Opinion
Imprint, Friday, March 12, 2010
9
Feminism and the National Anthem studies
I
believe that most people are a little bit feminist. I say “people” because feminism is not rooted in biology and whether or not your sex organs dangle does not dictate your beliefs or actions. I had a rather interesting discussion with a man last week and after exchanging pleasantries he asked me how I feel about feminism. To that, I had to ask what he meant by feminism because anyone who knows anything about feminist theory knows that the phrase is thrown around and often homogenizes all feminist beliefs with the stereotypical femi-Nazi image. I am all for female involvement in military, pornography, decriminalized prostitution, etc. I am against any argument that suggests that these things destroy the fabric of civil society and the family, that it degrades and dehumanizes the female gender. Of course, this argument is predicated on consent, not coercion. Gender refers not to the biological but to the socially constructed, and if something is socially constructed, it is vulnerable to being deconstructed and transformed. Have you ever been told that you have to learn to “pick your battles?” Or “some things are better left alone?” That is how
I currently feel about the Conservative Party of Canada and the feminist Tina Prietz of Huntsville, Ontario. They wanted to change “In all thy sons’ command” in Canada’s national anthem to “Thou dost in us command” because it is more gender-neutral. The Prime Minister’s Office said in a press release that the latter version was the original version of the national anthem until the 1960s when the change occurred. I took the liberty of trying to find this original version and came to the Canadian Heritage section of the Government of Canada website. “O Canada” became Canada’s official national anthem in 1980 and was based on a poem written by Stanley Weir in 1908 to celebrate the 300th anniversary of Quebec City. It was subsequently amended in 1913, 14 and 16 up until the adaptation of the “in all thy sons command” version for the official national anthem in 1980. Tina Prietz sent an email to Tony Clement saying that for 50 years she has felt excluded by the five words in question. To this I roll my eyes. For starters, according to the full history of the Canadian national anthem, the amended version was adopted in 1980 and is therefore only 30 years old. Also, Prietz is 60 years of age which makes her born in 1950 and therefore 30 at the time that the current version of the national anthem was adopted.
“
More importantly, does Ms. Prietz think that this change will significantly affect the status of women in this country?
My question: where was this letter 30 years ago? If something this trivial bothers you enough, it is not rational to let it fester for three decades. And of course this email was eaten up by the Conservative Party because it’s no secret that they haven’t been in the good graces of female voters. This is a non-issue; a fad that has been taken up by the government to win the votes of members of the ignorant and nit-picking portion of the female electorate. Ultimately it comes down to a slippery slope, or a Pandora’s Box. Stating Canada’s multiculturalism and ethnic diversity should come as no surprise. At least once per year I get an email where someone has spouted off about being outraged when it was suggested that the Canadian national anthem be sung in a language other than English or French. If we start kowtowing to whiny, middle class, white, minority groups, then we’ve opened the box, started to slide, whatever analogy you would like to use.
While we’re at it, why not make all store signs, clothing labels, newspapers, food ingredients/menus and the singing of our national anthem take into account all levels of social, ethnic and language diversity? Women should be spelled ‘womyn,’ American money should be printed without ‘In God we trust,’ and I should be in the kitchen. I think not. More importantly, does Ms. Prietz think that this change will significantly affect the status of women in this country? We have made long strides in our fight for equal power sharing. However, I am of the opinion that when women like this one start picking ultimately frivolous battles, it throws a shadow over the progress we have made. There are bigger things happening that we should be worrying about. Ask CIDA whether they care about those countries that rank among the lowest on the Human Development Index. Some things are better left alone.
A Tale of Resurrection: China’s Awakening political science grad student
R
oaring with vibrant ambition, the Ancient Eastern Empire contemplated how to tame nearly double digit economic growth. On the other side of the ocean, a frail Godfather glimpsed with envy, for its double-digit problem was one of unemployment. In the East, Shanghai wondered how to confront excess savings and manage the rise of the Yuan. In the West, Washington ignored long-term debt problems, thanks in part to a paralyzed turtle named Congress. But I had sympathy for America— its wounds ran deep. There was nothing trivial about the credibility of the Western economic system being shredded up. One could only imagine the sense of anxiety that invaded the hearts of relevant officials, such as Ben Bernanke, who at one point claimed that, “If they had not done that [actions enacted by the federal reserve and treasury to counteract the fallout from the 2008 financial meltdown]...within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it.” Technocrats were now attempting to cure the symptoms of a system that had almost fallen into deep depression. Foreign migraines continued to lurk in the background. “Strategic Management” thereof included engaging in an unwinnable war in Afghanistan, extending insufficient attention to the Israeli-Palestine conflict, all while radical legislators and interest groups advocated the seductive prospect of a war with Iran.
This juncture in history was surreal: indeed, the final chapter of Western domination in human affairs was being written. Some American planners realized this, and in 2009, the Godfather offered China an informal “G2” partnership, in which both countries would come together to shape significant aspects of the world. The offer was greeted by Chinese leaders downplaying the significance of their powerful nation. Apparently, the Godfather had made an offer that could, and indeed was, refused. A fascinating drama was unfolding. Theatre that forced me to question what the Chinese thought about us. Western spectators, students, and even the uninterested were well aware of the criticisms of the Chinese government. But what did they think about us? What did President Hu Jintao think of a political system that welcomed a vice presidential candidate who couldn’t answer the question of “what do you read?” Did the Chinese elite smirk when they reminisced about our intellectuals lecturing them about the impossibility of economic prosperity without political liberalism? What lessons were drawn concerning the freedom of speech when they observed an ex-baseball-player senator, Jim Bunning, yell at a federal reserve chairman (Ben Bernanke), while invoking the distinguished scholar’s name in the same breath as Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin? Did it all reflect a circus to them? These questions mattered. Some skeptics warned not to fall into the trap of fashionable “China” headlines. Yet I was well aware of their counter-arguments. I understood that America’s military might was uncontested. I understood that the American
economy was almost twice the size of China’s, in terms of purchasing power parity. I understood that America was China’s biggest customer. I understood that roughly 70 per cent of China’s 2.3 trillion in reserves was in US dollars. I understood that fortune would favour the American currency – the most powerful form of faith at that moment in time – for at least the foreseeable future. But the Chinese military was building up remarkably quickly. Who could deny that blowing up space satellites in 2008, the increasing strength along the Taiwan Strait, and cyberwarefare capabilities didn’t raise eyebrows? Alongside, of course, the many forecasts predicting China’s economy to surpass that of America’s in the not-so-distant future. Would the Godfather’s Seat be occupied by the Chinese statesman one day?
“
Would domestic realities compel the East to adopt what was increasingly being viewed as an antiquated Western model? Would an unforeseen event change the course of everything this author’s writing implicated? I didn’t know, because uncertainty still remained the only certainty in human affairs. But one could be confident that Lord Keynes wasn’t the only force resurrected after the financial crisis, and what they thought about our ways of life increasingly mattered, as their power was only growing. One shrewd statesman captured the moment rather eloquently: “Looking back at the first decade of the 21st century, I am convinced that the enormous and profound changes the world has experienced will leave indelible imprints in the long annals of human history.”
Would the Godfather’s Seat be occupied by the Chinese statesman one day? Would domestic realities compel the East to adopt what was increasingly being viewed as an antiquated Western model? Would an unforeseen event change the course of everything this author’s writing implicated? I didn’t know, because uncertainty still remained the only certainty in human affairs.
“
Aly Kamadia
Community Editorials
and conflict
“
Ashley Stock 4A political science/peace