Symbols: Memory and Identity

It's been some time now since the shooting in South Carolina that led to heated discussion about the Confederate flag and its place in the public realm. Whatever your perspective, the question disappeared overnight from our radar with the supreme court decision on same-sex marriage. I thought it might be time to reflect on the Confederate flag and the role that symbols play in collective memory and the construction of identity.

The image of the Confederate flag, as we have seen, has proven to be polarising. To many, it is a visual representation of the evils of slavery; to others, it is a symbol of the heritage of the American South. Accordingly, the Confederate flag evokes rather polarising attitudes. With the focus recently on the question of whether or not it should be banned, I think the point has been largely missed. Most symbols are not ubiquitously good or bad - this is inherent because they are complex. As shocking as this may come to people, symbols have different meanings to different audiences. While I am offended by the values behind the Confederate flag, I'm still undecided on what I feel about banning it.

Again - this stuff is complex. Moreover, why are we stopping here? Why aren't we outraged that Thomas Jefferson is on American currency or that the American flag has a history or violence, hate, and oppresion along with it. Why do we valorise corporate symbols that are synonymous with corruption or oppression? There are plenty of other examples of symbols that have failed to inspire a collective action to irradicate them. Before we go any further, let's consider that symbols can be images (like a flag for example), but people, groups, and institutions can also act as symbols.

There are three cases I'd like to briefly outline below that illustrate the complex nature of symbols.

It's difficult to discuss symbols without delving into Nazism. In the years following the Second World War, there was a massive undertaking in both East and West Germany to remove the references to Hilter. One of the most interesting ways in which this occured was by changing the names of streets and public squares. Virtually every population centre in Germany and Austria had something named after Hitler. In East Germany, many of these squares were renamed in the honour of Stalin; in West Germany the emphasis was on the new class of liberals. Absent from the renamings on both sides are the thousands of streets and squares throughtout the country that bear reference to Germany's brutal colonial past in Africa (something which Germany shares with most European nations).  

More recently, the remains of King Richard III were found under a parking lot in Leicester in the fall of 2012. Despite the fact that Richard III is often regarded as a despot, a majestic funeral was held in his honour. The fact that he was royalty trumped his actions - meaning that the symbolism of the British crown ultimately the significant factor.

Lastly, the Catholic Church's involvement in Indian Residential Schools makes up a major part of the complex story of the Church in Canadian history. The Church represents both life and death quite literally in the early history of our nation. Despite the harm caused by the Church, an apology has yet to be offered. Symbols associated with catholocism are, therefore, likely to be viewed with some major differences.

As an historian, I am deeply concerned about pushing the undesirable elements from our past into a dark corner. From my perspective, I'm really concerned with the idea that we are policing people's values. Symbols are among the more powerful manifestations of an idea. Banning a symbol gives it great power. Instead, let's unpack symbols and discuss what they mean (all of their complex meanings).

FHRITP

There has been an absolute flurry of activity around FHRITP. A TFC fan, Shawn Simoes, was interpellated by a CityTV reporter on Sunday, confronted as to whether or not he was going to try to yell the viral phrase into her microphone. Hydro One released a statement that Simoes is no longer employed with the public enterprise. While this move was certainly justified, I don't feel like we're going far enough in dealing with sexism, in particular with street harassment.

Last fall I remember a viral video campaign about a woman who walked the streets of New York filming the men who approached her. You may also remember the Twitter trend #YesAllWomen from a few years ago. These all highlight the prevalence of women being victimised because men think it's acceptable to harass, intimidate, or otherwise insert themselves into situations with women. Sunday was merely the most recent example.

Interestingly, there has been another trend lately of employers having to fire staff who get embroiled in scandal. Consider the importance of behaviour online. Most social media has at least some component that is public, meaning that contributions (photos, posts, etc) can be viewed by anyone. Take, for example, Matt Bowman, a Toronto firefighter who was fired last November after he tweeted racist and sexist remarks. In this particular case, it was easy to tell that Bowman was a member of the city's fire department based on a cursary glance at his profile. This phenomenon is not limited to the public sector: Justine Sacco, a PR executive, was fired after making racist comments on Twitter.

Organisations will continue to be less and less tolerant of their employee's indiscretions. Pressure from the public is always instrumental in calling out these behaviours and then demanded action from the employer. Bad public relations from the mishandling of a scandal can cost companies their annual advertising budget or more.

Despite the fact that offensive behaviour in public or online can cause a wave of shame against those presuming to do wrong, it can also result in the victims being targeting. In the case of the FHRITP, it's evident that some people feel that Simoe losing his job has turned him into a victim. Others decry the feminisation of public space or the disappearance of free speech. Still more, people claim that the humour is not understood, that it's just a prank, or that we are taking things too seriously. Whatever the case, there are plenty of apologists.

Regardless, Simoe can probably now understand what it's like to be harrassed and victimised (not to insinuate that this is just) and hopefully he will have learned a valuable lesson. Surely this episode had to have been embarrassing for him, not to mention devastating for his career. I really hope, however, that instead of letting him take the fall, that we use this as an opportunity to reflect on what values actually lead people to saying FHRITP. The manifestations of sexism evolve and we will be finding ourselves “outraged” about another misogynist phenomenon in no time. Let's connect the dots instead of gathering to watch someone crash and burn.

Contextualising the NDP Victory in Alberta

Yesterday I awoke to a flurry of activity on the radio and social media - the Alberta NDP pulled off a spectacular and historic win. Not only did they win a majority government, but they unseated the Progressive Conservatives who have been ruling the province for 43 years. The NDP managed what would have only been unthinkable sixty days ago and the prospects for Alberta and for Canada have changed dramatically.

While it is important to note that the result has been characterised as less a PC loss than an NDP win, I think too much has been made of this argument. Yes, the election was largely a referendum on Jim Prentice, but have we already forgotten that in the previous Alberta election in 2012 that it was the Wild Rose Party that many projected would form a majority government? The truth is that the PCs have been managing to hold it together despite the fact that there was a growing popular sentiment that it was time for a change - though admittedly unsure of where that would go. The 2012 election illustrates that there was a desire to change, but that Albertans would not abandon the PCs without reason (there was too much risk, evidently). The line that the PCs lost this election is important to take into consideration, but it neglects the fact the the NDP and Rachel Notley made an impact on voters and spoke to their desires instead of their fears.

Despite the fact that the crowd at party headquarters reacted negatively when Notley announced that she was looking forward to working with Harper, I have few worries that Edmonton and Ottawa will fail to work in concert. Moreover, I think this plays into the hands of conservatives who attempt to make out the NDP as the antidote to a healthy economy. The NDP will not destroy Alberta's economy (not that the economy was not in serious trouble under PC management). There will be some concrete changes if the NDP follows through with leading platform thrusts like increasing the minimum wage and introducing new income tax brackets. While business leaders will claim that these changes will hurt Alberta industry, it's only a mechanism to ensure that people can benefit more evenly from the province's prosperity.

Given that this is a federal election year, the NDP win will no doubt influence the outcome in October. There impact has already been felt in Ottawa with the federal NDP claiming that the election has shown that Alberta voters can elect a leftist party. Moreover, Justice Minister Peter Mackay commented that caucus was like a “morgue” on Wednesday morning (also commenting that the province was now becoming Albertistan). With Orange Crush cans turning up across the country, there is no doubt that the NDP win is being felt.

However, there is the matter of the NDP tabling a budget in Alberta, something that must happen before summer. This means that Notley will have to demonstrate her capacity to actually run the province, not merely win the election. This includes selecting first priorities, working out the economics of the budget, and nominating a cabinet from a group of novices. This will be a true test: the party managing the day-to-day affairs of Canada's most successful economy in terms of GDP per capita.

Ultimately, I'm not holding my breath. There is a long stretch between now and October. While there aren't many certainties, it would be a safe bet to say that Canadians will be eagerly watching Alberta for the next few months.

Here We Go Again

In November I wrote about the violence that rocked Ferguson. I am dismayed to see that we are, a mere six months later, staring into the same gaping inferno. Of course it is not surprising that we are failing as a society to have a rational discussion about institutional racism in the United States. It's impossible, especially when we have the mainstream media focusing on looting and everyone else throwing one-liner opinions out on Twitter. Something has to change.

I am currently teaching an English course and we are reading the obligatory novel, To Kill A Mockingbird. I remember reading this novel when I was in high school and I wanted to prepare my students for seeing why a novel like this is truly relevant, so we discussed Michael Brown. Little did I know that, in the span of a month, there would be three black murders at the hands of police.

Baltimore is the latest example and by far the most distressing. After the death of Freddie Gray in police custody, the city demanded answers and justice. When they were rebuffed, the residents jumped into action and tens of thousands hit the streets. Despite the fact that the vast majority of those demonstrating were doing so peacefully, the media coverage has been focused on people throwing rocks, burning police cars, and looting stores. All this coverage serves to promote the idea that the protestors are all self-serving ingrates who are out to let their id go wild. In other words, the protest is unmerited.

But who are the privileged to say that the protest is invalid. Especially when the judgments are made based on the actions of the very small opportunist minority. Wealthy white Americans may have their sensibilities offended to see store fronts demolished, but let's not lose sight of why this happened.

The murder of young black men by police is pandemic in the United States. When this demographic is targeted at such obscene rates, and when there is little done by the justice system to correct it, Ferguson and Baltimore are the predictable results.

I don't want to see inequality continue to take more victims in America. From Ferguson to Baltimore, America has a race problem. Moreover, it has a problem talking about its race problem.

We don't need more Detroits - more cities hollowed out by the disappearance of opportuinties. Baltimore is speaking the language of the unheard:

"When you cut facilities, slash jobs, abuse power, discriminate, drive people into deeper poverty, and shoot people dead whilst refusing to provide answers or justice, the people will rise up and express their anger and frustration. A riot is the language of the unheard"

We need to develop the capacity to have a meaningful discussion about what's going on in America. Because until then, there will only be more violence, destruction, and disharmony.

Exodus

From the shores of Lybia venture countless migrant vessels, each overflowing with hopefuls seeking a new start in the Old Continent. In the years since the Arab Spring movement transformed a dozen countries, many have opted to leave the Middle East and North Africa for a better life in Europe. This new demographic phenomenon is gaining exposure around the world, largely through media coverage of the Syrian Civil War and the recent sinking of several migrant ships in the Mediterranean.

For decades the Middle East has been viewed as a conflict zone, worries of interstate violence against Israel topping the list of concerns. For a decade terrorism became the new buzzword, and since 2011 the game has changed dramatically again. This time it's the advent of new conflicts that are far removed from international borders, a hybrid of terrorism, war, and genocide that is quickly becoming an unfathomable humanitarian crisis. Take for example ISIS, whose incredible growth in the past year has taken the world by surprise. The fear that has been struck into the hearts of westerners has been impressive, but the real victims of ISIS are the inhabitants of the region.

It should, therefore, come as no surprise that the rates of outward migration from the Middle East or North Africa are mammoth. For many who have wanted to leave their homeland, there has never been a better time. From their perspectives, Europe is a land of promise, akin to the appeal of America during the late nineteenth century - a beacon of hope. People are willing to drop everything and risk their lives to restart in Europe. And so hundreds of thousands arrange passage across the Mediterranean.

Much like the beacon of hope that America has been viewed as (think of Ellis Island), Europe offers liberty and promise to those fleeing poverty and persecution. However, the Europe they find is, in various measures, largely xenophobic, particularly toward Muslims.

Take the seaside town of Catania, in the south of Italy. The town has been flooded by those rescued from sinking migrant vessels. Some villagers are frightened that they will have to take care of these huddled masses, responsible to clothe them, protect them, feed them, and police them. It's not surprising that the question of Italy absorbing these migrants has been met with widely polarised reaction.

Italy has been forced to take in the vast majority of migrants. Moreover, it has also been responsbile for surveying the deadly waters. The programme, which Italy cannot afford to run, has not gotten financial support from the EU despite significant pressure from both the Italian government and wider public opinion. It was cut significantly last year when, during an eight month period, approximately 3100 people died attempting to cross the sea.

As far as humanitarian crises go, this exodus from North Africa and the Middle East is among the largest in the past century. It's impacts will be far-reaching. It is not the time to be idle. If the European Union does improve search and rescue operations in the coming weeks we can expect the death toll to be appalling. Let's consider that today marks the centeniary of the start of the Armenian Genocide. Let's learn from our long history of inaction.

The Federal Budget

The much-anticipated 2015 Federal Budget was released yesterday. For seven years we've waited for a balanced budget, and, at least in name, that's what we got. Finance Minister Joe Oliver announced yesterday that we should expect a surplus of about $1.4 billion next fiscal year. This certainly puts the Conservatives in a good place for the upcoming election, but what is the real economic impact for Canada?

Oliver's budget brought in a slew of new, rather tangible, measures. These include changes to the tax rate for small business, renovation tax credits, and doubling the annual contribution caps for TFSAs. The catch with all this is that none of proposed changes are supposed to come into effect for some time (most after 2017). The implication is, evidently, that if you want these measures you'd best vote for Harper in October.

These changes are expensive. In the case of the TFSA there is significant data that this will cost billions to manage. When combined with poor oil revenues, the picture of the Canadian economy is rocky at best. In fact, some economists have indicated that this budget almost looks like a recession budget.

But what about this surplus? Ever since Oliver announced that he would be delaying the release of this year's budget, there has been talk about whether or not it would reverse the trend of the last seven years. The messaging of the government recently has been consistently hinting toward a surplus, but the announcement fell a bit flat with only $1.4 billion offered up. To some, the fact that it is a surplus will be enough, but with all the expectation built up over the past two months, to some this will be disappointing.

The sum is rather pitiful when you consider that much of this revenue comes from asset selling (such as shares in GM) or by cuts to the public sector. Tom Mulcair is right to consider the budget to be an economic sleight of hand. Projections for the next years will likely not come to pass since there is an election in way. Moreover, these numbers are very much contingent on the performance of the tar sands in a market with low oil prices. There has also been criticism that the federal government intends to use the contingency fund which the opposition argues is meant for emergencies, not routine shortfalls.

In an election year, we can't overestimate to what decree this announcement is all about politics over policy. Oliver has dangled some shiny things in front of voters and we are ramping up to a big decision.The budget should have Canadians concerned, asking tougher questions about what our economic situation is. In some way, the announcement should also provide clarity on which demographic groups the Conservatives are targeting for the fall.

Let's Talk About Mental Health

When the Germanwings flight 9525 smashed into the French Alps on Tuesday, the routine investigative journalism followed suit with suggestions of poor weather and terrorism. The revelations yesterday that the plane was deliberately crashed by the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, resulted in a deluge of articles about depression, many of which were problematic.

On the way to work this morning I heard an aviation safety expert talking about the fact that there are very few checks on the mental health of flight staff. This is generally attributed to the difficulty in assessing mental health, though other factors like cost and effectiveness are certainly important. The state of Lubitz at the time, as well as his history with depression, have become the centre of attention.

While it is a sensational story (and a tragedy), mental health carries many stigmas today. Both on social media and in articles from reputable journalists there has been an emphasis on shaming Lubitz for his depression. Before I go any further, I will say that handling depression by flying an airpline full of passengers into the side of a mountain is not an appropriate option. What I want to talk about here is not the violent final act, but the context in which it took place - in shame and secrecy.

To me it is unfortunate that we support Bell's Let's Talk campaign about mental health but then fall into the trappings of shaming people with mental health problems. Depression is real. Just because it cannot be easily observed, diagnosed, treated, or quantified doesn't mean it is not to be taken seriously (or outright rejected).

Attitudes that depression is a sign of weakness promote the further desire to keep it secret. If people can't get help, or will lose their jobs because of it, then the culture of secrecy continues. In the case of Lubitz, a voluntary disclosure system which would allow him leave from work would have prevented him from flying the plane without him losing his career. These are the types of changes that we need to contemplate, and we have to move beyond characterising Lubitz by his depression.

The reality is that depression is the most common form of mental illness. In some form or another, virtually everyone is affected by depression. Accurate statistics are hard to come by, but we all experience significant changes in mood and character. According to the CMHA, 8 per cent of Canadians experience serious depression and suicide is one of the leading causes of death for people from adolescence to middle age.

Plenty of people with depression live very productive lives. They can be our greatest artists, our leaders of commerce, and our loved ones. It comes down to getting support in the time of need - help without reprisal. So let's get real about mental health and stop stigmatising people who already feel like they don't have many options.