too big to fail". The indomitable Dr. Shiva might express the same point this way: no one corporation is too big to battle. 

Gandhi believed, as I suspect Dr. Shiva does also, in the Hindu concept of karma. This is the belief that our actions, good or bad, have consequences that shape our reincarnated lives. We bring our selves to every realm, where, however subtly, we enact our values, attitudes and beliefs. Gandhi brought himself to the legal and political realms while Dr. Shiva brings herself to the realms of science and activism. Self-knowledge tends to elevate one's character and by extension one's work. 

Business and spirituality are not entirely separate, certainly if you are spiritual, but also if you consider that people do business, not the other way around. If a critical mass choose to be more womanly, then our cities and towns will become truly interdependent, and this will herald a massive shift in consciousness. 

We share this realm called planet Earth. Dr. Shiva hopes this indisputable fact will guide our present actions, which carry great consequence.


(NOTE: 'Storify' version link above.)

CURIOUS GEORGE: A CASE OF CIVILIZING OR DEMONIZING THE MONKEY?

KEY TOPICS: Anthropocentrism, racism, film, critical literacy, children

Listen to AUDIO RECORDING // Read STORIFY Version

SUMMARY:  Rarely are beloved classics critiqued. A European classic like 'Curious George' is a case in point. When originally published in the 1940's, 'Curious George's' privileged Euro-American audience would not have thought to look for bias. However, historical distance and a post-colonial world order that engendered multicultural politics have fostered the intellectual conditions for people to want to - need to - critique texts for their cultural assumptions. Whatever its genre - book, film - I believe "Curious George" should be critiqued. Here is a tale of a monkey captured by an adventurous white man in an unnamed jungle and forced to adapt when he is brought to the "civilized" world (England?) by his paternal "keeper." It assumes nature is intended for humans and that the Anglo West breeds civility. This is no quaint children's tale from way back when. Yet 'Curious George' is used in classrooms without, I worry, any sort of critical lens that would present school children with a more complex view of the world by engaging issues of anthropocentrism and even racism.

In single file, the class assistant ushered two dozen children from their walled classroom to the brightly-lit foyer a few metres away. It was time for Music. Smiling broadly, I stood on the edge of the well-worn oval carpet that lay in the centre. A television on a tall stand loomed behind me. Curious eyes gave me the once over. 'Who is this?' the children wondered. I gestured for everyone to sit down and with the assistant's help everyone did. Not surprisingly, as they sat down cross-legged, I was peppered with questions from every row: where's Ms. S.? what's your name? what are we watching? are we going to have Music? Leaning forward, I held up the 'Curious George' film case that I had hid from view. It was time to introduce George, everyone's favourite monkey (right?). For a moment, there was quiet (timing is everything in teaching). The class assistant and I exchanged smiles. Then, squeals of delight from Ms. P.'s kindergarteners that delivered a mix of pleasure and annoyance. They were excited about their upcoming lesson but they would need to listen well; I would have some thought-provoking questions to ask. "My name is Ms. A." 

The Reyersbach's

The authors of 'Curious George' were Margret and Hans Augusto Reyersbach, a married German Jewish couple. Theirs was a story of love, Nazi persecution, trans-Atlantic migration, and eventually success in America as co-collaborators on the 'Curious George' book series. Indeed, the Reyersbach's own trials and tribulations make for an incredible story. Their much beloved 'Curious George' was a creative outlet and, with the world around them so bleak, must also have been a source of entertainment and pleasure. Nevertheless, they could not have predicted that their mischievous little monkey would garner so much attention - he was an instant hit! 

"I want you to watch what happens to George, while he's in the jungle," I said to the class. My students were 4 and 5 years old, I had to be more explicit: "Do you think it's fair that he's taken out of the jungle - out of his home - and brought to another country?" By now, schooled in answering teachers' questions, the children seemed to ponder mine and offered up a balance of yeses and noes. I nervously clicked 'play' on the DVD player. I wished right then that we could have just played with the instruments. Then again, I am much better at asking questions than interpreting music notes.

Curious George smoking a pipe

The film is a series of flashbacks that chronicle George's life from the jungle to the city. The protagonist's antics are what people find entertaining. Come to think of it, 'monkey see, monkey do,' might just have come from this famous Reyersbach tale! Smoking a pipe - it seems monkeys can get high too - and mistakenly dialling the police on the telephone - you can imagine the ensuing confusion - get children, even adults, laughing out loud. When the 'man in the yellow hat' disciplines George, the laughs just continue. This simple formula - get George in and out of trouble - appears to work, in fact, it has worked for years. We take 'Curious George' for granted, and there lies the problem.

The BBC recently published an article in its 'Culture' section titled "The hidden messages in children's books." As author Hephzibah Anderson puts it, "Revisiting kids’ books in adulthood can yield all sorts of weird and wonderful subtexts, some more obvious than others." I couldn't agree more: 'Curious George's' sub-text is a good deal weird but not so wonderful. 

George wasn't born 'George' nor was he from the city. Heck, he's a bonafide monkey! The seemingly innocent man in the yellow hat decided that he wanted a monkey for his own pleasure - what else would you call co-habitating with 'George'? So, in cunning pursuit of that "exotic find," he pursued his desire all the way to where monkeys are indigenous. That's the back-story, isn't it? If it sounds familiar, it's because for too long now the object has been 'nature,' 'Africa,' the 'exotic,' while the subject - the one with visible, practical agency - the liberal, western adventurer who dons a cap and a smile knowing full well that they can return home. (Granted, these days many middle-class minorities - like me - could be characterized in that way as they seek jobs and travel experiences in far-flung places.)

What it comes down to is awareness and enough discomfort with the subtext to raise questions. That's the serious part of reading, which can really deepen children's respect for literature. I have no doubt that the opportunity to ask and answer questions can also expand children's awareness of their own ethical positions. "When you go on a trip, do you hope to find something to bring back with you?" That's a question I think I might ask next time. My students' answers will help us all 'read' the world a little better. 

(NOTE: 'Storify' version link above.)

THE HUMBLE PRESIDENT

KEY TOPICS: Uruguay, President Jose Mujica, consumerism

LISTEN TO AUDIO RECORDING 
Read STORIFY Version

SUMMARY: Uruguay's President, Jose Mujica, plans to legalize marijuana in an effort to stem criminal activity in his country and the wider region. However, Mujica's personal philosophy is equally news-worthy. In our (maddening) era of consumer capitalism, the President's modest lifestyle is a poignant reminder that we can all live without. 

Jose Mujica: "I am frugal not poor."

Jose Mujica wasn't always Uruguay's president. He was once a guerrilla fighter who sometimes used violence to achieve his political goals. Later, he became a state prisoner who for many years lived on meagre rations while confined to his cell. Back then, there was a revolution to wage: Uruguay was under a dictatorship, like much of Latin America, and capitalist excesses were reducing many to poverty. Jose Mujica or Pepe, as he is affectionately known, believed in a just society for his people - at any cost.  

Now 77, Mujica's activism has taken on a different hue. Elected in 2010 to Uruguay's highest office, President Mujica effects change through government, which today oversees a stable democracy of three million. As President, he could enjoy many privileges that would afford him a luxurious lifestyle. The presidential palace, servants, security detail and handsome salary - a far cry from prison life - are all part of the presidential job package. Few would take up running a country, however small, without these kinds of privileges to make up for the heavy responsibilities, loss of privacy and constant politicking. Yet, in his earnest attempt to live simply, Mujica has rejected these excesses and shown us that he's still a revolutionary man. Living on just ten percent of his monthly salary, Mujica might in fact be the poorest president in the world, but donating ninety percent of his earnings makes perfect sense to a man who doesn't need more, just enough.

For many of us, power and wealth hold obvious appeal. They mean independence, opportunity and access, and comfort. We may know they don't bring ultimate happiness but we believe they can still be deeply satisfying. So, we strive. In the west, the infrastructure we've built counts on (most of) us seeking ever more profits and pleasures with some being rewarded with significant power and wealth. However, we're beginning to understand that our current levels of material production and consumption are simply unsustainable. 

Jose Mujica at the United Nations in New York

Mujica, whose vision is long, has known this for some time. Given the pressures that we and our planet are under, he feels compelled to ask: how can we afford to consume mindlessly? The short answer is: we can't. As Mujica explained at last year's UN General Assembly: "It seems that we have been born only to consume, and to consume, and when we can no longer consume, we have a feeling of frustration and we suffer from poverty, and we are auto marginalized." His blunt assertions that bend toward the philosophical set him apart from other world leaders who get stuck politicking and appeasing special interests, let alone inspiring. 

Al Jazeera recently interviewed President Mujica at his farm house outside the capital of Montevideo to find out more about the man's much publicized humility. The interview is no routine question and answer exchange for Mujica is no typical man. It - or rather he - inspires us to question ourselves - habits and desires - more than anything. His call to action, ironically, is for us to think. Think more; think differently; think for ourselves. 

To call Mujica a hero would betray my romantic tendencies, but I don't care. The humble president is heroic to me because in spite of his power and (potential) wealth he lives with integrity, the kind found in those who try to live in accordance with their values. I admit Mujica reminds me of my deceased father who always taught me to think for myself. I've taken to watching the interview again and again as a sort of meditation, lecture and a call to action from the President himself and my dear ol' dad. 

Thank you, Pepe. 

Addendum: Jose Mujica cannot seek re-election so this fall he will hand over power to Uruguay's next President.

Related Articles: (Feb. 28/15) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-31679475

YES, IT'S TIME TO RESTORE OUR ANTHEM

KEY TOPICS: Canadian anthem, gender equality, Restore Our Anthem campaign

*No summary included.

LISTEN TO AUDIO RECORDING // Read STORIFY Version

It's Wednesday, 8:45am. The national anthem rings through K. D. Public School's aging two-storey building. "...Our home and native land…" Nearly four hundred girls and boys suddenly stand at attention. Their conversations and unpacking put on hold. "True patriot love in all thy sons command..." In the lobby, between display cases, latecomers with worried expressions stop mid-stride. Nearby, a teacher reminds her students to remove their toques and headphones. "...The true, North, strong and free..." In this elementary school, the younger students' high-pitched voices are full of pride. "...God keep our land..." Some classroom teachers, too distracted to sing, scan their rooms to take a head count. Others, modelling "appropriate" behaviour, join the chorus: "O Canada, we stand on guard for thee." The final verse sung, everyone relaxes in what feels like a mass exhale. 

Each morning, it's the same ritual: public schools across Canada pledge allegiance to this country. No questions asked. As a teacher and activist, this troubles me. Questions invite discussion, debate and change. And sometimes even long-standing traditions, like our national anthem, need to be questioned. In a secular democracy, it's critical to ask questions. What really is 'patriot love'? What role does God play in civic life? Are all Canadians truly 'free'? And why does our English anthem address Canada's sons but not its daughters? Yet schools fall silent, as do most Canadians. 

The 'Restore Our Anthem' campaign is not only raising questions but demanding change. Supporters, like Margaret Atwood, Vivienne Poy and Kim Campbell, are asking Canadians to pressure the federal government to remove the male bias in our 100-year old anthem - once and for all. I agree, it's time for Canada's sons and daughters to stand together as 'us' Canadians. However, taught from a young age about fair play, Canadian children might stand to gain the most by witnessing their government act in the name of fairness and equality for all. 

"Restore Our Anthem" Website

It's 2013. One hundred years ago the Canadian government adopted its English-version anthem. Back in 1913, women weren't able to vote nor considered 'persons' under the law. "True patriot love in all thy sons command" was only fitting. But, ironically, before 1913 the English anthem was gender neutral. "True patriot love thou dost in us command" was the verse Canadians sang. It's not clear why changes were made to Robert Stanley Weir's lyrics. Regardless, today's 'Restore Our Anthem' campaigners believe: "Restoring the anthem to reflect its original version is the simplest way to encapsulate the equality of all Canadians." With enough pressure, school children could soon be singing an anthem that commands our respect because we would see that it changed for us, not the other way around.

Vivienne Poy, former Canadian Senator

A similar campaign was started in 2002 by then-Senator Vivienne Poy and followed up by the Harper government in 2010. "In all of us command" was twice proposed and rejected. Each time, the federal government gave in to the people who said the English anthem was too beautiful to change. People who viewed the 'sons' battle as a waste of time because gender equality in Canada had already been achieved. As a third attempt is launched, similar opinions are surfacing. 'Why bother changing an anthem that's hardly sung?' argue some. While others ask, 'Why are women complaining when they're already equal under the law?' The reality, as I see it, is different. The anthem is sung everyday and civic traditions need to reflect the role that women now play. Moreover, this isn't a women's only campaign: Canadian men also support the cause. "This is a no-brainer. All thy sons? Citisons? All of us, of course," says author Wayne Johnston. While radio personality Jian Ghomeshi (before the unsavoury accusations) offers this view: "Making a small change to the lyrics of our national anthem doesn't undermine our tradition. It preserves it." To bring everyone into the fold with, "In all of us command," would certainly be fitting for our time.

It's been over a decade since we started battling over 'sons' and 'us.' Opponents seem to believe they're just words that we shouldn't take literally. 'Sons' is meant to include 'daughters'; it's meant to encompass all Canadians, they say. However, I agree with 'Restore Our Anthem' campaigners that these same people wouldn't be as agreeable if we were dealing with 'daughters' instead: "We have a feeling if the word was 'daughters' it would be taken literally" ('ROA' website). To illustrate the point, just imagine if we replaced 'mankind' with 'womankind'... It seems the words are more important than opponents either let on or realize. However, if we choose to ignore their biases, hidden or otherwise, this debate will continue to fall short on integrity. Our children need us all to do better. 

Since 2002, individuals and groups have been standing up to a century-old tradition that, let's remember, is human-made or, more accurately, man-made. It's not impervious to change just as we Canadians aren't. I hope the current government takes a stand on this outstanding issue so we can finally exhale. It's simple: an anthem that we can all be proud to sing calls on all of us to guard this country and its values. Now that's an "appropriate" message for school children, don't you think?

WHO PAYS THE "BECAUSE I AM A GIRL" CAMPAIGNER AND SHOULD IT MATTER?

KEY TOPICS: Plan Canada, Public Outreach, campaigns, female equality

*Summary not included.

LISTEN TO AUDIO RECORDING

Originally this blog post was called, "Don't avoid the folks in blue: why 'Because I am a Girl' campaigners matter." I wanted to write a positive piece that would raise the street campaigner to the level of social engager. How I saw it, these folks weren't just promoting a social justice cause that needed our money. They served to remind us that people can help ease human suffering.

Here is the introduction from that earlier draft:

These days, if you've any business in downtown or even mid-town Toronto, you'll have noticed the folks in blue: Plan Canada's "Because I am a Girl" campaigners.

"Because I am a Girl" Campaigners at Yonge & St. Clair

Positioned at major intersections, like Yonge & University, Bloor & St. George and Yonge & St. Clair, these folks want to discuss one of the world's most pressing problems, face to face: underprivileged girls. The effects and cause well-documented, they want you to know that girls suffer disproportionately from abuse, neglect and poor health because they are girls. Their natural effervescence, you'll discover, springing from genuine concern.




I go on to set Plan Canada in an equally favourable light: 

Campaign Logo

Plan Canada hopes we'll come to understand that gender inequality may be the norm in many countries but it certainly isn't normal that countless girls marry as children, are subject to honour killings or remain illiterate all their lives. Indeed, the injustice is profound; but, like all campaigns for social change, "Because I am a Girl" is built on optimism. Being a girl today needn't mean hardship. 

Those folks in blue urge you to find out how you can help.

The last line meant to evoke some moral compunction on the part of the reader. 

However, in the midst of drafting this article, two significant conversations occurred. As a result, I changed the title, introduced a disclaimer and revised my premise. 

Despite declining my photo request (for this article), the male campaigner on Bloor Street engaged in what would be the first of two critical conversations. He revealed, after some questioning on my part about his wages, that Plan Canada hired Public Outreach to find, train and pay him. I didn't see that coming, and I told him so. But now I felt compelled to reassure my readers that I certainly wasn't a mouthpiece for a big charitable organization or - worse? - a for-profit company that helps non-profits increase their fundraising revenue. In came the new title, "Who pays the 'Because I am a Girl' campaigner and should it matter?" along with the disclaimer, a simple but clear statement of integrity:

Let me say from the outset that I have no affiliation with Plan Canada, Public Outreach nor with any of the street campaigners employed by Public Outreach.

My opinions would be my own. After all, this blog is a product of my desire and right to broadcast - just as so many others do - a range of social and political observations.

Yet, I'd initially hoped that a set of apparently youthful, conscientious folk would challenge my skepticism of society's do-gooders. I'd hoped that individually they'd infuse me with their optimism. That, you could say, I might awaken more fully to the possibility of a kinder, not just a less harsh, world.  

So, I ask now, does it really matter who pays the "Because I am a Girl" campaigner? Does the involvement of Public Outreach eliminate the possibility of inspired dialogue on our very own streets? The fact remains that communities around the world grossly undervalue girls, and, many will agree, we need to address this serious problem. Those folks in blue really do seem to care about the bottom-line: easing human suffering.

However, am I seeing the big picture?

Shortly after my surprising discovery, the second critical conversation occurred. "It's called consumer-feminism," said Alissa, an academic and friend, as we finished our meal. Plan Canada's "Because I am a Girl" campaign, a consumer-feminist project? There's no single definition here but for our purposes consumer-feminism is the turning of gender politics into a feel-good commodity for "purchase" by a privileged class who wish to affect change. Could Alissa be right? If so, then the whole lot of girls' focused campaigns by Plan Canada and others could be accused of being naive, at best, or, at worst, thoroughly misguided. 

Consumer-feminism needn't apply only to gender politics, any social change oriented politics can be commodified and "consumed."

The Gap's "Red" Campaign Poster

For example, The Gap's "Red" campaign invites consumers to support AIDS awareness through the purchase of specially designed red-themed clothing promoted by a range of celebrities. While the 1970's Virginia Slims' "You've come a long way, baby" campaign positioned cigarettes as a useful tool of the U.S. women's liberation movement: to smoke a Virginia was to show others, men in particular, that you'd been freed from the patriarchal cage. In other words, the product offered the (American) woman the promise of an improved social status. Not surprisingly, the cigarette company didn't donate revenue to any women's causes (given the nature of their business, could that have even been possible?). That kind of "feel good" consumer-feminism would become popular later on. 

Back on Toronto's streets, few campaigners are visible now that winter has set in, but Plan Canada continues to advocate online and in print. In 2013 alone, their concerted efforts launched 249 girls' projects, garnered the support of 22 countries and directly impacted 2 million girls worldwide. With these results, "Because I am a Girl" is rightfully optimistic. However, it will continue to need donors from rich countries, like Canada, the US, Germany, the U.K. and Australia, to pay for programs that aim to bolster girls. And that's the crux of the matter, isn't it: the need for rich donors, individuals or organizations, to help.

If countries across Latin America, Africa and Asia, where Plan Canada (and other non-profits) work, were independent then the current matrix would be useless. To understand why so many countries remain dependent on the West is a long discussion. Let me simply end with this observation: doing the right thing - or "red" thing - isn't as straightforward as it seems, no matter how compassionate the argument. Those folks in blue helped remind me of that. 

“FAIR & LOVELY”: IT'S ABOUT THE RACE TO WIN (EXTENDED VERSION)

NB: This blog entry was solicited by Dr. Alissa Trotz of the University of Toronto's Caribbean Studies Department for submission to the Stabroek Newspaper in Guyana, which carries an 'In the Diaspora' section. The publication date was August 26th, 2013.


KEY TOPICS: South Asia, skin lightening, marriage, race discrimination, Unilever

LISTEN TO AUDIO RECORDING

“Is she fair?” “Yes, she is.” An innocent exchange, one might think. But let me provide the social context: the topic is marriage, the inquirer a matchmaker and the respondent an Indian mother. Obviously pleased, the matchmaker nods emphatically and states, “Ok, good.”

Still an innocent line of inquiry?

Given that Guyana is home to a large Indian diaspora, I suspect Stabroek News readers have caught my drift: light skin is a highly valuable commodity on the South Asian marriage market (commercial terms deliberately used). In the above exchange, had the mother instead answered, “No, she isn’t,” any prospect of marriage would've been lost. What’s worse, the Indian mother would've accepted that the groom in question, of course, deserved a fair and lovely bride - what was she thinking?! (I shudder to think of the kind of criticism this mother would subject her daughter after a failed matchmaking attempt.) The underlying message for those of us who broadly identify as ‘South Asian’ is that access to particular social privileges and contracts, like marriage, increases for those of us with light skin. Granted, class is another marker of difference that factors into the "success" equation. So let me clarify, in this article I refer to the educated South Asian middle-class who, while not a homogenous group by any means, are seeking similar ends, like 'good' marriage prospects.

I'm a 30-something first generation Indian-Canadian. I was raised in Montreal by progressive, middle-class Punjabi Hindu parents. My primary job is public school teaching in Toronto but occasionally I venture abroad to ‘stretch myself,’ metaphorically speaking. Most recently, I taught at an elite international school in Dhaka, Bangladesh. While living there, I was exposed to a regular stream of “Fair & Lovely” television ads on regional networks that got right ‘under my skin.’ In spite of my own fair skin ‘status,’ I became angry. So, I openly acknowledge that as a result of forming strong views on the matter, the thoughts and opinions expressed here are biased.

"Fair and Lovely’s" parent company, Unilever, states on its website that

“key [to our success] remains anticipating the aspirations of our customers and consumers and then providing products, which meet their present and emerging needs.”

Fair & Lovely advertisement

With “Fair & Lovely” creams, female customers can address their ‘need’ for convenient, cost-effective skin lighteners. For the males, there’s now a complementary product by Emami Ltd. that will produce similar results and it’s called, "Fair & Handsome." Becoming better looking today just couldn’t be any easier for middle class South Asians. The infallible Shah Rukh Khan (SRK) – who incidentally stars in print and t.v. campaigns for “Fair and Handsome” products - would seem to agree.
Regularly endorsed by Bollywood celebrities, like Asin and SRK, skin whitening products are promoted as the solution to your social problems. That’s right: you've got problems. But, from the comfort of your own bathroom, you can step into the skin you’ve always desired and utterly transform your life! That’s one loaded sales pitch; yet both Unilever and Emami operate from the premise that your dark skin is harming your chances of long-standing social success in most spheres, especially dating & marriage. The two companies hope that you agree. 

Broadcast regularly on Bangladeshi and Indian television, "Fair & Lovely" commercials pitch specifically to the growing middle-class who can afford the luxury of cable television viewing. A category containing future brides and grooms who, no matter the GDP of their respective countries, still hold fairly retrograde social views. In a region where weddings are considered the penultimate experience and marriage the most enviable of social contracts, a "lovely" bride or "handsome" groom is an absolute must. If you’re brown, you’re all too aware of this dangerously shallow perception that the loveliest and most handsome are also the fairest. However, this doesn’t sound fair at all.

So 'race' doesn’t just headline North American newspapers and talk-radio programs, it’s a hot-button issue in South Asia too. Except in India and Bangladesh (similarly, I suspect, in other parts of the sub-continent) there’s no real race debate, just an age-old tradition of racial prejudice that's yet to become politicized. Issues related to caste, gendercide (i.e., the deliberate killing of female fetuses and/or newborns) child brides and dowry have long been political as much as social issues. As far as racial prejudice among the educated goes, not so much.

Undoubtedly, the region is overburdened with social problems, like the ones mentioned above along with illiteracy, urban poverty, ecological degradations, sadly, the list is endless. Where would intra-class racism fit in? Compared to the other problems, it seems rather trivial. To complicate matters, news media outlets have a vested interest in promoting Indian beauty "standards," like smooth, fair skin. We’re all too aware that today's corporations and television broadcasting companies are conveniently wedded to one another: Unilever PLC, Emami Ltd., Zee, Star, all are complicit in presenting a simplified version of our ever-complex world.

Now that I’ve left South Asia, ‘whitening’ is something I associate more with teeth than skin – it’s all about social context, isn't it? As for ‘dark skin’? Well, interestingly, a quick browse through Unilever Canada’s website would have you believe that ‘up here,’ women most desire sunkissed – or golden brown - skin all year round. Personally, I can vouch for the popularity of cosmetic bronzers; moreover, I’ve used them myself. I guess the company really does try to please its global customer base with the “right” products. Or, it’s less about the actual product and more about perpetrating a given society’s mainstream cultural values that serve to ‘commodify’ beauty and so make beauty products necessary. Well, that’s my opinion at least.

It’s no quip that "Fair & Lovely" ads got right ‘under my skin’ during my year-long stay in Bangladesh. As a teacher-activist, mainstream media’s propagation of race prejudice would obviously trouble me, while as a progressive Indo-Canadian female, I would be deeply offended by the concept of skin lightening for beautification purposes.

How'd we get to such an unenlightened point in our human development? Now that’s a loaded question that can only be treated superficially in this concluding paragraph. It’s important to begin by stating that our obsession with light anything has much to do with ideals of cleanliness and purity or, seen another way, of hygiene and morality: couplings that simply aren't natural. But, through various discourses, they evolved over time, crossing cultural and geographical boundaries. Finally, they rooted themselves in people's minds. From this point on, strong divisions emerged which facilitated obscene historical events. From the slave trade to the eugenics movement, ghettoes and camps to apartheid systems of government, in each of these instances, race as a social marker was used in ways that deliberately oppressed whole groups of people. We cannot divorce skin lightening (or skin bleaching as it's more commonly referred to in the Caribbean) from this wider context. In their own rather deliberate coupling of ‘fair and lovely’ and ‘fair and handsome,’ certain brands and their parent companies seem to be pursuing a similar agenda in their part of the world. Ironically, the way out of an oppressive social situation that they promise to provide, turns out to be the very problem.