Assignments:
Exam Preparation - due: July 23
You will be required to work with a partner to design two possible
exam questions and to supply answers to your questions. Both
partners will receive the same grade, so care should be taken to
divide the work evenly.
by popular request -- a couple of you needed to sign off the listserv early. here are some of the mesages you've missed -- the list is chronological, beginning July 14th:
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 00:37:14 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Nasser Alhawash
Subject: Re: WORLD CUP NUMBERS
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I was going to use your mathematical formula to make a bet that England will
win the world cup, but unforutunately England has been eliminated, they lost
today to Argentina.
I guess this formula doesn't work!
At 06:26 PM 6/29/98 -0400, you wrote:
>But with one difference. By then it would be the "Globalized Cup!"
>
>On Sat, 27 Jun 1998, Laytee Lim wrote:
>
>> A bit of world cup fun :
>> >
>> >Brazil last won the world cup in 1994.
>> >Before that they won it in 1970.
>> >Add 1970 and 1994, it equals 3964.
>> >
>> >Argentina last won the world cup in 1986.
>> >Before that they won it in 1978.
>> >Add 1978 adn 1986, it equals 3964.
>> >
>> >Germany last won in 1990.
>> >Before that they won in 1974.
>> >Add 1990 and 1974, it equals 3964.
>> >
>> >Here's the scary part:
>> >
>> >England last won the cup in 1966.
>> >Add it to 1998...
>> >
>> >IT EQUALS 3964!!!!!!!
>> >
>> >And then the message says:
>> >
>> >The Netherlands have never won the world cup so they'll probably win
>> it in
>> >the
>> >year 3964.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________
>> DO YOU YAHOO!?
>> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>>
>
>
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 09:18:10 -0700
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Dacia Lanning
Subject: World Cup, etc.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I would like to add to add to the ongoing discussion on the WORLD CUP.
My most distinct feelings on this subject stem from my childhood
experiences with the Italian Experience - I grew up in the St. Clair
West area of Toronto - large Italian presence and World Cup time was
one of the few times as a non-Italian I was made to feel not only
unwelcome but unwanted because of my own Nationality. I have from my
earliest memories been called a "CAKER" or "MungiCake" - derogatory
names for English speaking Canadians. Insults like these and others
increased around World Cup time.
I have a number of concerns surrounding the excessive national pride
displayed during World Cup time:
- Not everyone who lives in the St.Clair West area is Italian hence
the celebration is not shared
- The NOISE is overwhelmingly distracting,not to mention an invasion
of privacy, sleep had to wait till the celebration was over, when I
was a child with parents who were full-time parents,students and
teachers, interruption of daily routines, work and family
responsibilities because the neighborhood was in a state of anarchy -
all unwelcome aspects of World Cup Celebration
- National Pride - when exhibited by soccer fans is exclusionary by
it's very nature, those who were not Italian celebrants, were
chastised, ridiculed and in extreme circumstances attacked physically.
These excessive representations on the part of ex-patriates are far
more divisive than endearing they verge into racist territory without
forethought
- Canadian Identity - When Elvis Stojko wins, the celebrations
INCLUDE everyone who lives in this country and although I believe the
same respect for privacy and personal freedoms should apply to
so-called Canadian celebrations, invitations I hope will continue to
cross cultural and racial boundaries
- Preferential Treatment - The 1990's has brought about increased
restrictions on the personal freedoms of Caribana participants -
barriers , regulations, police presence to name just a few. Partying
by and for Italians on St.Clair has NEVER been subject to these
conditions, It is a free-for-all. Doesn't anyone see the
double-standard? My personal experiences at Caribana have been good,
non-racially motivated. I can not say the same thing for my
experiences around World Cup/National Pride Celebrations.
These accounts and opinions are personal reflections and I hope they
provide a look at the other side of the coin.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 09:47:32 -0700
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Dacia Lanning
Subject: Marriage as a last resort
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Divorce should be the last resort. There are several
avenues that two
people could turn to for help eg. Marriage counsellors,
family, the
church, or their lawyer (When they find out how much it
will cost to
get a divorce they'll think twice).
This was written by Harry on June 12.
Upon re-reading it I thought about Eva, marriage was an aspiration for
her. On more than one occasion she reflects on the nature of her
decision to marry and the motivating factors are consistently distinct
from any feelings she may or may not have had for her marriage
partner, Burt.
Harry mentioned the Church, Lawyers, Counseling, and cost as very good
things to consider before embarking on a divorce. I think these are
all good avenues of consultation necessary before embarking on a
marriage. I think an examination of why women and to a different
degree, men, aspire towards marriage. In our text, Eva was only able
to pursue a relationship on her own terms, only able to be a fair
participant to both members of the relationship, when she had come to
terms with her own "self" - At the very least pursuits like Eva's
would result in less abandonment of children and marriage partners if,
they were considered before marriage. The book, seems to propel
thought in this direction among others.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 23:08:39 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Paul Gill
Subject: Woman & "economic considerations"
June 28, 1998
While writing my exam I used Fredrick Engles as one of the
authors in the essay we had to writeand I remember writing about an idea I
got from the passage "thesupremacy of man in marriage is simply the
consequence of his economic superiority and will fall with the abolition of
the latter." (pg.287)
After class I wondered about this notion a little bit and couldn't help
but to ask myself if historically women were the ones with the wealth and
power and if men had the subordinate position in society, would women have
oppressed men similar to how men opressed women? Would women have had also
abused their position in society to get special privelages as the men did?
What if the woman had complete control and the men had to stay home, would
men then have been oppressed sexually while the women would be free to do as
the pleased? Would women have been as unfaithful as men had they been in
opposite positions? Most women would probably say no to these questions,
but even though I would agree with them, I would also say that you can never
really know the answer until you've been put in a similar position. Perhaps
women wouldn' t take advantage of their superior position in a sexual
context as the men did, but if given a postion of power in society, they
might use it to receive other benefits and privelages, or they might even
use it to benefit the community or to help others.
Now, going back to the quotation above, now that women are becoming more
and more independent and that the "economic considerations" that Engles
talked about are falling (or have fallen), I believe that the power is
slowly shifting into woman's hands since they can now take care of their
children and themselves without a man in their lives. Engles theory of
woman becoming equal when econmic factors change is slowly coming true.
Thus, men must now take the woman in their lives into greater consideration
when making decisions because women have the ability to be independent now
and are able and free to leave an unhappy, abusive, oppressive, or
controlling situation and still take care of their children and themselves
without depending on a man. Laws also exist to help such women. Could
these economic and social changes in regards to woman be the dominant cause
for the increasing divorce rates in North America? Perhaps some men still
feel as though they should be in control and as woman are now a large part
of the work force and are able the fend for themselves, they are realizing
that they can move on and make decisions for their own best intersets,
whereas before, they had no alternative to stay in an unhappy marriage
because of the "superiority of men due to economic considerations".
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Cinda Gault
Subject: Re: Woman & "economic considerations"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Interesting points, Paul. I suspect that power is corrupting, no matter
who has it. I suspect, too, that many women want men, and would like a
greater level of involvement from them in childrearing.
Single-parenthood is difficult, even with daycare help; and women's
wages don't tend to cover expenses without a second income. But I do
think that you are right when you observe that women are demanding more
of their own needs to be met in relationships. Might this not be a good
thing for men, too? Until now, men have tended to lose their children
when they lost their wives. There seems much room here for men to feel
more included in the domestic sphere they have traditionally been
excluded (or excluded themselves) from.
Cinda
Paul Gill wrote:
> June 28, 1998
> While writing my exam I used Fredrick Engles as one of the
> authors in the essay we had to writeand I remember writing about an
> idea I
> got from the passage "thesupremacy of man in marriage is simply the
> consequence of his economic superiority and will fall with the
> abolition of
> the latter." (pg.287)
> After class I wondered about this notion a little bit and couldn't
> help
> but to ask myself if historically women were the ones with the wealth
> and
> power and if men had the subordinate position in society, would women
> have
> oppressed men similar to how men opressed women? Would women have had
> also
> abused their position in society to get special privelages as the men
> did?
> What if the woman had complete control and the men had to stay home,
> would
> men then have been oppressed sexually while the women would be free to
> do as
> the pleased? Would women have been as unfaithful as men had they been
> in
> opposite positions? Most women would probably say no to these
> questions,
> but even though I would agree with them, I would also say that you can
> never
> really know the answer until you've been put in a similar position.
> Perhaps
> women wouldn' t take advantage of their superior position in a sexual
> context as the men did, but if given a postion of power in society,
> they
> might use it to receive other benefits and privelages, or they might
> even
> use it to benefit the community or to help others.
> Now, going back to the quotation above, now that women are
> becoming more
> and more independent and that the "economic considerations" that
> Engles
> talked about are falling (or have fallen), I believe that the power is
>
> slowly shifting into woman's hands since they can now take care of
> their
> children and themselves without a man in their lives. Engles theory
> of
> woman becoming equal when econmic factors change is slowly coming
> true.
> Thus, men must now take the woman in their lives into greater
> consideration
> when making decisions because women have the ability to be independent
> now
> and are able and free to leave an unhappy, abusive, oppressive, or
> controlling situation and still take care of their children and
> themselves
> without depending on a man. Laws also exist to help such women.
> Could
> these economic and social changes in regards to woman be the dominant
> cause
> for the increasing divorce rates in North America? Perhaps some men
> still
> feel as though they should be in control and as woman are now a large
> part
> of the work force and are able the fend for themselves, they are
> realizing
> that they can move on and make decisions for their own best intersets,
>
> whereas before, they had no alternative to stay in an unhappy marriage
>
> because of the "superiority of men due to economic considerations".
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 12:44:20 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Nicola Simone
Subject: World Cup re:politically incorrect
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In the Globe and Mail on June 25, 1998 there a few examples of politically
incorrect coverage by BBC World Cup broadcasters:
1) one of the difficults calling a match was telling one black player from
another
2) When a black player scored, a commentator said "the boy made a fine
delivery"
3) An announcer said the all-black Jamacican team played soccer with " a
naivete"
4) A colour commentator said that if stuck for the name of a Korean
player, just go with "Kim" and you'll probably be right
What worries me is that none of the commentors lost their jobs they were
simply admonished. I was shocked to read these stereotypes went out over
the airwaves and to think they will be heard by 37 billion viewers! I
feel they should all have lost their jobs!
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 12:57:15 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Nicola Simone
Subject: dacia/world cup
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Dacia said that there is a double standard but this is simply not true.
During World Cup celebrations on St. Clair there has always been a strong
police presences and barracades are always erected. Dacia mentions that
she felt unwelcome and unwanted because of her nationality. I mentioned
early that a minority of soccer fans including Italians are fanatical but
most are friendly and there to have a good time. When Italy lost to
Brazil in the finals the Italians and Brazilians as well as many of
other nationalities such as the Portugese all partied together and had a
great time. The majority of soccer fans love the game and its a shame
that a few fanatics who don't care about the game but nationalistic
pride may have soured Dacia on a world class sporting event.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:32:35 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Nicola Simone
Subject: Feminism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
The Saturday Star( June 27 ) had an article entitled " Feminism teaches
girls how to think. Not what." The articles describes a reluctant
feminist how is young, intelligent, independent but shun the f-word more
than gender stereotypes. The article goes on to say that the culture
upheaval caused by the women's movement is one of the most transformative
forces of this century. The article credits feminism for changing the way
we think and speak, reconfiguring laws and economics as well as making sex
a topic which we talk about more frankly and openly. Feminism has had a
huge impact on popular culture. The article says its the reason Oprah and
Ally McBeal are on T.V., and without feminism we would have no Madonna,
Atwood, Zena, etc. The article asks a very important question which is
Why do the beeneficiaries of feminisms legacy cringe at the word? The
answer provided intergenerational reaction. Feminism has become
mainstream and something for the young people who shun parental values to
establish their own to rebel against. The article goes on to say that the
popular-press feminist thinking isn't helping. The Spice Girls are seen
as the anti-feminist from hell because they romp in platforms and
miniskirts. The article argues that they are not telling anyone to wear
makeup and miniskirts but to be yourself. Michele Landsberg asks "How
can we assume that young people growing up today won't accept the graphic
degradation and humiliation of women as a true representation of human
sexuality?" The article ends by saying we can assume at least some won't
because they're smart, because they've lived with the legacy of a feminist
consciousness, and because we've taught them, especially women, to make up
their own minds. Reading this article one gets the impression that
feminism has had a large role in shaping culture since about the 60's and
if its not the most important movement in our century its right up their
as one of the most important. Feminism seems to get a bad rap by the
media but if its really about getting people both men and women to think
for themselves then alot of people could use feminism in their lives
today. Alot of people today still don't think for themselves but are
conditioned by their parents, society, religion, media, etc. about what
to believe and how to live their lives instead of working it out for
themselves.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 17:53:41 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Claudius Alexander
Subject: Re: "Feminism"
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Hi Caitlin, My intent here was not to hold "feminists" responsible for the
decline in children's welfare; that would be an unqualified doing. But we
cannot deny that a movement such the feminist one will leave its
footprints along its path. In this regard I will suggest that the
surge of feminism (of any kind) in the 1960's, and the aggressive inroads
made by them since, not only levelled the field in many of the previously
"male dominated" areas, but also forced many men to rethink their
positions and roles within the society. What this boils down to, I think,
is that the biggest single "gain" of the feminist collective over the past
thirty five years is "freedom"; not freedom from housework, or
childrearing, but freedom from "male oppression". As I understand it,
the divorce rate in Canada sky-rocketed after 1968, which is about the
time that our laws loosened enough to allow either party freer access to
divorce. Of course I would need more info to substantiate this, but there
is very little reason for me to disbelieve that this new-found freedom for
women, combined with the easier access for both men and women as afforded
by the weaker divorce laws have made many a man and woman that much more
selfish when it comes to battling through relationships. It is this
reluctance to do "battle" which I believe is responsible for the "plight
of children." Both of us (man/woman) are at fault. The feminist movement
merely expedited this shift.
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, Caitlin Fisher wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, Claudius Alexander wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > potential ramifications. One of the areas where I suspect such
> >
> > forethought was and still is needed (big subject) is in the
> >
> > plight of children. I will argue there to be a distinct relationship
> >
> > between feminism and the decline in their welfare.
> >
>
> Welcome, Claudius. Another provocative comment. What is your argument
> and what relationship do you see?
>
> my take on feminism + children? I think all children eventually benefit
> from a world where the talents of both girls and boys are nurtured and not
> overdetermined by options that limit their choices according to gender.
>
> In the short term does feminism harm children? Well, women still take on
> the largest bulk of childcare and nurturing... no one knows better than a
> woman abandoned with children w/out opportunities to be paid a living wage
> how children, as well as women, can be thrown into poverty if a system is
> based on man's *benevolence*. Most women who were divorced or abandoned
> pre-feminism were left to raise their children in poverty. For many women
> this situation has not changed all that much. Statistically, fathers, not
> feminists, abandon children in great numbers -- although this is complex
> and we should argue the reasons.
>
> many feminists have made their concern for children and the kind of future
> we're collectively building for little people the basis of their politics.
> Others have argued that bearing and raising children could well give rise
> to an entirely different, nurturing ethic' for the world. Many women's
> communities are very child-centered.
>
> True, some feminist have rejected childbearing as oppressive to women
> *under current circumstances* -- which all too often are anti-child as
> well as anti-woman and anti-mother.
> Others who identify as feminists have been accused of "failing to defend
> women as mothers as it attempted to liberate them from compulsory
> childbearing".
>
> Still, most feminists I know put an incredible amount of politically
> energy into protecting and nurturing children and re-evaluating things --
> like childrearing -- that have been devalued (and not mostly by
> feminists :). For example, feminists are at the forefront of questioning
> why workplaces seem to be set up to make people choose between families
> and livelihoods. Maybe it depends on your definition of feminism, as Gail
> points out.
>
> Caitlin
>
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 18:40:38 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Ronit Lorber
Subject: Canadian Identitiy?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Canada's birthday, my friends and I decided to go to watch the
fireworks at Ontario Place. On the ride downtown, I expected to see many
people in their cars, waving Canadian flags and celebrating our nation's
birthday. I was extremely shocked that very few people had flags of
Canada on their car or in their hands as they paraded down the streets.
What the majority of Torontonians were doing was celebrating the world cup
and were driving down the streets waving various flags (Brazilian,
Italian, Argentina etc.) I completely support people celebrating their
home teams victories, but I find it rather distasteful to not carry a
Canadian flag on July 1st and rather to hold the flag of another country.
I like many other Canadians was not born in Canada and as a result I feel
extremely lucky and greatful to be living in such a democratic country. I
am not suggesting that we should be as patriotic as the Americans, but I
do think acknowledging Canada's birthday is appropriate.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 23:05:39 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Charles Boamah
Subject: Re: Woman & "economic considerations"
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I find the above subject very interesting considering the number divorces
going on these days.
It is my personal view that most women these days seek to divorce their
husbands because of economic considerations. Most women ESPECIALLY those
from third world countries have seen a new source of economic gains in
divorce here in Canada. Many of these women comes from countries where
the question of divorce is a dreaded issue because of the dishonour it
entails as a divorcee with kids. But when it comes to being a divorcee in
Canada, Lo and Behold! she is rich. After all the man, even if he is on
welfare, is going to pay a child support. Then if the woman herself is not
working, she is going to get her monthly welfare cheque as a single
mother, then comes the monthly child tax credit from revenue canada, add
the quarterly G.S.T. credits and the drug benefits, and dental care
decorated with welfare cheques and you get a rich third world Canadian
mother. No doubt the least disagreement with the husband is blown out of
proportions and there comes the beautiful word DIVORCE which means
(FREEDOM AND RICH).
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 18:49:21 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Nicola Simone
Subject: response to gail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Arakis is based in Calgary. There are approximately 80 Canadian workers
at the Heglig oil field in Sudan. The oil camp is owned by Arakis along
with state owned oil companies in Sudan, China, and Malaysia. The
president of Arakis is Raymond Cej. The article makes no mention of the
customers of Arakis however it does state that they are planning to build
a 1500 km pipeline which leads me to believe the oil is being exported.
But to where I don't know.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 19:38:54 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Claudius Alexander
Subject: Re: "Feminism"
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Hi Cinda, I don't know how to do that "snip" thing yet. I would
have to accept the impropriety of attempting to saddle the feminist
movement with the decline in children's welfare. As I said before, I am
not here suggesting that the movement is directly responsible for that.
But we cannot ignore the fact that along with the definite advances made
by and for women through the movement during the last 30 or so years, has
come the phenomenon ofindividualism. (Let me know if I'm wrong here).
This individualism is practiced by both male and female and is not to say
that it is necessarily a bad or wrong thing. But having said that, would
you not agree that where once the individual happiness of the man and
woman in the relationship was secondary to the welfare of the children,
the rise of individualism has changed all of that? Or am I mistaken in
believing that the rise of the "individual" can be linked to the feminist
movement?
On Wed, 31 Dec 1969, Cinda Gault wrote:
> > I will argue there to be a distinct relationship
> > between feminism and the decline in their welfare.
>
> It is certainly a hard fact of life that when parents split up, the ones
> who inevitably become poor are the children. This is not an unusual
> situation--in the past famine, depression, war, distant work, etc. that
> have caused similar circumstances. (I think there's a statistic that
> about a third of all families are single-parent-headed-by-a-woman. The
> reasons for it just change.) In contemporary times economic shifts that
> require two incomes, together with changed expectations about intimate
> relationships, seem to have made people less willing to stay in unhappy
> circumstances. The effects of this phenomenon on children are something
> that we as a society have not figured out how to handle to anyone's
> satisfaction.
>
> I'm not sure how fair it is to saddle a movement with the responsibility
> for figuring out all the ramifications of their actions. Could you even
> do that in your own life? (All the mistakes we could have avoided!)
> That would mean that the French would have had to figure out the
> repercussions of their revolution, the Americans their declaration,
> etc. What tends to happen with movementy kinds of things is that people
> react against something they feel very strongly is wrong (slavery,
> etc.), then trust posterity to figure out how to work out the details.
> Women were unhappy with the way things were set up and, like Eva, found
> it more important to break out of what was making them unhappy than to
> maintain the status quo (and change is generally costly to someone).
> However, I'm not sure it would be to anyone's advantage to insist on a
> society where so many of its members are that unahappy.
> Cinda
>
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 23:26:59 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Glenn Hodgkinson
Subject: Kanehsatake
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
To: HUM1750@YORKU.CA,Internet
From: Maria Harvey
Re: Kanehsatake
One thing that strikes me about this movie is the complexity of Native
issues, and the lack of knowledge/understanding about what Native people
face by the rest of us “Canadians”.
The Mohawks put up a united front despite tensions between different
factions. Whereas Oka residents marched to denounce the Mohawks, others
in the country rallied to support them. The Mohawk “warriors” were
portrayed as real “human beings”, for example, the warrior playing with
his children. One Mohawk was quoted as saying, “our beliefs, our
customs,-- that’s what makes us strong.” They were portrayed as being
close to nature with pictures of deer, trees, etc., whereas the army was
shown as being close to technology, i.e. the helicopter hovering and the
emphasis on guns. (This is Canada?!) Clearly our notion of what a warrior
is, is being challenged. From other materials on the course, we have seen
warriors as being heroes. In this case, the Mohawk warriors could be
seen as heroes by some, for standing up for their rights and freedoms. I
do not think the Canadian army or police showed hero-like qualities.
Rather, they came across as bullies. That they were there on the orders
of the Canadian government is scary indeed. I could sympathize with the
Native peoples in their struggles for democracy and the rights to “their”
land. (I am sure that this is what the movie intended.)
In thge film, Ovide Mercredi says, “why is it that we live in a country
where police never come to the aid of aboriginal peoples...but are used to
supress aboriginal people?” In a country where peace, democracy and
freedom are synonymous with being Canadians, I found the presence of the
army/police far from being comforting. Ellen Gabriel says “we just want
recognition of who we are as a people, not just Mohawk, but the first
people of this country... We just want...peace.” Is this not what all
people who live in Canada want... peace? We see this struggle for
identity with other people in Canada, for example, the French.
On a footnote, one reason I found this movie interesting, is that the
very same battle is being fought around the corner from my house. There
is an ancient burial site located in John Tabor Park, a favourite spot for
tobogganning in the winter and a party-spot for teenagers in the summer.
Rights activists want the spot to be declared off limits to all but
aboriginal peoples. However, it is a park owned by the government. I hope
that in this case, the “battle” can be solved peacefully and without the
violence seen in Oka. There have already been some peaceful
demonstrations!
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Cinda Gault
Subject: Re: "Feminism"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Claudius Alexander wrote:
> Hi Cinda, I don't know how to do that "snip" thing yet. I would
> have to accept the impropriety of attempting to saddle the feminist
> movement with the decline in children's welfare. As I said before, I
> am
> not here suggesting that the movement is directly responsible for
> that.
> But we cannot ignore the fact that along with the definite advances
> made
> by and for women through the movement during the last 30 or so years,
> has
> come the phenomenon ofindividualism. (Let me know if I'm wrong here).
> This individualism is practiced by both male and female and is not to
> say
> that it is necessarily a bad or wrong thing. But having said that,
> would
> you not agree that where once the individual happiness of the man and
> woman in the relationship was secondary to the welfare of the
> children,
> the rise of individualism has changed all of that? Or am I mistaken
> in
> believing that the rise of the "individual" can be linked to the
> feminist
> movement?
Hmmmm. Interesting comment. I think of individualism as an American
thing--riding off into the sunset to clean up the town; pulling oneself
up by the bootstraps, winning against all odds no matter how big the
enemy, etc. And Canada has traditionally constructed itself as more
dedicated to helping each other out (knowing that we can't hope for
definitive wins with everyone agreeing). And recent economic pressures
seem to be challenging the idea that we need still to take care of each
other. So when we throw feminism into the pot, it's cut nationally for
me. I agree with you that children are suffering from social upheaval
associated with divorce. But social upheaval is not a new thing. We
don't tend to blame wars and depressions for separating people, but we
do when someone does it "on purpose." I wonder how much of this has to
do with presuming that women are vice-president-in-charge of domestic
harmony, and they should just shut up and be self-sacrificing whether
they're happy or not. Perhaps to a certain extent as parents we all
should; but who does how much seems still a contested area.
Cinda
>
>
> On Wed, 31 Dec 1969, Cinda Gault wrote:
>
> > > I will argue there to be a distinct relationship
> > > between feminism and the decline in their welfare.
> >
> > It is certainly a hard fact of life that when parents split up, the
> ones
> > who inevitably become poor are the children. This is not an unusual
>
> > situation--in the past famine, depression, war, distant work, etc.
> that
> > have caused similar circumstances. (I think there's a statistic
> that
> > about a third of all families are single-parent-headed-by-a-woman.
> The
> > reasons for it just change.) In contemporary times economic shifts
> that
> > require two incomes, together with changed expectations about
> intimate
> > relationships, seem to have made people less willing to stay in
> unhappy
> > circumstances. The effects of this phenomenon on children are
> something
> > that we as a society have not figured out how to handle to anyone's
> > satisfaction.
> >
> > I'm not sure how fair it is to saddle a movement with the
> responsibility
> > for figuring out all the ramifications of their actions. Could you
> even
> > do that in your own life? (All the mistakes we could have avoided!)
>
> > That would mean that the French would have had to figure out the
> > repercussions of their revolution, the Americans their declaration,
> > etc. What tends to happen with movementy kinds of things is that
> people
> > react against something they feel very strongly is wrong (slavery,
> > etc.), then trust posterity to figure out how to work out the
> details.
> > Women were unhappy with the way things were set up and, like Eva,
> found
> > it more important to break out of what was making them unhappy than
> to
> > maintain the status quo (and change is generally costly to someone).
>
> > However, I'm not sure it would be to anyone's advantage to insist on
> a
> > society where so many of its members are that unahappy.
> > Cinda
> >
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 17:59:16 -0700
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Estella Ho
Subject: Film: Kanehsatake
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
When seeing this film, it made me recall the memory of June 4 incident at
Tienmen Square in China. It seems that human right is always the one to
be sacrificed when it conflicts with political stability and economic
benefits. No matter where it happened (western/eastern countries). The
only difference is how did the government cover it up and make excuses.
Estella
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 22:16:10 +0000
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: "gailv@yorku.ca"
Subject: Re: "Feminism"
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
The discussion of the impact of divorce on children is a complicated
one - one that fascinates me as a (divorced) woman, a mother, a
daughter of happily married parents, a citizen of a comtemporary
world and an academic... to list just a few categories.
Claudius mentions the phenomenon of individualism - right in keeping
with concepts directly to our course. Western culture has been
preoccupied for centuries with the rights, needs, situation of the
'individual'. Most of the time in these debates, individual has
meant the white, middle-class male. So what happens when (some)
women make some advances and some of them leave their marriages... Is
it because of feminism? or has the women's movement cleared new
territory where individual endeavours have allowed some women to make
choices that might not have been available to them before? (I know,
I'm short-handing liberally here.) Do children take a back seat?
what goes into a woman's decision to 'leave'? Does she consider her
children? What are the alternatives? What impact will a split have
on the children? Will they be marked for life? Will they be able to
relate as partners, maybe parents themselves in years to come? What
alternatives does the woman have?
These were questions I considered 20 years ago. Today my kids tell
me they're okay with the results. They care about both parents but
realize that as a team 'we' didn't work. I see them as well-adjusted
(okay, as adjusted as possible in our sometimes crazy, complicated
world), responsible, fun adults - but I still read the studies that
track the situations of children of divorced parents and ask
myself questions. Still don't have answers...
As to linking feminism to individualism - it's an intriguing thought.
Feminism as an ideology suggests that women work together to achieve
better results for all. But remember Caitlin's caution about the
success of some of the 'work'. Maybe, it's more useful to think of
feminism as a process embracing thought and action still
unfolding...
gail
> Claudius Alexander wrote:
>
> > Hi Cinda, I don't know how to do that "snip" thing yet. I would
> > have to accept the impropriety of attempting to saddle the feminist
> > movement with the decline in children's welfare. As I said before, I
> > am
> > not here suggesting that the movement is directly responsible for
> > that.
> > But we cannot ignore the fact that along with the definite advances
> > made
> > by and for women through the movement during the last 30 or so years,
> > has
> > come the phenomenon ofindividualism. (Let me know if I'm wrong here).
> > This individualism is practiced by both male and female and is not to
> > say
> > that it is necessarily a bad or wrong thing. But having said that,
> > would
> > you not agree that where once the individual happiness of the man and
> > woman in the relationship was secondary to the welfare of the
> > children,
> > the rise of individualism has changed all of that? Or am I mistaken
> > in
> > believing that the rise of the "individual" can be linked to the
> > feminist
> > movement?
>
> Hmmmm. Interesting comment. I think of individualism as an American
> thing--riding off into the sunset to clean up the town; pulling oneself
> up by the bootstraps, winning against all odds no matter how big the
> enemy, etc. And Canada has traditionally constructed itself as more
> dedicated to helping each other out (knowing that we can't hope for
> definitive wins with everyone agreeing). And recent economic pressures
> seem to be challenging the idea that we need still to take care of each
> other. So when we throw feminism into the pot, it's cut nationally for
> me. I agree with you that children are suffering from social upheaval
> associated with divorce. But social upheaval is not a new thing. We
> don't tend to blame wars and depressions for separating people, but we
> do when someone does it "on purpose." I wonder how much of this has to
> do with presuming that women are vice-president-in-charge of domestic
> harmony, and they should just shut up and be self-sacrificing whether
> they're happy or not. Perhaps to a certain extent as parents we all
> should; but who does how much seems still a contested area.
>
> Cinda
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 31 Dec 1969, Cinda Gault wrote:
> >
> > > > I will argue there to be a distinct relationship
> > > > between feminism and the decline in their welfare.
> > >
> > > It is certainly a hard fact of life that when parents split up, the
> > ones
> > > who inevitably become poor are the children. This is not an unusual
> >
> > > situation--in the past famine, depression, war, distant work, etc.
> > that
> > > have caused similar circumstances. (I think there's a statistic
> > that
> > > about a third of all families are single-parent-headed-by-a-woman.
> > The
> > > reasons for it just change.) In contemporary times economic shifts
> > that
> > > require two incomes, together with changed expectations about
> > intimate
> > > relationships, seem to have made people less willing to stay in
> > unhappy
> > > circumstances. The effects of this phenomenon on children are
> > something
> > > that we as a society have not figured out how to handle to anyone's
> > > satisfaction.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure how fair it is to saddle a movement with the
> > responsibility
> > > for figuring out all the ramifications of their actions. Could you
> > even
> > > do that in your own life? (All the mistakes we could have avoided!)
> >
> > > That would mean that the French would have had to figure out the
> > > repercussions of their revolution, the Americans their declaration,
> > > etc. What tends to happen with movementy kinds of things is that
> > people
> > > react against something they feel very strongly is wrong (slavery,
> > > etc.), then trust posterity to figure out how to work out the
> > details.
> > > Women were unhappy with the way things were set up and, like Eva,
> > found
> > > it more important to break out of what was making them unhappy than
> > to
> > > maintain the status quo (and change is generally costly to someone).
> >
> > > However, I'm not sure it would be to anyone's advantage to insist on
> > a
> > > society where so many of its members are that unahappy.
> > > Cinda
> > >
>
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 22:24:42 +0000
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: "gailv@yorku.ca"
Subject: Re: Kanehsatake
In-Reply-To: <98Jul3.232554edt.32262@wally.scar.edu.on.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Maria, thoughtful ideas here. I like the way you turn over the idea
of hero, trying out the model on both groups - thinking about the
implications.
gail
> From: Maria Harvey
>
> Re: Kanehsatake
>
> One thing that strikes me about this movie is the complexity of Native
> issues, and the lack of knowledge/understanding about what Native people
> face by the rest of us "Canadians".
> The Mohawks put up a united front despite tensions between different
> factions. Whereas Oka residents marched to denounce the Mohawks, others
> in the country rallied to support them. The Mohawk "warriors" were
> portrayed as real "human beings", for example, the warrior playing with
> his children. One Mohawk was quoted as saying, "our beliefs, our
> customs,-- that's what makes us strong." They were portrayed as being
> close to nature with pictures of deer, trees, etc., whereas the army was
> shown as being close to technology, i.e. the helicopter hovering and the
> emphasis on guns. (This is Canada?!) Clearly our notion of what a warrior
> is, is being challenged. From other materials on the course, we have seen
> warriors as being heroes. In this case, the Mohawk warriors could be
> seen as heroes by some, for standing up for their rights and freedoms. I
> do not think the Canadian army or police showed hero-like qualities.
> Rather, they came across as bullies. That they were there on the orders
> of the Canadian government is scary indeed. I could sympathize with the
> Native peoples in their struggles for democracy and the rights to "their"
> land. (I am sure that this is what the movie intended.)
> In thge film, Ovide Mercredi says, "why is it that we live in a country
> where police never come to the aid of aboriginal peoples...but are used to
> supress aboriginal people?" In a country where peace, democracy and
> freedom are synonymous with being Canadians, I found the presence of the
> army/police far from being comforting. Ellen Gabriel says "we just want
> recognition of who we are as a people, not just Mohawk, but the first
> people of this country... We just want...peace." Is this not what all
> people who live in Canada want... peace? We see this struggle for
> identity with other people in Canada, for example, the French.
> On a footnote, one reason I found this movie interesting, is that the
> very same battle is being fought around the corner from my house. There
> is an ancient burial site located in John Tabor Park, a favourite spot for
> tobogganning in the winter and a party-spot for teenagers in the summer.
> Rights activists want the spot to be declared off limits to all but
> aboriginal peoples. However, it is a park owned by the government. I hope
> that in this case, the "battle" can be solved peacefully and without the
> violence seen in Oka. There have already been some peaceful
> demonstrations!
>
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 22:28:49 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: NILESH SURTI
Subject: Re: Canadian Identitiy?
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
To Ronit Lorber
You have raised an interesting topic that I have been discussion
throughout last year or so. The reason is because I want to know what
does it mean to be Canadian and how can one differeniant a Canadian from
an American. I am as extremely happy to be a Canadian and also I was born
in Canada. However I am also part Indian because my parents come from
India. Due to this I am half Indian and Canadain, but when someone tells
me what is my nationality, I always reply by saying that
I am Indian not Canadian. The reason why I say that is
because my skin colour, my
beliefs, and my cultural upbring is shaped by the Indian culture, so
therefore I will alway call
myself Indian first then Canadian. The reason why you saw various flag
flying around in Toronto is not surprising because Canada was developed
based on immigration and because of that, it makes canada one of the most
unique countries in the world. I believe canada was regarded as the best
country to live in for the past four years by the United Nation. Which is
something I am proud of but I don't go waving a canadian flag because of
that reason. Personally I really do not think anyone in this country is
regard as a ture Canadian. However I do realize that this is changing in
the past few years because more and more people are declaring themselve as
canadians which has been shown in the cesus Canada which is good to see.
Another reason why we get to see a lot different flags is because in
canada we are able to retain our culture and encouraged to show it.
Because of that reason it is selling feature for canada. In united states
you are brain washed to be an American first. I have few cousins in
United States and they consider thenselve Americans first then Indians and
the same philoshy for their parents. However this is not the case in
canada. My parents have lived in canada for 25 years and they will never
consider themselves as canadian first.
I have always believed in holding onto your identity and I love to
see people wave their own flags because it shows pride about their
herigate and culture. The question that I have for everyone is that in
the next census form that you fill out will you tick mark yourself as
Canadian first? and WHY?
Nilesh
On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Ronit Lorber wrote:
> On Canada's birthday, my friends and I decided to go to watch the
> fireworks at Ontario Place. On the ride downtown, I expected to see many
> people in their cars, waving Canadian flags and celebrating our nation's
> birthday. I was extremely shocked that very few people had flags of
> Canada on their car or in their hands as they paraded down the streets.
> What the majority of Torontonians were doing was celebrating the world cup
> and were driving down the streets waving various flags (Brazilian,
> Italian, Argentina etc.) I completely support people celebrating their
> home teams victories, but I find it rather distasteful to not carry a
> Canadian flag on July 1st and rather to hold the flag of another country.
> I like many other Canadians was not born in Canada and as a result I feel
> extremely lucky and greatful to be living in such a democratic country. I
> am not suggesting that we should be as patriotic as the Americans, but I
> do think acknowledging Canada's birthday is appropriate.
>
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 00:31:52 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Vicky Wong
Subject: Status of Chinese Women.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=BIG5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Traditionally, the status of men in the Chinese society is significantly
higher than women. All the important decisions in a family are made by
men, and women have no chance to give any suggestion.
Women get the orders from men and they cannot say "NO". If they say "NO",
there is an offence because they break the traditional rule "women should
obey to her husband".
Some of our classmates discussed about the movie "Mulan" last week.
Although Mulan helps her father to go to the battlefield, she needs to
pretend to be a man. It is because woman cannot be a soldier. It seems
that the role of women and men are obviously different at that time.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 01:33:08 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Mario Cordero
Subject: Re: Canadian Identitiy? My own conclusion.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi!
I am Mario Bibi Cordero. It is an interesting question: What will one
declare oneself to be? I do have this "complex issue" since I am presently a
landed immigrant. (Luckily I am not in the States. Otherwise I shall be
called "an alien resident." It is not X files by the way, & I do not like
this phrase at all for my status.) What happens when I am "officially" a
Canadian? Well, my conclusion is, I am a Canadian originally from Hong Kong
who is also a citizen of Portugal. If one ask what my cultural backround is,
my answer would be, "I am a mix! If to be more specified, I am an Asian; as
well as mordern!?". For the census matter, I will put down "Canadian". Why?
Simple: I adopt many Canadian "values" while having my very own.
Thanks for reading.
Mario Bibi Cordero
mbc@shaw.wave.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: NILESH SURTI
To: HUM1750@YORKU.CA
Date: Sunday, July 05, 1998 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: Canadian Identitiy?
>To Ronit Lorber
>
>You have raised an interesting topic that I have been discussion
>throughout last year or so. The reason is because I want to know what
>does it mean to be Canadian and how can one differeniant a Canadian from
>an American. I am as extremely happy to be a Canadian and also I was born
>in Canada. However I am also part Indian because my parents come from
>India. Due to this I am half Indian and Canadain, but when someone tells
>me what is my nationality, I always reply by saying that
>I am Indian not Canadian. The reason why I say that is
> because my skin colour, my
>beliefs, and my cultural upbring is shaped by the Indian culture, so
>therefore I will alway call
>myself Indian first then Canadian. The reason why you saw various flag
>flying around in Toronto is not surprising because Canada was developed
>based on immigration and because of that, it makes canada one of the most
>unique countries in the world. I believe canada was regarded as the best
>country to live in for the past four years by the United Nation. Which is
>something I am proud of but I don't go waving a canadian flag because of
>that reason. Personally I really do not think anyone in this country is
>regard as a ture Canadian. However I do realize that this is changing in
>the past few years because more and more people are declaring themselve as
>canadians which has been shown in the cesus Canada which is good to see.
>Another reason why we get to see a lot different flags is because in
>canada we are able to retain our culture and encouraged to show it.
>Because of that reason it is selling feature for canada. In united states
>you are brain washed to be an American first. I have few cousins in
>United States and they consider thenselve Americans first then Indians and
>the same philoshy for their parents. However this is not the case in
>canada. My parents have lived in canada for 25 years and they will never
>consider themselves as canadian first.
> I have always believed in holding onto your identity and I love to
>see people wave their own flags because it shows pride about their
>herigate and culture. The question that I have for everyone is that in
>the next census form that you fill out will you tick mark yourself as
>Canadian first? and WHY?
>
>Nilesh
>
>
>
>On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Ronit Lorber wrote:
>
>> On Canada's birthday, my friends and I decided to go to watch the
>> fireworks at Ontario Place. On the ride downtown, I expected to see many
>> people in their cars, waving Canadian flags and celebrating our nation's
>> birthday. I was extremely shocked that very few people had flags of
>> Canada on their car or in their hands as they paraded down the streets.
>> What the majority of Torontonians were doing was celebrating the world
cup
>> and were driving down the streets waving various flags (Brazilian,
>> Italian, Argentina etc.) I completely support people celebrating their
>> home teams victories, but I find it rather distasteful to not carry a
>> Canadian flag on July 1st and rather to hold the flag of another country.
>> I like many other Canadians was not born in Canada and as a result I feel
>> extremely lucky and greatful to be living in such a democratic country.
I
>> am not suggesting that we should be as patriotic as the Americans, but I
>> do think acknowledging Canada's birthday is appropriate.
>>
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 02:15:32 -0700
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Heidi
Subject: Re: Japanese culture
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
----------
>
> I have a big interest about the Japanese culture, I am always see the
> Japanese movie and comic, I discover that Japanese women have a big
> different experience than other countries women. As I know, men have a
big
> position than women even in today society. Most of the women are very
obey
> to the men, they never resist and hubbub to their husband. On the
other
> hand, in many single women mind, even they just about 25 or 26 years old,
> if they don't have boyfriend or still not marry , they will feel sorry
> about that, so they will date with a strange man and try to build up love
> feeling. But , in other countries, like Canada. If the women can support
> themseleve they don't care about when they get marry, they will waiting
for
> their real lover. For the above reason, some of my boy friend said they
> like to find a Japenese lover cause they never resist to them.
> Heidi Chan
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 18:06:39 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Claudius Alexander
Subject: Re: Canadian Identitiy?
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
It would be interesting to see what the answers to your question is
Nilesh. I believe that most people will prefer to be whatever they are
first, and what they have become second, as you've done. But in the
interest of national unity, providing that such is sought by the politics
of the land, it would seem that the model to adopt would have to be the
American one. Now I would suggest that nationalism becomes a primary
prerequisite to a country only when getting ready for war, as might be
argued to have been the case of Hitler's Germany, and beyond that there
can be no valid reason. Canada's stand to portray itself as a
"multicultural" nation, while the idea might be a good one, also serves to
weaken its ideological framework. Not that this "weakening" is not
sometimes a necessary evil if we keep "social change" in mind. But I
would further suggest that Canada, though certainly showing a valiant
effort in the promotion of multiculturalism, is seen by some others as a
weak country in terms of its social mesh. Look how easily the Americans
push us around, or at least try to. So I guess the question becomes, how
important do we believe national unity and pride should be to the citizens
of this land of ours?
On Sun, 5 Jul 1998, NILESH SURTI wrote:
> To Ronit Lorber
>
> You have raised an interesting topic that I have been discussion
> throughout last year or so. The reason is because I want to know what
> does it mean to be Canadian and how can one differeniant a Canadian from
> an American. I am as extremely happy to be a Canadian and also I was born
> in Canada. However I am also part Indian because my parents come from
> India. Due to this I am half Indian and Canadain, but when someone tells
> me what is my nationality, I always reply by saying that
> I am Indian not Canadian. The reason why I say that is
> because my skin colour, my
> beliefs, and my cultural upbring is shaped by the Indian culture, so
> therefore I will alway call
> myself Indian first then Canadian. The reason why you saw various flag
> flying around in Toronto is not surprising because Canada was developed
> based on immigration and because of that, it makes canada one of the most
> unique countries in the world. I believe canada was regarded as the best
> country to live in for the past four years by the United Nation. Which is
> something I am proud of but I don't go waving a canadian flag because of
> that reason. Personally I really do not think anyone in this country is
> regard as a ture Canadian. However I do realize that this is changing in
> the past few years because more and more people are declaring themselve as
> canadians which has been shown in the cesus Canada which is good to see.
> Another reason why we get to see a lot different flags is because in
> canada we are able to retain our culture and encouraged to show it.
> Because of that reason it is selling feature for canada. In united states
> you are brain washed to be an American first. I have few cousins in
> United States and they consider thenselve Americans first then Indians and
> the same philoshy for their parents. However this is not the case in
> canada. My parents have lived in canada for 25 years and they will never
> consider themselves as canadian first.
> I have always believed in holding onto your identity and I love to
> see people wave their own flags because it shows pride about their
> herigate and culture. The question that I have for everyone is that in
> the next census form that you fill out will you tick mark yourself as
> Canadian first? and WHY?
>
> Nilesh
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Ronit Lorber wrote:
>
> > On Canada's birthday, my friends and I decided to go to watch the
> > fireworks at Ontario Place. On the ride downtown, I expected to see many
> > people in their cars, waving Canadian flags and celebrating our nation's
> > birthday. I was extremely shocked that very few people had flags of
> > Canada on their car or in their hands as they paraded down the streets.
> > What the majority of Torontonians were doing was celebrating the world cup
> > and were driving down the streets waving various flags (Brazilian,
> > Italian, Argentina etc.) I completely support people celebrating their
> > home teams victories, but I find it rather distasteful to not carry a
> > Canadian flag on July 1st and rather to hold the flag of another country.
> > I like many other Canadians was not born in Canada and as a result I feel
> > extremely lucky and greatful to be living in such a democratic country. I
> > am not suggesting that we should be as patriotic as the Americans, but I
> > do think acknowledging Canada's birthday is appropriate.
> >
>
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 20:07:13 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Rudolph James
Subject: Re: Woman & "economic considerations"
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Personally i must disagree with charles about what he is saying about
women seeking divorce for economic reasons. although it does happen on
certain occasion (more of a minority in divorce cases)
I personally think that in majority of marriages, women take the vow with
an intention of making the marriage last a lifetime.
within a relationship it is the woman who expend most effort in trying to
make it work. therefore, whenever there is a marriage breakdown something
must have gone dreadfully wrong for them to want a divorce, especially
when children are involved.
We should therefore, try our best not to make the few bad apples spoil the
whole basket when making statements about women and divorces.
respectfully
Rudolph
On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Charles Boamah wrote:
> I find the above subject very interesting considering the number divorces
> going on these days.
>
> It is my personal view that most women these days seek to divorce their
> husbands because of economic considerations. Most women ESPECIALLY those
> from third world countries have seen a new source of economic gains in
> divorce here in Canada. Many of these women comes from countries where
> the question of divorce is a dreaded issue because of the dishonour it
> entails as a divorcee with kids. But when it comes to being a divorcee in
> Canada, Lo and Behold! she is rich. After all the man, even if he is on
> welfare, is going to pay a child support. Then if the woman herself is not
> working, she is going to get her monthly welfare cheque as a single
> mother, then comes the monthly child tax credit from revenue canada, add
> the quarterly G.S.T. credits and the drug benefits, and dental care
> decorated with welfare cheques and you get a rich third world Canadian
> mother. No doubt the least disagreement with the husband is blown out of
> proportions and there comes the beautiful word DIVORCE which means
> (FREEDOM AND RICH).
>
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 19:09:48 -0700
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Karen Lee
Subject: Re: Canadian Identitiy
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
When asking about my racial identity, it's interesting to notice that
I have different perceptions of it in different places.
Strange enough that when I was the ethnical majority in Hong Kong I
was strongly conscious of my race, always unconsciously compare the
yellow people with white people, maybe it's due to we were un-der the
rule of the Britain, and white is thought to be the superior, and it
had to a certain extent hurt my pride .
But this consciousness is dissolving in Canada when I am a visible
minority member here, maybe it's those many other races are here and
blurring the difference be-tween yellow and white. And I found it's so
comfortable to live in such a multicultural and multiracial country
that one may appreciate the beauty of other races.
Karen Lee
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 23:12:15 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Robert H Kennedy
Subject: Re: Feminism, the most important movement?
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
from Ewald
All ideologies line things up into two separate classes: religions into
adherents and non-believers or heretics (christian or non-christian,
catholic or protestant, angels or devils of one kind or another),etc;
politics into comunnist or capitalist, democrat or totalitarian,etc;
movements into men or women, pacifist or warmonger (hawks and doves),etc.
If the ideas describing the individuals involved in these various
activities are based on old fashioned non-scientific untestable
assumptions about how we understand the world, then they should be
dismissed as seriously contributing to useful knowledge. The study of
history would of course include most ideology, as a subset of human
thought (history of philosophy, or historiographically - the history of
history).
At some point ideologies get involved in arcane byzantine labyrinths of
thought; so, that medieval scholars argued as to how many angels can sit
on the head of a pin; or more recent thinkers could imagine ids,
archetypes, noospheres, hysteria, the great white hunter, and nonsense of
all kinds expressed in a logical manner. The moment someone, esp. a man
says they are being logical, it's a clue that ideological ego is
involved. The wonderful thing about science is its indifference to human
ego. (and I would be the first not to confuse science qua science with
scientists as humans).
I have yet to meet an ideology that I could not be part of. After their
initial flourish, ideologies always break down into some kind of
schism.
People mix up ideas with ego. Caitlin's list of strains of femininism
illustrates this. As well, the inherent contradicton in parts of the
women's movement where men are criticised (mostly fairly) and then sadly
emulated (like the sterile/non-biological nature of some men's? ideas as
reformulated by the bizarre discussions about childbearing and motherhood
among some feminists). Has motherhood becme so degraded, that the
indifference some men treated it, with many women now copy? Is not
raising children the most important job in any culture? Are men's
distractions, hyperactive businesses, silly sporting games, and mostly
futile work more important than children? Every movement has had its
breakaways, splinter groups (is this a clue as to why people emigrated in
pre-historical times, apart from famine, disease or war).
Ideologies seem to be a response to the fear of living, people want to
(need to?) understand the world, but few have the patience to know that
such knowledge is incomplete(I do not advocate Zen, but they do have an
open ended point there). Ideologies impose order and the greed for
knowing and using that knowledge to dominate others (the argument isn't
usually about god but about who's closest to god, consequently ideologies
at their absolute contain the seeds of puritanism or totalitarianism) is
a recurring motif not only between individuals but is also part of whole
civilisations or its corporate subsets(like churches or they who control
religion in any given place).
Science provides a partial world view and tells me that a niche like a
shrub growing in the crook of a tall tree is ok. Nature in its apparent
disorder cares not a whit for the neat and ordered structures of human
fantasy or the regular lines necessary in construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
making words
you are in league
with some thing older than you profess
and have confused your gifts of reason
with those of imagination
and can no longer
tell the world
apart from yourself
babel is a single voice
not the language of a nation
babel is the confusion of a single tongue
and the consequent incomprehension of the many
you know how even the simplest words
like 'i love you' 'i'm sorry' or 'why'
can cage those closest
the map of estrangement
has a dotted path
among storm made islands
in an atmosphere sprinkled with dragons
if you follow
in words making people making the world
do you hear the silence of the flowers
-the narcissi and the cosmos-
sing
At 11:03 PM 6/29/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Robert H Kennedy <
>>To: HUM1750@YORKU.CA <
>>Date: June 26, 1998 9:27 PM
>>Subject: Feminism, the most important movement?
>>
>>
>>>from Ewald,
>>>
>>>During last evening's lecture, Prof. Vanstone, stated that the
women's
>>movement was the most important of this century. If I heard wrong I
would
>>galdly learn otherwise. If so, then what about:
>
>[snip]
>
>Good post, Ewald. And you're right -- Gail's comment re: feminism as
>arguably the most important movement of the century was obviously
>provocative. If feminism is considered primarily as a social
movement,
>for example, there is a strong case that the second wave is heavily
>indebted to the civil rights movement. As a theoretical heritage,
though,
>a lot can be said for the development of an emancipatory movement
which
>has developed over the entire century and seeks improved status for
over
>half the world's population (and, feminists would argue, for society as
a
>whole). I think a strong case can be made for the influence of
feminist
>thought on most intellectual movements. That said, mainstream feminism
has
>not, in practice, touched all women's lives and as you point out,
>emancipatory movemetns for social change are not mutually exclusive.
Most
>important' will depend on our own social locations, as you know.
>Personally, I think post-colonial thought will perhaps be the most
>important movement of the next century.
>
>The suggestions you provide are all worth discussing, but I'm the first
to
>admit when I'm puzzled:
>
>>lack of economic knowledge is detrimental, seeing economics as a
subset
>>of old- fashioned ideological filtering systems (politcal economy,
>>religion, gender studies,etc.) places economics outside of its proper
>>place - biology;
>
>I was an economist in a former life ;-) and I'm not sure what you're
>getting at -- resources determining the economic system?
biology=economic
>destiny? i'm very curious.
>
>Caitlin
>
>
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 23:35:00 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Caitlin Fisher
Subject: power corrupts?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Hi. I can't remember at the moment who introduced the thread about what
might happen as women become more powerful in society... I think the
question raised was 'would women treat men the way men have treated
women?'. i could be wrong about the question, but here's a bit of info i
wanted to send along for budding anthropologists;) it's worth noting that
the gender patterns we're studying in our class are *not* universal and do
change through time (though only the West will be on the exam ;) .
As early as 1935 Margaret Mead, an anthropologist, wrote about a tribe in
New Guinea, the Mundugumor, which Mead described as a culture where both
men and women were ruthless and aggressive (traditionally masculine traits
in the West). She also did fieldwork among the Arapesh, and suggested
both sexes were warm, emotional, non-competitive and unaggressive (we
might say 'feminine'?). A third tribe, the Tchambuli, demonstrated a
reversal of western gender roles -- women controlled all the money because
women were considered more serious and better managers. Men were
considered to be frivolous and vain, spending much of the day worrying
about their appearance. Did power corrupt? I can't answer that
(not my area). It might be interesting to take an anthropology course, no?
Caitlin
"And while every culture has in some way institutionalized the roles of
men and women, it has not necessarily been in terms of contrast between
the prescribed personalities of the two sexes, nor in terms of dominance
or submission."
Margaret Mead,Sex & Temperament in Three Primitive Societies, 1935
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 23:59:23 EDT
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Barb Fischer
Subject: Re: Woman & "economic considerations"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Out of all the women I know who have divorced, I can honestly say not one of
them has become "richer" as a result of it. Any of the couple that were "paid
off" only received their rightful half (and usually not even) of what they
already owned in the first place. Although I don't doubt that there are women
who 'theaten' divorce and mistakenly believe they'll profit from it, I feel
certain they are the exception to the rule. Furthermore, one does not have to
be from a third world country to be either unscrupulous or to make that error
in logic -- any foolish person can do that -- male or female. What ahout the
gigolos who 'hunt' wealthy women who will support them?
Barb
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 00:03:32 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Caitlin Fisher
Subject: Re: Feminism, the most important movement?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980706231215.006f1a50@mail.interlog.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Robert H Kennedy wrote:
Ewald, your recent post is really a wonderful lead-in to the second half
of this course... after centuries of attempts to formulate 'totalizing'
world views, what happens when/if (some) people abandon what you call 'the
ordered structures of human fantasy or the regular lines necessary in
construction" in favour of something more partial (and arguably less
'regular')? You mention, Zen and science... texts in this course show how
postmodernists (certainly not a unified bunch) approach 'ideologies',
truth', partial knowledges etc. I look forward to your 'take' on it all.
hey -- what are we doing up past midnight?
Caitlin
> from Ewald
[snip]
>
> Science provides a partial world view and tells me that a niche like a
> shrub growing in the crook of a tall tree is ok. Nature in its apparent
> disorder cares not a whit for the neat and ordered structures of human
> fantasy or the regular lines necessary in construction.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[snip]
oh...and i like the mix of analysis + poetry
c.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 10:55:40 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Caitlin Fisher
Subject: individualism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Hi Claudius, everyone.
I'd like to add this to the recent thread re individualism and
its relationship to (and equation with) feminism... if only to flag how
the word 'individualism' is typically used in western philosophical
tradition.
Individualism is a doctrine in political and economic philosophy
associated with philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and British economist Adam
Smith. Individualism holds that "society is an artificial device,
existing only for the sake of its members as individuals, and properly
judged only according to criteria established by them as individuals".
This is not always solely about egoism (although in some thinkers it is);
they may believe that the end of social, political, and economic
organization is the greatest good for the greatest number (Smith, for
example). What characterizes such individualist thinkers, however, is that
"their conception of the "greatest number" as composed of independent
units and an opposition to the interference of the state with the
happiness or freedom of these units" (this fits with Cinda's comment about
the Unites States).
"Individualist tendencies or theories play a part in all the sciences that
deal with a person as a social being". As a philosophy, individualism
predates feminism. Some feminists do follow in the footsteps of liberal
individualism (Wollestonecraft, for example), but many follow a more
collectivist path.
Here I must confess to being disorganized: I found the source material on
a disk I keep with definitions, apt quotations etc... but I didn't save
bibliographic info! ... The quotations probably come from an intro to
philosophy textbook.
se you all tonight,
Caitlin
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 11:11:15 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Alison Read
Subject: Canadian Identity
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Claudius:
These are very interesting points you have raised.
I believe that a lack of national pride and unity has weakened our
"ideological framework" No, this is not necessarily an evil, but can a
balance between national pride and multiculturalism not be found? As you
suggest Claudius, are there not some times when we should think of the
country we live in first?
This brings me to another thought. Does this lack of Canadian identity
suggest that multiculturalism places the individual first? And the
nation you live in second? Can multiculturalism mean the opposite? Can
both exist at the same time?
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 16:46:18 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Claudius Alexander
Subject: Re: Woman & "economic considerations"
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Rudolph, I have to question what exactly you mean by "it is the woman who
expend most effort to make [marriage] work". What kind of "effort" are we
talking about? Emotional, physical?
On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Rudolph James wrote:
> Personally i must disagree with charles about what he is saying about
> women seeking divorce for economic reasons. although it does happen on
> certain occasion (more of a minority in divorce cases)
>
> I personally think that in majority of marriages, women take the vow with
> an intention of making the marriage last a lifetime.
>
> within a relationship it is the woman who expend most effort in trying to
> make it work. therefore, whenever there is a marriage breakdown something
> must have gone dreadfully wrong for them to want a divorce, especially
> when children are involved.
>
> We should therefore, try our best not to make the few bad apples spoil the
> whole basket when making statements about women and divorces.
>
> respectfully
>
> Rudolph
>
> On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Charles Boamah wrote:
>
> > I find the above subject very interesting considering the number divorces
> > going on these days.
> >
> > It is my personal view that most women these days seek to divorce their
> > husbands because of economic considerations. Most women ESPECIALLY those
> > from third world countries have seen a new source of economic gains in
> > divorce here in Canada. Many of these women comes from countries where
> > the question of divorce is a dreaded issue because of the dishonour it
> > entails as a divorcee with kids. But when it comes to being a divorcee in
> > Canada, Lo and Behold! she is rich. After all the man, even if he is on
> > welfare, is going to pay a child support. Then if the woman herself is not
> > working, she is going to get her monthly welfare cheque as a single
> > mother, then comes the monthly child tax credit from revenue canada, add
> > the quarterly G.S.T. credits and the drug benefits, and dental care
> > decorated with welfare cheques and you get a rich third world Canadian
> > mother. No doubt the least disagreement with the husband is blown out of
> > proportions and there comes the beautiful word DIVORCE which means
> > (FREEDOM AND RICH).
> >
>
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 17:24:18 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Claudius Alexander
Subject: Re: Feminism, the most important movement?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980706231215.006f1a50@mail.interlog.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Ewald, I had kept this message as I tried to fashion a comment back to
you. I have 2 quick comments. 1) I am happy to have a little support
on the "ranking of importance within the triad of family-kids or
parents." I've been getting a beating from the profs., some history too.
2) It would seem that some people either do not or cannot understand
philosophy and the "important" parts the varied subjects/practices have
played in shaping our worlds. Some people I lknow tend to wrinkle their
noses when confronted by matters requiring thought above that necessary to
change the t.v. station. But then you already know that.
I do wish to question one thing though. You've made it quite clear that
you prefer to view the world from the empiricists' perspective. Those are
not the people who pontificate on angels and pins, I know. But if I take
you seriously, do you mean to say that rationalist thought have played
itself out of our lives?
On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Robert H Kennedy wrote:
> from Ewald
>
> All ideologies line things up into two separate classes: religions into
> adherents and non-believers or heretics (christian or non-christian,
> catholic or protestant, angels or devils of one kind or another),etc;
> politics into comunnist or capitalist, democrat or totalitarian,etc;
> movements into men or women, pacifist or warmonger (hawks and doves),etc.
> If the ideas describing the individuals involved in these various
> activities are based on old fashioned non-scientific untestable
> assumptions about how we understand the world, then they should be
> dismissed as seriously contributing to useful knowledge. The study of
> history would of course include most ideology, as a subset of human
> thought (history of philosophy, or historiographically - the history of
> history).
>
> At some point ideologies get involved in arcane byzantine labyrinths of
> thought; so, that medieval scholars argued as to how many angels can sit
> on the head of a pin; or more recent thinkers could imagine ids,
> archetypes, noospheres, hysteria, the great white hunter, and nonsense of
> all kinds expressed in a logical manner. The moment someone, esp. a man
> says they are being logical, it's a clue that ideological ego is
> involved. The wonderful thing about science is its indifference to human
> ego. (and I would be the first not to confuse science qua science with
> scientists as humans).
>
> I have yet to meet an ideology that I could not be part of. After their
> initial flourish, ideologies always break down into some kind of
> schism.
>
> People mix up ideas with ego. Caitlin's list of strains of femininism
> illustrates this. As well, the inherent contradicton in parts of the
> women's movement where men are criticised (mostly fairly) and then sadly
> emulated (like the sterile/non-biological nature of some men's? ideas as
> reformulated by the bizarre discussions about childbearing and motherhood
> among some feminists). Has motherhood becme so degraded, that the
> indifference some men treated it, with many women now copy? Is not
> raising children the most important job in any culture? Are men's
> distractions, hyperactive businesses, silly sporting games, and mostly
> futile work more important than children? Every movement has had its
> breakaways, splinter groups (is this a clue as to why people emigrated in
> pre-historical times, apart from famine, disease or war).
>
> Ideologies seem to be a response to the fear of living, people want to
> (need to?) understand the world, but few have the patience to know that
> such knowledge is incomplete(I do not advocate Zen, but they do have an
> open ended point there). Ideologies impose order and the greed for
> knowing and using that knowledge to dominate others (the argument isn't
> usually about god but about who's closest to god, consequently ideologies
> at their absolute contain the seeds of puritanism or totalitarianism) is
> a recurring motif not only between individuals but is also part of whole
> civilisations or its corporate subsets(like churches or they who control
> religion in any given place).
>
> Science provides a partial world view and tells me that a niche like a
> shrub growing in the crook of a tall tree is ok. Nature in its apparent
> disorder cares not a whit for the neat and ordered structures of human
> fantasy or the regular lines necessary in construction.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> making words
>
>
>
> you are in league
>
> with some thing older than you profess
>
> and have confused your gifts of reason
>
> with those of imagination
>
> and can no longer
>
> tell the world
>
> apart from yourself
>
>
> babel is a single voice
>
> not the language of a nation
>
> babel is the confusion of a single tongue
>
> and the consequent incomprehension of the many
>
>
> you know how even the simplest words
>
> like 'i love you' 'i'm sorry' or 'why'
>
> can cage those closest
>
>
> the map of estrangement
>
> has a dotted path
>
> among storm made islands
>
> in an atmosphere sprinkled with dragons
>
>
> if you follow
>
> in words making people making the world
>
> do you hear the silence of the flowers
>
> -the narcissi and the cosmos-
>
> sing
>
>
>
> At 11:03 PM 6/29/98 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>-----Original Message-----
>
> >>From: Robert H Kennedy <
>
> >>To: HUM1750@YORKU.CA <
>
> >>Date: June 26, 1998 9:27 PM
>
> >>Subject: Feminism, the most important movement?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>from Ewald,
>
> >>>
>
> >>>During last evening's lecture, Prof. Vanstone, stated that the
> women's
>
> >>movement was the most important of this century. If I heard wrong I
> would
>
> >>galdly learn otherwise. If so, then what about:
>
> >
>
> >[snip]
>
> >
>
> >Good post, Ewald. And you're right -- Gail's comment re: feminism as
>
> >arguably the most important movement of the century was obviously
>
> >provocative. If feminism is considered primarily as a social
> movement,
>
> >for example, there is a strong case that the second wave is heavily
>
> >indebted to the civil rights movement. As a theoretical heritage,
> though,
>
> >a lot can be said for the development of an emancipatory movement
> which
>
> >has developed over the entire century and seeks improved status for
> over
>
> >half the world's population (and, feminists would argue, for society as
> a
>
> >whole). I think a strong case can be made for the influence of
> feminist
>
> >thought on most intellectual movements. That said, mainstream feminism
> has
>
> >not, in practice, touched all women's lives and as you point out,
>
> >emancipatory movemetns for social change are not mutually exclusive.
> Most
>
> >important' will depend on our own social locations, as you know.
>
> >Personally, I think post-colonial thought will perhaps be the most
>
> >important movement of the next century.
>
> >
>
> >The suggestions you provide are all worth discussing, but I'm the first
> to
>
> >admit when I'm puzzled:
>
> >
>
> >>lack of economic knowledge is detrimental, seeing economics as a
> subset
>
> >>of old- fashioned ideological filtering systems (politcal economy,
>
> >>religion, gender studies,etc.) places economics outside of its proper
>
> >>place - biology;
>
> >
>
> >I was an economist in a former life ;-) and I'm not sure what you're
>
> >getting at -- resources determining the economic system?
> biology=economic
>
> >destiny? i'm very curious.
>
> >
>
> >Caitlin
>
> >
>
> >
>
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 17:36:31 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Kuhabalini Selvachandran
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Hi everyone,
Iagree with Claudius that when women get marry they wanted it to last
forever but unfortunately the marrage does not last forever so in this
country women have their freedom to get divorce not like the third world
country where you do not have choice so you got to live with the way you
choose to live if it does not work. Before they get divorce both the
partners try to make their marriage work. Women does not need man's money
to live.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 17:37:04 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Claudius Alexander
Subject: Re: power corrupts?
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Hi Caitlin, I would like to know whether these cultures which Mead speaks
of are still around. I would suggest that if they are, their numbers are
dwindling in a hurry. I will qualify this when you answer,
On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Caitlin Fisher wrote:
> Hi. I can't remember at the moment who introduced the thread about what
> might happen as women become more powerful in society... I think the
> question raised was 'would women treat men the way men have treated
> women?'. i could be wrong about the question, but here's a bit of info i
> wanted to send along for budding anthropologists;) it's worth noting that
> the gender patterns we're studying in our class are *not* universal and do
> change through time (though only the West will be on the exam ;) .
>
> As early as 1935 Margaret Mead, an anthropologist, wrote about a tribe in
> New Guinea, the Mundugumor, which Mead described as a culture where both
> men and women were ruthless and aggressive (traditionally masculine traits
> in the West). She also did fieldwork among the Arapesh, and suggested
> both sexes were warm, emotional, non-competitive and unaggressive (we
> might say 'feminine'?). A third tribe, the Tchambuli, demonstrated a
> reversal of western gender roles -- women controlled all the money because
> women were considered more serious and better managers. Men were
> considered to be frivolous and vain, spending much of the day worrying
> about their appearance. Did power corrupt? I can't answer that
> (not my area). It might be interesting to take an anthropology course, no?
>
> Caitlin
>
>
> "And while every culture has in some way institutionalized the roles of
> men and women, it has not necessarily been in terms of contrast between
> the prescribed personalities of the two sexes, nor in terms of dominance
> or submission."
> Margaret Mead,Sex & Temperament in Three Primitive Societies, 1935
>
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 17:48:48 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Claudius Alexander
Subject: Re: individualism
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Caitlin, Once again I may be out of my league. You mentioned Hobbes and
Smith as early proponents of "individualist philosophy", and went on to
briefly define that philosophy. Question: is there a distinction between
this and what John Mill called (act/rule) utilitarianism?
On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, Caitlin Fisher wrote:
> Hi Claudius, everyone.
>
> I'd like to add this to the recent thread re individualism and
> its relationship to (and equation with) feminism... if only to flag how
> the word 'individualism' is typically used in western philosophical
> tradition.
>
> Individualism is a doctrine in political and economic philosophy
> associated with philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and British economist Adam
> Smith. Individualism holds that "society is an artificial device,
> existing only for the sake of its members as individuals, and properly
> judged only according to criteria established by them as individuals".
> This is not always solely about egoism (although in some thinkers it is);
> they may believe that the end of social, political, and economic
> organization is the greatest good for the greatest number (Smith, for
> example). What characterizes such individualist thinkers, however, is that
> "their conception of the "greatest number" as composed of independent
> units and an opposition to the interference of the state with the
> happiness or freedom of these units" (this fits with Cinda's comment about
> the Unites States).
>
> "Individualist tendencies or theories play a part in all the sciences that
> deal with a person as a social being". As a philosophy, individualism
> predates feminism. Some feminists do follow in the footsteps of liberal
> individualism (Wollestonecraft, for example), but many follow a more
> collectivist path.
>
> Here I must confess to being disorganized: I found the source material on
> a disk I keep with definitions, apt quotations etc... but I didn't save
> bibliographic info! ... The quotations probably come from an intro to
> philosophy textbook.
>
> se you all tonight,
> Caitlin
>
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 09:37:12 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Chung Yeung
Subject: Re: Feminism, the most important movement?
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Dear all,
I have two questions that hope you can help me to answer:
1) we always discuss different idea/movement from the past to now. Do you
think it's because each person has different standard? If every one has
the same standard level, will the society bacome more 'peace' or
'tranquil' - no movement? no revolution? no argument?
2) some of you point out the relationship between individualism and
science. I don't quiet understand what the link? Can some one explain it?
Chung
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 13:25:46 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Nicola Simone
Subject: response to gail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
gail wrote what goes into a woman's decision to leave? Do the children
take a back seat? Does she considered the children? Before my father
passed away as long as I can remember my parents were always fighting. On
a number of occasions I was forced to get in the middle lest my mother get
hurt. But through it all even though I told her on a number of occasions
I would help her to leave she refused to. She kept on repeated she was
keeping the marriage together for us the children. She is an educated
women and an elementary school teacher but she had a strong Catholic
upbringing and never considered divorce. I think the women's movement is
not responsible for divorce I think its allowed woman to think for
themselves and make choices about their lives. Too many women have been
forced to live in abusive relationships and I think its about time women
stood up to men and asked to be treated right. Don't get me wrong I loved
my father and when he was in hospital I was willing to give me life so he
might live. He was my best friend and teacher as well as a great father
but he wasn't much of a husband. He expected dinner on the table when he
got home from work even though my mother also worked, a spotless house,
etc. I think both of them would have been better off if they had divorced
but they cared what others thought. You just did not get divorced. What
would the family say back home. So Ithink that that before a woman leaves
she thinks long and hard especially if she has a child. The divorce rate
my have skyrocketed but that's preferrable to have women living in
prisons. Sure many women don't have the financial security my mother had
but I believe it's better to live in poverty then in a house were the two
parents are constantly at each others throats.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 14:02:15 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Nicola Simone
Subject: Canadian Identity
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In response to Nilesh who says when she is asked about her nationality she
answeres she's Indian because her beliefs and culture upbringing is
Indian. I was brought up in an Italian household and hold both a Canadian
and an Italian citizenship but when asked about my nationality I say I'm
Canadian. My father came to Canada some 30 years ago and before he passed
away I asked him on a number of occassions if Canada went to war with
Italy which side he would fight on. He said he was willing to die for
this country. A bold statement considering most of his family still lives
in Italy and the fact that he wasn't even an official Canadian citizen (
he didn't understand why he had to swear to the queen to became a Canadian
if the constitution had been repatrioted, he was more than willing to
swear on the Canadian flag) He used to tell me you see that flag, pointed
to the Canadian flag its not just a piece of cloth its a symbol of
everything that makes this country great. Whenever he went to Italy he
had nothing but high praise for this country and always bragged about our
healthcare, our education system, our low crime rate, how clean the cities
were, how beautiful the landscape was ( and Italy's not to scabby itself),
etc. Before I went to high school he knew more about Canadian history
then I did ( probably knew more then me when he died to). When Italy lost
the world cup to Brazil my dad said he didn't like the fact that Italy
lost but what he'd really like to see was Canada participate and play
well. (a dream I hope will be fulfilled in 2002) He said that when he
left Italy and touched down in Canada from that moment forward he was a
Canadian. Italy always had a special place in his heart but he instilled
in me that I live in the finest country. I'm proud of my heritage don't
get me wrong but this is my country and I'm just as proud as any American.
In fact I think one of the things that makes Canada great is the fact that
there are so many people from a wide variety of backgrounds who keep their
cultures alive here because it enriches all our lives to experience the
cultures of the world. As for the American's we have a better heathcare
system, better education system, less crime, were ranked higher than the
U.S. in terms of standard of living and best places to live in the world,
and were the greatest hockey nation on the planets. I don't know what
their so proud about maybe its the fact their president has slept with
more women then half the worlds leaders combined.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 18:05:58 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Annette Buchanan
Subject: Re: your mail
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, Kuhabalini Selvachandran wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Iagree with Claudius that when women get marry they wanted it to last
>
> forever but unfortunately the marrage does not last forever so in this
>
> country women have their freedom to get divorce not like the third world
>
> country where you do not have choice so you got to live with the way you
>
> choose to live if it does not work. Before they get divorce both the
>
> partners try to make their marriage work. Women does not need man's money
>
> to live.
>
Hi Kuhabalini & Everyone,
this is Annette, sure everyone would life a
marriage to last throughout all eternity. But it is not only in this
country that every women have the rights in freedom of geting a divorce.
You stated that in the third world country, women do not have the choice
to get divorce, I disagree. Women may not want to get a divorce, maybe
because they feel that anything can be solve if everyone involve makes an
effort, or that it could be their a cultural belief, and/or a religious
belief in some countries that a couple must not divorce each other. So, in
the Third World country if a person tries to work out their problems
instead of going through with a divorce, it's because they mostly likly
don't want to go into a court-room to disclose their life story (stories).
6
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 18:50:25 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Claudius Alexander
Subject: Re: Canadian Identity
In-Reply-To: <35A23A93.46B@sympatico.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Alison, as is generally the case with social "ideals", multiculturalism,
in my opinion, would always be an ideal sought after; meaning that it is
by our current definition an improbability. I would rather not see myself
as a pessimist, but given that we already have immense difficulty dealing
with much smaller issues (like tax reform, education), chances are the
multicultural ideal in Canada was and will be a dream. As to the question
of a mix between that and nationalism, if my math is correct, the two
cannot add up. That sort of goal can only produce/promote racisn. One of
the aims of nationalism is to engender "national pride". Its an all or
nothing game.
On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, Alison Read wrote:
> Claudius:
>
> These are very interesting points you have raised.
>
> I believe that a lack of national pride and unity has weakened our
> "ideological framework" No, this is not necessarily an evil, but can a
> balance between national pride and multiculturalism not be found? As you
> suggest Claudius, are there not some times when we should think of the
> country we live in first?
>
> This brings me to another thought. Does this lack of Canadian identity
> suggest that multiculturalism places the individual first? And the
> nation you live in second? Can multiculturalism mean the opposite? Can
> both exist at the same time?
>
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 19:51:07 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Glenn Hodgkinson
Subject: Gender Identity
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
To:HUM1750@YORKU.CA,INTERNET
FROM:MARIA HARVEY
RE:GENDER IDENTITY
In Kiss of the Spider Woman Molina sees himself as a woman and in
lovemaking “likes to take it like a woman”. He/she wants to find a good
man to love and finds this in Valentin. What is the cause of this gender
association? Valentin is characteristically male, a revolutionary trying
to undercede the government. He is mentally strong. However, as the book
unfolds, we see changes in their characters. We see tough, macho Valentin
fantasizing about human intimacy and human pleasure.
It is interesting to note that both Valentin and Molina show a
variety of traits characteristic to feminity and masculinity. Who is the
weaker/stronger of the characters? I think that this changes throughout
the novel. One of the questions raised by this book is how does one form
his/her own gender identity and when is this determined? Do
circumstances change one’s gender identity?
In the Toronto Star, July 7, 1998, there is an interesting article on
page A2 entitled ‘Gender identity may be formed after birth.’ This
article is inciting the theory that gender identity develops after birth
by giving the example of a boy who is “assigned” a female identity because
his penis was damaged during circumcision. (He was given a vagina and
female hormones.) She is now living as a woman and says that she is
bisexual. The article goes on to say that “sexual orientation may be
determined in the womb, by genetics, and prenatal hormones, but that
gender identity may be determined months after birth.”
Therefore, if you tell a child at a young enough age what sex he/she
is then this will be believed and the child will accept this. This is
certainly an interesting argument and raises some issues including
sexuality and who has the right to reassign a child a different gender
identity? And, can one choose his/her own gender or is this genetic?
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 16:49:57 PDT
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Jamie Wong
Subject: Re: Canadian Identitiy? My own conclusion.
Content-Type: text/plain
I am proud to acknowledge that I am a Canadian citizen, and even prouder
to be living in a country that promotes multi-culturalism and such a
diversity in terms of linguistic background.
My ancestors were all from mainland China, but I am Canadian born. That
does not mean that I will throw away my rich culture and the language of
my ancestors. Since Canada is considered such a cultural mosaic, I am
proud to retain the culture and the beliefs of my ancestors, while at
the same time, also proud to be Canadian, since this great nation
affords me with tremendous human rights and privileges that are lacking
in China.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 20:55:26 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Caitlin
Subject: Re: power corrupts?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----Original Message-----
From: Claudius Alexander
To: HUM1750@YORKU.CA
Date: July 7, 1998 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: power corrupts?
>Hi Caitlin, I would like to know whether these cultures which Mead speaks
>of are still around. I would suggest that if they are, their numbers are
>dwindling in a hurry. I will qualify this when you answer,
>
I don't know the answer to this, Claudius, but I expect you're right --
cultures change over time and it's likely the cultures Mead discusses have
undergone significant changes for a variety of reasons. I brought Mead's
work to the list's attention mainly to flag the fact that diverse ways of
organizing and understanding gender (and most other things ;) exist in other
parts of the world and in other time periods.... sometimes when we ask
questions that sound utterly fanciful (in this case, 'I wonder how women
would organize society if they were more powerful?') partial answers...or at
least suggestive possibilities, can be found in other disciplines, other
cultures, other times. And, of course, knowledge of traditions other than
our own can pose interesting challenges to the foundations of our own
knowledge.
Then again -- new tangent here ;) -- Mead, as a western woman had her own
'cultural baggage' ... what happens when you study 'other' cultures when
your framework is western? This is a problem anthropology has puzzled over
for a long time.
Caitlin
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 21:39:00 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Caitlin
Subject: Re: individualism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----Original Message-----
From: Claudius Alexander
To: HUM1750@YORKU.CA
Date: July 7, 1998 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: individualism
>Caitlin, Once again I may be out of my league. You mentioned Hobbes and
>Smith as early proponents of "individualist philosophy", and went on to
>briefly define that philosophy. Question: is there a distinction between
>this and what John Mill called (act/rule) utilitarianism?
You always ask good questions, Claudius. Individualism and utilitarianism
are closely related but I would argue that they do dovetail. Utilitarianism
comes from the same root as 'utility' -- usefulness. The principle tenet of
utilitarianism, as I remember it, is that we should work to promote
happiness and prevent unhappiness. Seems pretty reasonable. When I wrote
that
>This is not always solely about egoism (although in some thinkers it is);
>they may believe that the end of social, political, and economic
>organization is the greatest good for the greatest number (Smith, for
>example)
the part about the greatest good for the greatest number is, as I see it,
the utilitarian component to individualism. But as you might gather,
utilitarians can end up fighting for very different outcomes, in practice...
it was a very very important 19th century reform movement which tested all
social institutions by the principle of utility (sometimes called
"philosophical radicalism") and the reformers typically advocated democratic
structures. But some utilitarians were anarchic communists, too (do you see
how that might happen?) .
You mention J Mill. I don't know a lot about him. But I see his son JS
Mill as an individualist and a utilitarian... Smith, too. JS Mill's essay
"Utilitarianism," published in Fraser's Magazine (1861), is an excellent
introduction to all of this ... But it sounds like you might have already
read it. (an intro to economics textbook might do, too)
sorry if I'm disjointed. it's been a long day ;)
Caitlin
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 21:54:22 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Caitlin
Subject: Nic's post (was:Re: Canadian Identity)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Nic, I really like the way you' ve made connections between your personal
history and the sometimes very abstract issues we're tackling here.
Caitlin
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 00:55:24 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Mario Cordero
Subject: Re: Canadian Identity (& a little bit more)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi!
This is Mario Bibi Cordero. Arguably, from various e-mails, one thing is
clear: acknowledgement of the multiculturalistic Canada. Personally I think,
a "universial culture will have to be derived from the "mult- components"
that is present in this country in orther to achieve the national unity.
However, this idea to some, is truly mythological. Even to me, I am
pessimistically otimistic/ otimisistically pessimistic about this idea. this
is with no doubt, a really complex issue. What should the "average culture"
be? Should every particular element of various culture be in consideration?
(In other words, Lowest Common Multiple) Or should it be the " Highest
Common Factor"? (Similarities of various culture excluding the leftovers)
Who &/or what will be excluded will even cause a more chaotic situation.
I do have in mind a couple of alternatives that MIGHT, NOT DEFINITELY
balance the equation. (& I do not think it could be 100% applicable)
1) same as the States/ former USSR, country the first. (Let me say
hypnotisation of an individual to be a true American/ working class
individual) while military action shall be undertaken if any one of the
states/ provinces plans to be independent.
2) Adoptation of the dominent culture: any immigrant from other solar system
moving to earth will have to be an "earthman". (Quite the same as the first
mean but this is arbitrary)
3)Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS- former USSR): own laws, own
cultures in a jurisdiction underneath the "CIS umbrella". (Simply speaking,
partitioning but still to form an institution similar to the European Union)
I shall not choose any one of the alternative. I guess time will sort out a
solution regardless whether or not it will be a satisfying outcome.
Thanks for reading. I do not intend to be rude or disrespectful but if this
message were to be offensive, I shall, with sincerity, apologise.
Mario
mbc@shaw.wave.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: Claudius Alexander
To: HUM1750@YORKU.CA
Date: Wednesday, July 08, 1998 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: Canadian Identity
>Alison, as is generally the case with social "ideals", multiculturalism,
>in my opinion, would always be an ideal sought after; meaning that it is
>by our current definition an improbability. I would rather not see myself
>as a pessimist, but given that we already have immense difficulty dealing
>with much smaller issues (like tax reform, education), chances are the
>multicultural ideal in Canada was and will be a dream. As to the question
>of a mix between that and nationalism, if my math is correct, the two
>cannot add up. That sort of goal can only produce/promote racisn. One of
>the aims of nationalism is to engender "national pride". Its an all or
>nothing game.
>
>On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, Alison Read wrote:
>
>> Claudius:
>>
>> These are very interesting points you have raised.
>>
>> I believe that a lack of national pride and unity has weakened our
>> "ideological framework" No, this is not necessarily an evil, but can a
>> balance between national pride and multiculturalism not be found? As you
>> suggest Claudius, are there not some times when we should think of the
>> country we live in first?
>>
>> This brings me to another thought. Does this lack of Canadian identity
>> suggest that multiculturalism places the individual first? And the
>> nation you live in second? Can multiculturalism mean the opposite? Can
>> both exist at the same time?
>>
>
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 12:31:28 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Nicola Simone
Subject: gender/gender identity
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Glenn asked if gender is genetic. The answer is yes. The female eggs all
contain an X chromisome while the male's sperm has a mixture of X and Y
chromisomes. If an X sperm fertilizes the egg the child will be female and
if a Y sperm fertilizes the egg the child will be male. (note: some
believe that having sex at certain times of the month gives a greater
likelihood of one sex or the other. However as of yet this has neither
been substantiated or disproven by science)
In Glenn's post he only gave one side of the story. The same article
states that a boy who had his penis cut off (was given a vagina and female
hormones) and was brought up as a girl after hearing the news at 14
reverted back to being a boy and is now happily married to a woman. The
researcher suggest a window of about 18 monthes in which a child does not
identify with either sex. Glenn says the arguement is interesting and
from a science students perspective it really is but this subject has to
be approached with caution since the researchers are dealing with only two
documented cases. They admit in the article that the second case seems to
dispute the first. When dealing with such a low statistical number and
feaseable no way to reproduce the results in a large enough scale to test
the hypothesis statistically it is very danagerous to draw any
conclusions. This whole argument reminds me of what scientist fight over
all the time how much of a person's make up is genetic and how much is a
product of the environment they are brought up. As for who gets to choice
the gender identity, this is a provocative question but let's not get
ahead of ourselves the jury is still out on weather or not gender identity
is genetic or a product of psyological conditioning. All the genes in the
human body have let to be mapped and they may as of yet find a gene that
controls gender identity.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 12:43:19 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: "Sandra M.M Correia"
Subject: Re: World Cup
In-Reply-To: <199806270734.DAA29180@sungod.ccs.yorku.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I agree with Nicola soccer should always be played for fun and should
never be violent. Using soccer as a political weapon should not be
used as an excuse to be violent. It should be remembered that soccer is a
game and hence should be for fun. I totally disagree with the violence
and I don't think that all violence that comes from soccer is from a
political stand point. Some violence comes from egotistic people who
believe that they are the best and that their team will win, without any
doubts. Everyone has the right to cheer on any team but what people must
remember is that these days will pass and if someone does something
terrible and ends up hurting another human being they may just feel
guilty when all this is over.
-Sandra Correia
On Sat, 27 Jun 1998, Heidi wrote:
> Today, we enjoy the world cup, but Colombia term would have a big pressure
> about their campaign, remeber last time world cup, one term member was
> killed becasue he made a mistake for shot their home. This year, many
> term members reveice threaten letter to threat them they must win the
> campaign in the world cup. I think so sorry about that, casue basicly
> soccer is a kind of healthy activity, every people should have fun about it
> and don't care about loss or win. What is your opinion?
> Heidi Chan
>
> ----------
> > From: Caitlin Fisher
> > To: HUM1750@YORKU.CA
> > Subject: World Cup
> > Date: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 4:33 PM
> >
> > from merhnaz,
> > caitlin
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 18:55:28 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: Mehrnaz Eshaghzadehali
> > To: Caitlin@yorku.ca
> > Subject: World Cup
> >
> > Hi every one
> > Nicola said playing soccer should be just for fun and there shouldn't be
> > any violence between fans. I think it is true when the game is between
> > two schools or two teams in the same country but not in world cup among
> > many countries. Today world cup is an opportunity to demonstrate the
> > power and nationalism of a country and I believe it is not just a game it
> > is a political fight. For example the game between U.S. and Iran, after
> > all those years of hostility, didn't cause any progress in the relations
> > between two countries. Besides most Iraninan were happy that the result
> > of the game was a good answer to whatever U.S. had down to their
> > country!
> > On the other hand Iranians who live here have different opinions about
> the
> > government and they are divided into different groups like opposition
> > parties. Each of these groups made a little change in Iraninan flag.
> After
> > the game waving different Iranian flags wasn't just a way to exprees
> > happiness, It was a political show! Each party wanted to say that the
> > Iranina team belonged to that party. It is surprising to know that most
> > of the Iranian players don't even care about any of these groups! but
> they
> > are being used politically, anyway.
>
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 13:08:57 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Caitlin
Subject: Re: gender/gender identity
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Actually, there are significant numbers of cases. Dr. John Money at John's
Hopkins Medical School did a lot of this research in the 1970s. I believe
it continues to be a research field with a lot of activity. And biology
isn't always clear-cut... we're not all XX or XY: there are many cases of
XXY or XYY. This poses some interesting questions for anyone trying to
puzzle out gender/sex. Perhaps an interesting research project at some
later date for the scientists among you?
always looking to send you running to the library ;-)
Caitlin
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicola Simone
To: HUM1750@YORKU.CA
Date: July 9, 1998 12:35 PM
Subject: gender/gender identity
>Glenn asked if gender is genetic. The answer is yes. The female eggs all
>contain an X chromisome while the male's sperm has a mixture of X and Y
>chromisomes. If an X sperm fertilizes the egg the child will be female and
>if a Y sperm fertilizes the egg the child will be male. (note: some
>believe that having sex at certain times of the month gives a greater
>likelihood of one sex or the other. However as of yet this has neither
>been substantiated or disproven by science)
>In Glenn's post he only gave one side of the story. The same article
>states that a boy who had his penis cut off (was given a vagina and female
>hormones) and was brought up as a girl after hearing the news at 14
>reverted back to being a boy and is now happily married to a woman. The
>researcher suggest a window of about 18 monthes in which a child does not
>identify with either sex. Glenn says the arguement is interesting and
>from a science students perspective it really is but this subject has to
>be approached with caution since the researchers are dealing with only two
>documented cases. They admit in the article that the second case seems to
>dispute the first. When dealing with such a low statistical number and
>feaseable no way to reproduce the results in a large enough scale to test
>the hypothesis statistically it is very danagerous to draw any
>conclusions. This whole argument reminds me of what scientist fight over
>all the time how much of a person's make up is genetic and how much is a
>product of the environment they are brought up. As for who gets to choice
>the gender identity, this is a provocative question but let's not get
>ahead of ourselves the jury is still out on weather or not gender identity
>is genetic or a product of psyological conditioning. All the genes in the
>human body have let to be mapped and they may as of yet find a gene that
>controls gender identity.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 14:27:56 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Nicola Simone
Subject: gender
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Caitlin your right. Ishould not have omitted mutations such as Turner's
syndrome (X), Kleinfelter's syndrome (XXY), etc. because they can gives us
great insight into how gender is fomred. But, in the majority(99.9%) of
cases even when a mutation has occur if a Y chromosome is present the
child turns out to be male. I had never heard of an XYY mutation before
thou and went to look it up and discovered something quite interesting.
The XYY genotype is 2.5 times more abundant in institutionalized male
criminals than in a control group. The textbook I took this from goes on
to say that further studies are necessary but it suggest we may have to
alter our view about criminals and agressive behaviour. What I'm thinking
is that a mutation somewhere else in the genome ( autosomal chromosomes)
may somehow have an effect on gender and gender indentity (i.e.)
increase/decrease in a certain hormone maybe.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 18:47:19 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Ronit Lorber
Subject: JAZZ
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
This message goes out to all you speed readers who have managed to finish
Toni Morrison's novel Jazz. My group and Ihave chosen to study Jazz for
our oral presentation and we are finding it difficult to pull the various
ideas presented by Morrison together. I have gone through the book for a
second time and I feel I have a much greater understanding of the story
but I cant help but think that Morrison's style is simply subtle and
rather then commenting outright about racisim or sexism, she expresses her
opinions through the story. I came to this conclusion by contrasting
Jazz to some of the other works we have studied and found that she deals
with several issues that other authors have, yet does so in a less direct
manner. I was hoping on receiving some feedback from
the class and specifically from those students also presenting Jazz in
other tutorials. I am most interested in discussing Morrison's style of
writing because I am concernec that the conclusion that I have come to is
not the correct one.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 22:23:51 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Alison Read
Subject: Identity
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Claudius:
I'm sorry, but I need some clarification.
If an individual says I am of this heritage or I am that one, but as a
whole we realize that, if only by the simple fact that we live in this
country, we are also Canadian, how does this produce/promote racism?
On Wed, 8 JUL 98, Claudius Alexander wrote:
> Alison, as is generally the case with social "ideals", multiculturalism,
> in my opinion, would always be an ideal sought after; meaning that it is
> by our current definition an improbability. I would rather not see myself
> as a pessimist, but given that we already have immense difficulty dealing
> with much smaller issues (like tax reform, education), chances are the
> multicultural ideal in Canada was and will be a dream. As to the question
> of a mix between that and nationalism, if my math is correct, the two
> cannot add up. That sort of goal can only produce/promote racisn. One of
> the aims of nationalism is to engender "national pride". Its an all or
> nothing game.
>
> On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, Alison Read wrote:
>
> > Claudius:
> >
> > These are very interesting points you have raised.
> >
> > I believe that a lack of national pride and unity has weakened our
> > "ideological framework" No, this is not necessarily an evil, but can a
> > balance between national pride and multiculturalism not be found? As you
> > suggest Claudius, are there not some times when we should think of the
> > country we live in first?
> >
> > This brings me to another thought. Does this lack of Canadian identity
> > suggest that multiculturalism places the individual first? And the
> > nation you live in second? Can multiculturalism mean the opposite? Can
> > both exist at the same time?
> >
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 11:23:39 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: "Sandra M.M Correia"
Subject: Re: "Feminism"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
This response is for the comment made by Claudius re: Feminism.
I see individualism a little differently from you, here is my opinion.
I don't agree that the rise of the "individual" is linked to the Feminist
movement. I believe individualism existed before the feminist movement.
It existed for the man but not for the woman. That is why women began to
protest, that is the essence of the feminist movement. Women want the
enjoy the same rights and freedoms that men enjoy. What creates
individualism is exercising those rights and freedoms. I see
individualism as some one who is self-sustaining. Who can survive on
their own. Men have always been individuals and it is that, that women
want to enjoy as well. So, the notion of individualism did not arise from
the feminist movement. What has happened is that women can now also enjoy
being an individual and not have to rely on anyone else (husband).
Regarding your comment on how individual happiness of the man and woman in
the relationship was secondary to the welfare of the children, this too I
don't agree with. Maybe my viewpoint is different. But, men have enjoyed
their individualism and it has not been secondary to the children. The
woman who was has not been an individual was the one who took on primary
care of the children. So, I agree that the welfare of the children has
decreased without a doubt. But I don't see it as a woman only problem,
instead I see it as a problem that both men and women are responsible for.
A new order within the relationship has to be created to assure that our
children are being cared for by both parents, since individualism is now
enjoyed by both partners equally.
What do you think. Is it just my view point that is different or is my
analysis of individualism totally of the mark?
-Sandra Correia
-------------------------------------------------------
Claudius wrote :
Hi Cinda, I don't know how to do that "snip" thing yet. I would
have to accept the impropriety of attempting to saddle the feminist
movement with the decline in children's welfare. As I said before, I am
not here suggesting that the movement is directly responsible for that.
But we cannot ignore the fact that along with the definite advances made
by and for women through the movement during the last 30 or so years, has
come the phenomenon ofindividualism. (Let me know if I'm wrong here).
This individualism is practiced by both male and female and is not to say
that it is necessarily a bad or wrong thing. But having said that, would
you not agree that where once the individual happiness of the man and
woman in the relationship was secondary to the welfare of the children,
the rise of individualism has changed all of that? Or am I mistaken in
believing that the rise of the "individual" can be linked to the feminist
movement?
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 13:10:05 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: "Sandra M.M Correia"
Subject: Re: Canadian Identitiy?
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
My opinion on the issue of Canadian identity.
Hi, I just wanted to comment on the idea of being Canadian. I was born in
Canada, but my parents were born in Portugal. They came here when they
were 20 years old. I too am a citizen of Portugal, but first and formost
I was born in Canada. I don't think that one has to be native to believe
that they are Canadian. Being Canadian is a feeling. What makes you who
you are is ones beliefs. Culture has a helping hand in making up someones
beliefs. I believe that I am Canadian. I feel that I am Canadian. My
cultural and social beliefs as a woman is nothing like those of the women
that live in Portugal. My beliefs are the same as those shared by
most Canadians. In my opinion where you are raised makes you who you
are. I was raised in Canada therefore I am Canadian.
-Sandra Correia
On Sun, 5 Jul 1998, NILESH SURTI wrote:
> To Ronit Lorber
>
> You have raised an interesting topic that I have been discussion
> throughout last year or so. The reason is because I want to know what
> does it mean to be Canadian and how can one differeniant a Canadian from
> an American. I am as extremely happy to be a Canadian and also I was born
> in Canada. However I am also part Indian because my parents come from
> India. Due to this I am half Indian and Canadain, but when someone tells
> me what is my nationality, I always reply by saying that
> I am Indian not Canadian. The reason why I say that is
> because my skin colour, my
> beliefs, and my cultural upbring is shaped by the Indian culture, so
> therefore I will alway call
> myself Indian first then Canadian. The reason why you saw various flag
> flying around in Toronto is not surprising because Canada was developed
> based on immigration and because of that, it makes canada one of the most
> unique countries in the world. I believe canada was regarded as the best
> country to live in for the past four years by the United Nation. Which is
> something I am proud of but I don't go waving a canadian flag because of
> that reason. Personally I really do not think anyone in this country is
> regard as a ture Canadian. However I do realize that this is changing in
> the past few years because more and more people are declaring themselve as
> canadians which has been shown in the cesus Canada which is good to see.
> Another reason why we get to see a lot different flags is because in
> canada we are able to retain our culture and encouraged to show it.
> Because of that reason it is selling feature for canada. In united states
> you are brain washed to be an American first. I have few cousins in
> United States and they consider thenselve Americans first then Indians and
> the same philoshy for their parents. However this is not the case in
> canada. My parents have lived in canada for 25 years and they will never
> consider themselves as canadian first.
> I have always believed in holding onto your identity and I love to
> see people wave their own flags because it shows pride about their
> herigate and culture. The question that I have for everyone is that in
> the next census form that you fill out will you tick mark yourself as
> Canadian first? and WHY?
>
> Nilesh
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Ronit Lorber wrote:
>
> > On Canada's birthday, my friends and I decided to go to watch the
> > fireworks at Ontario Place. On the ride downtown, I expected to see many
> > people in their cars, waving Canadian flags and celebrating our nation's
> > birthday. I was extremely shocked that very few people had flags of
> > Canada on their car or in their hands as they paraded down the streets.
> > What the majority of Torontonians were doing was celebrating the world cup
> > and were driving down the streets waving various flags (Brazilian,
> > Italian, Argentina etc.) I completely support people celebrating their
> > home teams victories, but I find it rather distasteful to not carry a
> > Canadian flag on July 1st and rather to hold the flag of another country.
> > I like many other Canadians was not born in Canada and as a result I feel
> > extremely lucky and greatful to be living in such a democratic country. I
> > am not suggesting that we should be as patriotic as the Americans, but I
> > do think acknowledging Canada's birthday is appropriate.
> >
>
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 14:58:52 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: "Sandra M.M Correia"
Subject: Re: gender
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
This is all interesting information. I was aware that X and Y chromosomes
determined the sex of a child but I was not aware of the XXY mutations.
I agree that this could give some insight into why people do what they do.
-Sandra Correia
On Thu, 9 Jul 1998, Nicola Simone wrote:
> Caitlin your right. Ishould not have omitted mutations such as Turner's
> syndrome (X), Kleinfelter's syndrome (XXY), etc. because they can gives us
> great insight into how gender is fomred. But, in the majority(99.9%) of
> cases even when a mutation has occur if a Y chromosome is present the
> child turns out to be male. I had never heard of an XYY mutation before
> thou and went to look it up and discovered something quite interesting.
> The XYY genotype is 2.5 times more abundant in institutionalized male
> criminals than in a control group. The textbook I took this from goes on
> to say that further studies are necessary but it suggest we may have to
> alter our view about criminals and agressive behaviour. What I'm thinking
> is that a mutation somewhere else in the genome ( autosomal chromosomes)
> may somehow have an effect on gender and gender indentity (i.e.)
> increase/decrease in a certain hormone maybe.
>
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 15:32:05 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Claudius Alexander
Subject: Re: your mail
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Kuhabalini, I welcome the help on this sensitive debate. But the first 15
words you wrote were not mine.
On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, Kuhabalini Selvachandran wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Iagree with Claudius that when women get marry they wanted it to last
>
> forever but unfortunately the marrage does not last forever so in this
>
> country women have their freedom to get divorce not like the third world
>
> country where you do not have choice so you got to live with the way you
>
> choose to live if it does not work. Before they get divorce both the
>
> partners try to make their marriage work. Women does not need man's money
>
> to live.
>
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 15:44:02 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Claudius Alexander
Subject: Re: Feminism, the most important movement?
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Chung, I believe the solution to your first problem was answered in large
part by the first question you posed; except maybe "each person has
ditterent ideas".
On Wed, 8 Jul 1998, Chung Yeung wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I have two questions that hope you can help me to answer:
>
> 1) we always discuss different idea/movement from the past to now. Do you
> think it's because each person has different standard? If every one has
> the same standard level, will the society bacome more 'peace' or
> 'tranquil' - no movement? no revolution? no argument?
>
> 2) some of you point out the relationship between individualism and
> science. I don't quiet understand what the link? Can some one explain it?
>
> Chung
>
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 12:53:47 -0700
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Dacia Lanning
Subject: Re: JAZZ
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I agree with you concerning Morrison's style. I have also read her
novel Beloved, a difficult read because of the African-American slave
dialect used throughout. I would agree that her style can be looked
at as subtle, but on the other hand the nature of the narrative
prompts strong character identification. The character development is
so strongly executed that Morrison gives the personal accounts in her
fiction the strength of a polemic.
---Ronit Lorber wrote:
>
> This message goes out to all you speed readers who have managed to
finish
> Toni Morrison's novel Jazz. My group and Ihave chosen to study Jazz
for
> our oral presentation and we are finding it difficult to pull the
various
> ideas presented by Morrison together. I have gone through the book
for a
> second time and I feel I have a much greater understanding of the
story
> but I cant help but think that Morrison's style is simply subtle and
> rather then commenting outright about racisim or sexism, she
expresses her
> opinions through the story. I came to this conclusion by contrasting
> Jazz to some of the other works we have studied and found that she
deals
> with several issues that other authors have, yet does so in a less
direct
> manner. I was hoping on receiving some feedback from
> the class and specifically from those students also presenting Jazz in
> other tutorials. I am most interested in discussing Morrison's
style of
> writing because I am concernec that the conclusion that I have come
to is
> not the correct one.
>
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 12:36:59 -0700
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Dacia Lanning
Subject: Re: Canadian Identitiy?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I wanted to relate some of the discussion on Canadian Identity to our
look at the Oka crisis, and the film, Kanehsatake. The film provided
some historical context for the viewer which helped to define the
nature of Natives' position and feelings which led to not only the
crisis but was a shaping force in the status of Canadian Natives
today. Many class members have provided their own historical context
to what their citizenship means and how their identity has been
shaped. The Mohawks were exasperated by the treatment they have
received at the hands of the governments, British, French, Canadian
and the Ruling majority. I think many new and old Canadians can
relate to these feelings. All identities are sacred and provide a
historical record. I think that equalizing the importance of history
in ALL identities would go a long way toward achieving some
understanding. I found the connection between the role of property
and status depicted in the film to be insightful. The disputed
ownership of land brought Native Issues national attention. A history
of land appropriation was provided from a native perspective. The
film left me wondering if anything but capital ownership can
necessitate a forum for discussion of the social/cultural implications
of history. As people from this class have related their own
cultural, racial identities and their history, I have felt that the
answer is definitely yes. It might be easier to look at issues from
another perspective than I think, is generally recognized.
---"Sandra M.M Correia" wrote:
>
> My opinion on the issue of Canadian identity.
>
> Hi, I just wanted to comment on the idea of being Canadian. I was
born in
> Canada, but my parents were born in Portugal. They came here when
they
> were 20 years old. I too am a citizen of Portugal, but first and
formost
> I was born in Canada. I don't think that one has to be native to
believe
> that they are Canadian. Being Canadian is a feeling. What makes
you who
> you are is ones beliefs. Culture has a helping hand in making up
someones
> beliefs. I believe that I am Canadian. I feel that I am Canadian. My
> cultural and social beliefs as a woman is nothing like those of the
women
> that live in Portugal. My beliefs are the same as those shared by
> most Canadians. In my opinion where you are raised makes you who you
> are. I was raised in Canada therefore I am Canadian.
>
> -Sandra Correia
>
> On Sun, 5 Jul 1998, NILESH SURTI wrote:
>
> > To Ronit Lorber
> >
> > You have raised an interesting topic that I have been discussion
> > throughout last year or so. The reason is because I want to know
what
> > does it mean to be Canadian and how can one differeniant a
Canadian from
> > an American. I am as extremely happy to be a Canadian and also I
was born
> > in Canada. However I am also part Indian because my parents come
from
> > India. Due to this I am half Indian and Canadain, but when
someone tells
> > me what is my nationality, I always reply by saying that
> > I am Indian not Canadian. The reason why I say that is
> > because my skin colour, my
> > beliefs, and my cultural upbring is shaped by the Indian culture,
so
> > therefore I will alway call
> > myself Indian first then Canadian. The reason why you saw various
flag
> > flying around in Toronto is not surprising because Canada was
developed
> > based on immigration and because of that, it makes canada one of
the most
> > unique countries in the world. I believe canada was regarded as
the best
> > country to live in for the past four years by the United Nation.
Which is
> > something I am proud of but I don't go waving a canadian flag
because of
> > that reason. Personally I really do not think anyone in this
country is
> > regard as a ture Canadian. However I do realize that this is
changing in
> > the past few years because more and more people are declaring
themselve as
> > canadians which has been shown in the cesus Canada which is good
to see.
> > Another reason why we get to see a lot different flags is because in
> > canada we are able to retain our culture and encouraged to show it.
> > Because of that reason it is selling feature for canada. In
united states
> > you are brain washed to be an American first. I have few cousins in
> > United States and they consider thenselve Americans first then
Indians and
> > the same philoshy for their parents. However this is not the case
in
> > canada. My parents have lived in canada for 25 years and they
will never
> > consider themselves as canadian first.
> > I have always believed in holding onto your identity and I
love to
> > see people wave their own flags because it shows pride about their
> > herigate and culture. The question that I have for everyone is
that in
> > the next census form that you fill out will you tick mark yourself
as
> > Canadian first? and WHY?
> >
> > Nilesh
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Ronit Lorber wrote:
> >
> > > On Canada's birthday, my friends and I decided to go to watch the
> > > fireworks at Ontario Place. On the ride downtown, I expected to
see many
> > > people in their cars, waving Canadian flags and celebrating our
nation's
> > > birthday. I was extremely shocked that very few people had
flags of
> > > Canada on their car or in their hands as they paraded down the
streets.
> > > What the majority of Torontonians were doing was celebrating the
world cup
> > > and were driving down the streets waving various flags (Brazilian,
> > > Italian, Argentina etc.) I completely support people
celebrating their
> > > home teams victories, but I find it rather distasteful to not
carry a
> > > Canadian flag on July 1st and rather to hold the flag of another
country.
> > > I like many other Canadians was not born in Canada and as a
result I feel
> > > extremely lucky and greatful to be living in such a democratic
country. I
> > > am not suggesting that we should be as patriotic as the
Americans, but I
> > > do think acknowledging Canada's birthday is appropriate.
> > >
> >
>
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 19:00:58 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Paul Gill
Subject: Re: Oka
The issue in this case should not have been difficult to resolve because
on the one side, there was an issue of heritage, culture, and respect for
ancestrial remains, while on the other, there was a matter of recreation
and economics. By resorting to such drastic measures, Canadian authorites
should be ashamed of itself for reverting to behaviour that was reminiscent
to the immoral practices of the past. In a time of moral and ethical
reasoning, people in an advanced country such as Canada should never have
resorted to throwing rocks at innocent people while at the same time trying
to deprive them of their heritage and beliefs for such a superficial
alternative.
Paul Gill
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 19:11:11 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Claudius Alexander
Subject: Re: individualism
In-Reply-To: <01bdaada$58f22aa0$6f7a3f82@caitlin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Caitlin, Re: "But some utilitarians....happen." You've stated that the
ultimate aim of the utilitarian arm of "individualist phliosophy" is the
"greater good for the greater number". You've informed us that this ideal
is believed achievable trough "social, political, economic" measures. Here,
if "social" can be made the basis upon which the "political/economic"
decisions are made, we become "socialists". Then you say that somewhere in
the mix there is something called "egoism" (though not always). Now we
learn that these same people sometimes seek "different outcomes".
Then, you add that amongst these very intelligent people is
discussed a subject called "philosophical radicalism". I don't know what
this last construct should entail, but it reminds me of the word "power".
If I now assume now that these intelligent beings were to all agree on
all the "key" social, political, & economic issues at hand, it is not
difficult to think "want of control=anarchy=communism".
On Wed, 8 Jul 1998, Caitlin wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Claudius Alexander
> To: HUM1750@YORKU.CA
> Date: July 7, 1998 5:53 PM
> Subject: Re: individualism
>
>
> >Caitlin, Once again I may be out of my league. You mentioned Hobbes and
> >Smith as early proponents of "individualist philosophy", and went on to
> >briefly define that philosophy. Question: is there a distinction between
> >this and what John Mill called (act/rule) utilitarianism?
>
>
> You always ask good questions, Claudius. Individualism and utilitarianism
> are closely related but I would argue that they do dovetail. Utilitarianism
> comes from the same root as 'utility' -- usefulness. The principle tenet of
> utilitarianism, as I remember it, is that we should work to promote
> happiness and prevent unhappiness. Seems pretty reasonable. When I wrote
> that
>
> >This is not always solely about egoism (although in some thinkers it is);
> >they may believe that the end of social, political, and economic
> >organization is the greatest good for the greatest number (Smith, for
> >example)
>
> the part about the greatest good for the greatest number is, as I see it,
> the utilitarian component to individualism. But as you might gather,
> utilitarians can end up fighting for very different outcomes, in practice...
> it was a very very important 19th century reform movement which tested all
> social institutions by the principle of utility (sometimes called
> "philosophical radicalism") and the reformers typically advocated democratic
> structures. But some utilitarians were anarchic communists, too (do you see
> how that might happen?) .
> You mention J Mill. I don't know a lot about him. But I see his son JS
> Mill as an individualist and a utilitarian... Smith, too. JS Mill's essay
> "Utilitarianism," published in Fraser's Magazine (1861), is an excellent
> introduction to all of this ... But it sounds like you might have already
> read it. (an intro to economics textbook might do, too)
>
> sorry if I'm disjointed. it's been a long day ;)
> Caitlin
>
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 19:27:38 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Claudius Alexander
Subject: Re: Identity
In-Reply-To: <35A57B37.3B0F@sympatico.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Alison, my comment was meant refer only to the question of whether a
country can can endorse both principles (multiculturalism/nationalism) at
the same time. I may have misunderstood your question.
On Thu, 9 Jul 1998, Alison Read wrote:
> Claudius:
>
> I'm sorry, but I need some clarification.
>
> If an individual says I am of this heritage or I am that one, but as a
> whole we realize that, if only by the simple fact that we live in this
> country, we are also Canadian, how does this produce/promote racism?
>
> On Wed, 8 JUL 98, Claudius Alexander wrote:
>
> > Alison, as is generally the case with social "ideals", multiculturalism,
> > in my opinion, would always be an ideal sought after; meaning that it is
> > by our current definition an improbability. I would rather not see myself
> > as a pessimist, but given that we already have immense difficulty dealing
> > with much smaller issues (like tax reform, education), chances are the
> > multicultural ideal in Canada was and will be a dream. As to the question
> > of a mix between that and nationalism, if my math is correct, the two
> > cannot add up. That sort of goal can only produce/promote racisn. One of
> > the aims of nationalism is to engender "national pride". Its an all or
> > nothing game.
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, Alison Read wrote:
> >
> > > Claudius:
> > >
> > > These are very interesting points you have raised.
> > >
> > > I believe that a lack of national pride and unity has weakened our
> > > "ideological framework" No, this is not necessarily an evil, but can a
> > > balance between national pride and multiculturalism not be found? As you
> > > suggest Claudius, are there not some times when we should think of the
> > > country we live in first?
> > >
> > > This brings me to another thought. Does this lack of Canadian identity
> > > suggest that multiculturalism places the individual first? And the
> > > nation you live in second? Can multiculturalism mean the opposite? Can
> > > both exist at the same time?
> > >
>
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 19:59:31 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Caitlin Fisher
Subject: Re: individualism
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Hi Claudius, everyone. Maybe this is what I should have said in the first
place: as I understand it, some utilitarians were individualists, but
some weren't.
caitlin
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 20:33:24 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Robert H Kennedy
Subject: Re: Canadian Identitiy?
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
from Ewald
I'm glad I live in a country where patriotism or other forms of
nationalistic chauvinism are not overdone. I prefer a relationship to land
or the world or the part of the world we live in to be based not on the
'this is mine ' principle; but rather on the basis of 'oh, this is
something I've got to take care of'. A sense not so much of ownership or
possession (in both senses of the word) of land but a sense of
responsibility for it. Civilisations' fallout include alienation from
nature and a desire, compulsion even, to control or dominate; whether this
be the people around, especially children as personal possessions (in both
senses of the word) or the world. I'm glad (lucky) to be living in a
country, though not without serious problems, which more closely resembles
old world utopian ideals than any other in the new world. America abandons
these ideals by wearing the mantle of world power like the roughnecks of
old: England, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, The Ottomans, Rome,
Egyptians, etc. Power cultures wherein people could unconsciously (do we
chose to be collectively unconscious?) think that god is an American, or
Roman, etc. Canadians would never arrogate this sort of metaphor. We would
never say god is a Canadian. Nor would anyone say god is a Dutchman, my
birthplace. Other nationalities would laugh us off the world stage. King
Louis XIV, busy making castles and jealous of Netherland's wealth called
the Dutch the herring folk and invaded. It would be good for our planet if
people stopped a metaphoric identification with the world and got along
with it. But I do understand that it's hard to give up power. It's scary to
leave the old world, we might fall off.
I'm glad to live in this country at this time. And I would rather wear a
real maple leaf, tenuous as it may be, than cling to any flag any day.
At 06:40 PM 7/2/98 -0400, you wrote:
>On Canada's birthday, my friends and I decided to go to watch the
>fireworks at Ontario Place. On the ride downtown, I expected to see many
>people in their cars, waving Canadian flags and celebrating our nation's
>birthday. I was extremely shocked that very few people had flags of
>Canada on their car or in their hands as they paraded down the streets.
>What the majority of Torontonians were doing was celebrating the world cup
>and were driving down the streets waving various flags (Brazilian,
>Italian, Argentina etc.) I completely support people celebrating their
>home teams victories, but I find it rather distasteful to not carry a
>Canadian flag on July 1st and rather to hold the flag of another country.
>I like many other Canadians was not born in Canada and as a result I feel
>extremely lucky and greatful to be living in such a democratic country. I
>am not suggesting that we should be as patriotic as the Americans, but I
>do think acknowledging Canada's birthday is appropriate.
>
>
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 20:48:14 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Claudius Alexander
Subject: Re: "Feminism"
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sandra, I would have to agree with you insofar as individualism is not a
"feminist construct". Upon review of my earlier comment it does appear
that this was implied. What I should have said then, perhaps, is that
"the feminist movement has allowed for an increase in the practice of
individualism".
You will have noted that what I was leading to is
the fact that the weakening of divorce laws, which can be credited in
very large part to the movement, has made it easier for both men and
women to selfishly go out and recklessly practice their "individualism".
In other words, where once the woman was not able to walk away from an
uncomfortable relationship as easily as was possible for the man,(who
had no reason to seek divorce since, as you pointed out, he was already
practicing) the feminist movement, through their efforts in levelling the
field between M/F, has facilitated the move to choose the "individualist"
route. I trust we haven't stepped outside the realm of what the
innovators of this deadly concept meant the term to mean.
The bottom line to all of this was (1) "Individualism", as a truly
literal concept, has removed "the working at" part of many relationships.
(2) This leads to divorce. (3) The children are caught in the middle,
often to end up living in poverty. This is what I meant to get across.
On Fri, 10 Jul 1998, Sandra M.M Correia wrote:
> This response is for the comment made by Claudius re: Feminism.
> I see individualism a little differently from you, here is my opinion.
>
> I don't agree that the rise of the "individual" is linked to the Feminist
> movement. I believe individualism existed before the feminist movement.
> It existed for the man but not for the woman. That is why women began to
> protest, that is the essence of the feminist movement. Women want the
> enjoy the same rights and freedoms that men enjoy. What creates
> individualism is exercising those rights and freedoms. I see
> individualism as some one who is self-sustaining. Who can survive on
> their own. Men have always been individuals and it is that, that women
> want to enjoy as well. So, the notion of individualism did not arise from
> the feminist movement. What has happened is that women can now also enjoy
> being an individual and not have to rely on anyone else (husband).
> Regarding your comment on how individual happiness of the man and woman in
> the relationship was secondary to the welfare of the children, this too I
> don't agree with. Maybe my viewpoint is different. But, men have enjoyed
> their individualism and it has not been secondary to the children. The
> woman who was has not been an individual was the one who took on primary
> care of the children. So, I agree that the welfare of the children has
> decreased without a doubt. But I don't see it as a woman only problem,
> instead I see it as a problem that both men and women are responsible for.
> A new order within the relationship has to be created to assure that our
> children are being cared for by both parents, since individualism is now
> enjoyed by both partners equally.
>
> What do you think. Is it just my view point that is different or is my
> analysis of individualism totally of the mark?
>
> -Sandra Correia
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Claudius wrote :
>
> Hi Cinda, I don't know how to do that "snip" thing yet. I would
> have to accept the impropriety of attempting to saddle the feminist
> movement with the decline in children's welfare. As I said before, I am
> not here suggesting that the movement is directly responsible for that.
> But we cannot ignore the fact that along with the definite advances made
> by and for women through the movement during the last 30 or so years, has
> come the phenomenon ofindividualism. (Let me know if I'm wrong here).
> This individualism is practiced by both male and female and is not to say
> that it is necessarily a bad or wrong thing. But having said that, would
> you not agree that where once the individual happiness of the man and
> woman in the relationship was secondary to the welfare of the children,
> the rise of individualism has changed all of that? Or am I mistaken in
> believing that the rise of the "individual" can be linked to the feminist
> movement?
>
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 21:00:38 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: Claudius Alexander
Subject: Re: individualism
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Thank you.
On Fri, 10 Jul 1998, Caitlin Fisher wrote:
> Hi Claudius, everyone. Maybe this is what I should have said in the first
> place: as I understand it, some utilitarians were individualists, but
> some weren't.
>
> caitlin
>
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 11:38:04 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: "F. LI"
Subject: Re: World Cup
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
We are not living in a perfect world today. Theoretically, there should be
no wars, no violence, no hatrate. We are striving for a peaceful world.
Competition in one way is a game for two sides to enjoy. This is what some
of us want. But, as long as there is other people existed. There will always
be someone to make fuss out of this. There will be people advocate
nationalism (I am not saying that it is bad). Then the game will have a
totally different meaning. Do you think it is alway part of the game as
well?
-----Original Message-----
From: Sandra M.M Correia
To: HUM1750@YORKU.CA
Date: Thursday, July 09, 1998 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: World Cup
>I agree with Nicola soccer should always be played for fun and should
>never be violent. Using soccer as a political weapon should not be
>used as an excuse to be violent. It should be remembered that soccer is a
>game and hence should be for fun. I totally disagree with the violence
>and I don't think that all violence that comes from soccer is from a
>political stand point. Some violence comes from egotistic people who
>believe that they are the best and that their team will win, without any
>doubts. Everyone has the right to cheer on any team but what people must
>remember is that these days will pass and if someone does something
>terrible and ends up hurting another human being they may just feel
>guilty when all this is over.
>
>-Sandra Correia
>
>On Sat, 27 Jun 1998, Heidi wrote:
>
>> Today, we enjoy the world cup, but Colombia term would have a big
pressure
>> about their campaign, remeber last time world cup, one term member was
>> killed becasue he made a mistake for shot their home. This year, many
>> term members reveice threaten letter to threat them they must win the
>> campaign in the world cup. I think so sorry about that, casue basicly
>> soccer is a kind of healthy activity, every people should have fun about
it
>> and don't care about loss or win. What is your opinion?
>> Heidi Chan
>>
>> ----------
>> > From: Caitlin Fisher
>> > To: HUM1750@YORKU.CA
>> > Subject: World Cup
>> > Date: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 4:33 PM
>> >
>> > from merhnaz,
>> > caitlin
>> >
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 18:55:28 -0400 (EDT)
>> > From: Mehrnaz Eshaghzadehali
>> > To: Caitlin@yorku.ca
>> > Subject: World Cup
>> >
>> > Hi every one
>> > Nicola said playing soccer should be just for fun and there shouldn't
be
>> > any violence between fans. I think it is true when the game is between
>> > two schools or two teams in the same country but not in world cup among
>> > many countries. Today world cup is an opportunity to demonstrate the
>> > power and nationalism of a country and I believe it is not just a game
it
>> > is a political fight. For example the game between U.S. and Iran, after
>> > all those years of hostility, didn't cause any progress in the
relations
>> > between two countries. Besides most Iraninan were happy that the
result
>> > of the game was a good answer to whatever U.S. had down to their
>> > country!
>> > On the other hand Iranians who live here have different opinions about
>> the
>> > government and they are divided into different groups like opposition
>> > parties. Each of these groups made a little change in Iraninan flag.
>> After
>> > the game waving different Iranian flags wasn't just a way to exprees
>> > happiness, It was a political show! Each party wanted to say that the
>> > Iranina team belonged to that party. It is surprising to know that
most
>> > of the Iranian players don't even care about any of these groups! but
>> they
>> > are being used politically, anyway.
>>
>
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 11:48:17 -0400
Reply-To: HUM1750 student discussion list
Sender: HUM1750 student discussion list
From: "F. LI"
