Ozymandias – When Violence is Necessary

I want to write about the greatest Apocalypse story ever told………………..The Watchmen. I personally take more pleasure in reading The Watchmen than in reading the Book of Revelations (although Hunter S. Thompson has stated that ‘Revelations’ is perhaps the greatest written work of all time).  Anyway, this will be my first post on the Watchmen and I plan to post more BS about it later on in life.

First off, I have read the book through a few times, I love it, I own the Director’s Cut on Blu-Ray (love it), I own the motion comic on Blu-Ray (s’alright), and I even have the  Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan action figures.  Yes, I am a big time nerd but I know what I like and I don’t need to fake it.  So then, what I want to write about is not the story itself because you might already know all that and if you don’t then definitely go out and get a copy of the book – trust me they are available and they are quite cheap.  I want to write about my favourite characters in the book and why I think they are the most relevant. (I will update in a few weeks, not that you care)

No. 1  = Ozymandias aka Adrian Veidt

Ozymandias is perhaps the most moral, certainly the most intelligent, character in the entire book. Yes, he does blow up half of Manhattan and kills a few million “innocent” lives but the price that humanity would pay in an all out World War would decimate not only humanity but all life itself on Earth (plants, animals, etc).  Ozymandias sees his opportunity to save a dying and hate-filled world and even bring about a sense of peace. Sure, it is false peace and held under false pretenses but it is a peace accord nevertheless and it stops the war. Pretty straight forward. His methodology is dastardly and even cruel but it is effective in his purpose. Ozy looks at the greater picture, i.e. – the macro-view, and not the micro-view of humanity.  He is an elaborate thinker, a great schemer, a mastermind, and extremely driven by his own set of ethics. Whereas the rest of the Watchmen are rather small thinkers and view life through a micro-lens (except Dr. Manhattan) and can only effect change in very small and rather meaningless ways; the Comedian points this truth out to the whole group and this sets in motion Adrian Veidt’s doomsday/peace plan.

Is Ozymandias the villain of the story? Well, I guess that depends on your outlook on life – now doesn’t it. In my opinion, Ozymandias is the real “hero” in the book, not a conventional hero but someone that acts to preserve a greater good when it is needed the most. Why does Ozy feel compelled to save the world? Well here is why: 1) Rorshach is too dumb and ignorant to hatch a scheme that requires great intelligence and persistence and Rorschach is a slave  to his own morality and he has severe mental health problems, 2) Nite Owl is a follower of all those men who have a stronger personality than himself (Hollis Mason, Rorschach, and Ozymandias) and his love for Laurie (Silk Spectre) blinds his purpose as any kind of great crime fighter,  Nite Owl is also weak-minded and impotent both as a thinker and a doer, 3) Silk Spectre takes herself, and her personal life, way too seriously and she believes in a general goodness within humanity that is worth fighting for, yet Laurie is fragile emotionally and cannot understand any great concepts of human life and maybe she cannot even understand the basic concepts either, she views everything through an emotional lens and this obviously clouds her ability to save anyone, 4) The Comedian is a total butcher that has no rhyme or reason except to be a critical voice (which is entertaining) but really he has no finite moral line to speak of, although he claims to have one,  but he still condemns Adrian Veidt for his plan and he is even jealous of the beauty of the plan, The Comedian is also a rapist and a cold-blooded killer, he is a quasi-G.I. Joe figure that kills with a smile on his face,  5) Dr. Manhattan has become beyond human and he is far too rational, calculating, and also uncaring about humanity (for a good portion of the story) to stall the coming Armageddon, he is also blinded by his past and failures with women, but Dr. Manhattan eventually sees the brilliance in Ozymandias’ plan and goes along with it willingly even though he has the power to directly challenge and defeat Ozymandias on any level, Dr. Manhattan is complicit because he rationally sees the greatness in the plan.

So then who is the great hero of the story and who is the villain? It is obviously Ozymandias. Ozymandias has the intelligence, the will, the money, the power, and the vision to carry out his elaborate hoax (no, not the boy in box and the stupid balloon). His plan works and the entire story of the book is anchored in his doomsday plan. He is a villain in some sense but he is also the only real hero in the book.

On the topic of morality – Ozymandias has a morality-base that is beyond the mere masses of human minds; Alexander the Great is his barometer. Ozymandias is a killer, sure he is, but his murdering is for a greater good and greater purpose, again that is his macro-vision. Does this make him a monster? That is for you to decide.  But you must also consider the fact that Nite Owl, The Comedian, Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach are also violent and have killed people in brutal fashion; these characters kill and are uncaring but just in different ways than Ozymandias. So then, there is no traditional heroes in the entire story rather there are people doing what they see fit to do in the scenarios they are living.

A funny thing is that most people find Rorschach to be the most human and beloved character of the story – he is by far the most popular. Rorschach is interesting but he is also psychotic, guess that does make him human. He is also a right-wing nut job. Rorschach is blind to the true nature of humanity and he cannot see beyond the faults of New York City. On a global scale, humanity is killing itself piece by piece and Rorschach cannot see it rather he can only condemn it on a strict moral level and he has no ability to change humanity in any way. He is unwilling to bend in any way even in the face of Armageddon and he finds fault in everyone but his own self – He is like Dick Cheney in that way.

Ozymandias is not a full fledged hero but he is also not really a super-villain, he is a composite of both those character traits and he acts upon both. He definitely has his own concepts of morality but they are not yours or mine, probably. Ozy does not want to rule the world, like Napoleon or a Hitler, rather he desires to see a third way – that being a general disarmament and peace between the two super powers. He achieves this goal and no one is the wiser, except the ‘masks’ and of course stupid Rorschach gets his dumb ass killed, and I am glad to see it happen.

So then, did Ozymandias commit a crime or was his plan necessary in order to stop Armageddon (no, not the movie)?

Zizek on Religious Violence

Slavoj Zizek is much more intelligent than I will ever pretend to be and he has some very insightful words regarding religious violence in today’s world. Zizek, in his book Violence, makes a startling comparison between atheists and religious believers/fundamentalists. The comparison in its essence is an ethical one and violence is at the root of the debate.  Zizek points out that in today’s world it is in fact religious zealots that are forcing their agendas, which are rooted in various kinds of violence, upon unsuspecting individuals in a society. And the godless atheists, who are quite non-violent in their ethical stances, stand upon no absolutist moral ground that demands unquestioning faith and total belief in a unknown deity. Of course, these same atheists are supposedly immoral and even “demonic” in the eyes of the religious. But the topic is violence and not personal belief systems.

Religious agendas are often rooted in hatreds, disagreements, political ideologies, and separation between groups and individuals. This religious reality tears at the fabric of a modern society in that various religious impetus’ will presuppose a type of societal violence. The violence is presupposed in that only one singular religious belief can be correct. Whatever stems out of these religious separations often stirs a violent reaction, i.e. – mentally, physically, subjectively, and objectively.  At the root of all the ‘noble religions’, and their various moral teachings, there are levels of objective and subjective forms of violence that are perpetrated by every believer, no matter their level of dedication. Religious believers will fight, argue, die, and perhaps even kill for their cause in the name of their love for an unknown God.

Here are Zizek’s own words and some quotes to clarify:

“One cannot be religious in general. One can only believe in some god(s) to the detriment of others.” (132)

“mass killings are more and more legitimated in religious terms, while pacifism is predominantly atheist. It is the very belief in a higher divine goal which allows us to instrumentalise individuals, while atheism admits no such goal and thus refuses all forms of sacred sacrificing.” (135)

“In the absence of any ethical standards external to your belief in and love for God, the danger is always lurking that you will use your love of God as the legitimisation of the most horrible deeds.” (137).

“the lesson of today’s terrorism is that if there is a God, then everything, even blowing up hundreds of innocent bystanders, is permitted to those who claim to act directly on the behalf of God, as the instruments of his will, since clearly a direct link to God justifies (all) violation of any ‘merely human’ constraints and considerations.” (136).

“atheists strive to formulate the message of joy which comes not from escaping reality, but from accepting it and creatively finding one’s place in it……. the humble awareness that we are not masters of the universe, but just parts of a much larger whole exposed to contingent twists of fate, with a readiness to accept the heavy burden of responsibility for what we make of our lives. With the threat of unpredictable catastrophe looming from all sides, isn’t this an attitude needed more than ever in our own times?” (138)

Zizek lays out his argument: religious belief of all kinds (since their outset) have promoted some sort of societal violence including mass separations and ignorance among groups of peoples – history has bore strong evidence to this truth.  Religious-based violence in our globalized world is spreading quickly – terrorism and counter-terrorism in the name of God and land is the greatest evidence of this.

Every diverse kind of believer is justified in manifesting their violent acts due to the “fact” that their love for God is righteous and is correct – everyone else is wrong and deserves some punishment. In a strange twist of reality it appears evident that atheists are the true keepers of ethical tenets and even religious morality (in some sense), as they do not promote mass violence in the name of an unknown God. Atheists are at a kind of calm ,or peace, with their existence in the universe as they are not constantly seeking to please a non-existing God in the hopes of achieving some gratification for doing “God’s will.”  Atheists are also generally not striving to destroy free thought, nor are they attempting to eradicate groups of people who happen to disagree with their moral, ethical, or even theological stance.  In truth, as Zizek states, most atheists are proponents of non-violence in today’s world  - whereas religious believers are not afraid to resort to mass violence if it aids in their goals and in their faith.

To sum up Zizek’s point: atheists act like true believers due to their desire not to promote religious hatreds and death in the name of any deity rather atheists seek a type of peace and they promote practical solutions regarding the most pressing human problems. Whereas religious believers act like godless and immoral instruments of objective and subjective violence and they are not afraid to impress upon others their beliefs and their “truths” as instruments of the unknown God.  Ironic isn’t’ it?

Reference:

Zizek, Slavoj. 2008. Violence. Picador: New York.

Superman: Red Son

To lighten it up a little, here is something completely different.

I recently finished reading my first and probably last Superman graphic novel. I have always hated the idea of Superman and his pro-American stance and his unrealistic powers, but enough of that. So then why did I purchase and read the novel Superman: Red Son. Here is the answer – the plot of the story is a ‘what if’ plot. Let me break it down for you.

We know the original DC Comics story – Superman crash lands in the Midwest US and becomes a beacon of US power, pride, and democracy. Superman becomes the most beloved military deterrent in the “free” world; thank god he is American. The original Superman is inherently pro-capitalist and pro-American and he is written as being blind to this social and political truth. But, what if Superman landed in Soviet Russia during the the 1930’s at the very height of Stalinism? Exactly what would that look like? Well, Red Son looks at that dilemma and the story puts forth one of the most morally and politically ambiguous tales in comic history.  This story could never have been told in the mainstream America of the 1980’s as it would have been banned from public viewing by the Reagan Administration. If you remember it was the Reagan administration that coined the term “Evil Empire” in regard to the USSR.

Back to the story, Superman grows up understanding the ideas of Stalinism (not Marxism) and not capitalism. Thus Superman perpetrates the glory of the workers-utopia in the USSR by way of authoritarian power and totalitarian means. Josef Stalin is assassinated and Superman takes the reigns of power in the USSR due to the poverty of the people. Needless to say the plan goes horribly wrong in an Orwellian Animal Farm type of way.  Superman becomes blinded with his power and his goal of world peace (which he nearly achieves) goes horrible wrong. Superman’s only obstacle is the world’s smartest man – Lex Luthor – who happens to be a rabid Superman-hater (but for interestingly good reasons) and the President of the US.

What makes the story great is that you naturally cheer for Superman because he is the classic superhero who does the right thing;  he still has that personality in the Red Son novel. Superman always believes that he is doing the right thing under the guise of Stalinist-communism, as he does in the mainstream comics under the guise of American-capitalism. The subversive element in the novel is superb and it is intensely political. The commentary is obvious – the USSR-Superman is exactly the same as the American-Superman but just in a different scenario. Superman is misguided by his political system and in this regard he is not different than humanity. Superman believes that he is helping all of humanity by enslaving their thoughts and actions. Superman is anti-American and this is the twist because in the original comics he was used as a anti-USSR tool, in actuality he helped train millions of kids in this regard.

Lex Luthor is not a rabid villain obsessed with power rather he is bent on a form of human justice.  Luthor is the only world leader that opposes Superman as all others have gave in to his Stalinist-utopian ideals. American capitalism fails miserably and crumbles completely and this is when Luthor is elected President. Luthor is not a free-market capitalist as his American predecessors were (Milton Friedman, J.F. Kennedy). Luthor oversees the economy and runs it by himself – anti free-market. Luthor rebuilds the US after the failures of capitalism but Luthor is not doing this for the people – he is doing it to destroy Superman. Capitalism and free trade had to be removed in Luthor’s America because it does not work (subversive commentary on the part of the writer).

Superman perceives to understand what humanity wants but at the same time he does not fully understand humans in any way. Luthor represents the counter-balance to Superman’s unyielding power. The interesting thing is that Superman is completely non-violent. The entire world falls under his spell due to his promises and delivering of total peace. But the question is this – what kind of peace is it where are all thoughts and actions are controlled and watched.  Superman builds a fascist utopia and this is the sad irony of his world order.

Oh, did I forget to mention the anarchist, Russian-born, Batman. During one of Stalin’s great purges the family of Batman is murdered, thus creating the anarchist Batman. Batman does not believe in Stalin and his “Superman” and he fights to destroy the power of the President Superman, as he did with Stalin.  Batman is not pro-US nor is he pro-USSR. Batman is the consciousness of the free people who desire to live free from totalitarian power that is President Superman. The Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, Bizarro Superman, and Brainiac also play roles in the story.

The political relevance of this novel is actually startling and is very intelligent for a comic-book. The ending is decent but not nearly as relevant as the story of the book.  I am surprised by the story and its level of political commentary.

Non-Violent Aspects of the Guerrilla Fighter

Che Guevara has indisputably written the most in-depth analysis into both the consciousness and behaviour of the guerrilla fighter (Guerrilla Warfare, Ocean Press, 2006). Guevara presents focused insights about the state of mind and socio-political actions of guerrilla fighters in their mission for ‘liberation.’ Guevara’s theoretical teachings present the guerrilla as an active revolutionary-force that focuses beyond the more sensational aspects of violent-combat and evolves toward positive social change(s). The essence of the guerrilla band is that they are agents for the facilitation of social reformation. Reformation must present social-political-economic benefits for oppressed group(s), whom the guerrillas directly represent.

The guerrilla must focus her/his anger toward dominant societal institutions that actively oppress, repress, ignore, and exploit the lower classes (ex. – policing systems, legal systems, businesses & owners – economic systems, political systems, educational systems, health systems, etc.). Oppressive institutions and organizations are the main focus of the guerrilla fighter’s indignation.

“A revolutionary guerrilla army must rely on non-combatant organization for a range of extremely important auxiliary missions” (126).

Violence alone cannot facilitate positive social change and Guevara cleverly alludes to this idea. All successful revolutions need to attain the approval of a large mass of people (majority) before any reformatory action can become successful. Violence has the potential to either polarize or rally the masses (this is a question of temperament), whereas non-violent social protest and political activism is always widely accepted (particularly in liberal democratic states).  The more objective, and subjectively accessible, revolutionary momentum of the liberation-struggle exists in the ability to actively destroy systemic violence within social institutions. Therefore, reformation does not need to rely purely on a violent insurrection. Violence breaks out when all other political options have failed and the oppressed group becomes totally alienated from the workings and functionalities of the state.

It is evident that Guevara is able to speak indirectly to/for Aboriginal masses that are housed in ethnic ghettos and inner-city slums across Canadian urban centres. It is economically, culturally, politically, and socially obvious that the Aboriginal masses are the most oppressed group of peoples throughout Canada; also North and Latin America. There is a long, and destructive, history of oppressive actions partaken by state-sponsored institutions against Aboriginal communities across Canada. At present, Aboriginal communities are suffering from mass poverty, under-education, poor health/malnutrition, inadequate housing, communal violence, social-unconsciousness, inadequate political representation, and overall social injustices. Therefore social reformation is imminent among Aboriginal communities, particularly urban.

The Aboriginal masses have nothing to lose but their chains

Aspects of the Guerrilla Fighter

• “We must come to the inevitable conclusion that the guerrilla fighter is social reformer, who takes up arms as the embodiment of the angry protest of the people against their oppressor; guerrillas fight in order to change the social system that keeps all their unarmed brothers and sisters in ignominy and misery. They launch themselves against the conditions of the ruling institutions at a particular moment and dedicate themselves with all the vigor that circumstances permit (in order) to smash the mold of the institutions” (17).
• The guerrilla fighter is a social agent and a reformer who attempts “to change the old with something new” (49).
• “(T)he guerrilla fighter, as the conscious element of the vanguard of the people, must display the moral conduct of a true priest of the desired reform” (49). An ‘ascetic’ personality is suggested and this means that the guerrilla must maintain a strong moralistic stance in regard to their main objective.
• “The guerrilla fighter (is) a kind of guardian angel who has dropped into the zone (and is) always helping the poor” (50). This represents the true purpose and will of the guerrilla, i.e. – fighting for those people that are at the bottom of both the societal order and the division of labour.
• The guerrilla fighter oversees the equitable distribution of private property and goods so that all benefit from the wealth; “Private property should acquire a social function” (50) or clearly stated, whatever is gained individually should be shared among the communal masses in order to lift the burden placed upon the severely oppressed. Poverty relief is the main purpose of shared wealth.
• “As social reformers, guerrilla fighters should not only provide an example in their own lives, but should also constantly give an orientation on ideological issues, explaining what they know and what they wish to (accomplish)” (51). This is to say, that the guerrilla fighter needs to engage themselves and their communities/comrades in purposeful and useful education and study. The guerrilla needs to attain a decent level of education (and intelligence) and then she/he must teach those that need to be educated. It is statistically likely that impoverished classes of people will be more under-educated than the middle and upper classes of a society.
• The guerrilla fighter should “preferably be an inhabitant of the zone” (52), in other words, members of the local communities make the most effective reformers as they clearly understand the most urgent communal needs.
• “The guerrilla fighter should be audacious and(…) always ready to take an optimistic attitude toward circumstances and to see reasons for a favourable outcome even at times when the analysis of the adverse and favourable conditions does not appear to be positive” (53).
• The guerrilla fighter must adapt and identify with the environment in which they live, to take a part of it, and to take advantage of it as an ally. (54). Different places and peoples will demand different strategy and intentions based on the issues, surroundings, and situations.
• Guerrilla fighters are comprised of all genders and women are not to be treated unequally among the comrades. “Women are capable of performing the most difficult tasks, of fighting beside men; and despite current belief, (women) do not create conflicts of a sexual nature among the troops” (106). Women are equal to their male counterparts in all regards and respects. Women should be among the leaders. Women physically make-up the majority of all communities and their voice is essential in a political struggle.
• The guerrilla fighter needs to fight the battle of ideology with words that can convict, and convince, the masses to join the struggle of the oppressed. “The ideas of the revolution should be disseminated through whatever media is available, as broadly as possible… (and) in the long run truth is the best policy” (119). The internet is the most easily accessible medium to date.
• “Nothing helps the (guerrilla) combatant forces more than correct intelligence” (121). This ‘intelligence’ comes directly from local people as they will have the most accurate information pertaining to the conditions of oppression. Keep current regarding the pressing political and social issues that keep people in a vulnerable state of being.

The guerrilla fighter is an agent of social justice above everything else.

References

Guevara, Ernesto “Che”. (2006). Guerrilla Warfare. Ocean Press: New York.

Building Resilient Communities

What is a resilient and sustainable Aboriginal community? There is no singular method of definition to describe what is sustainable for every individual Aboriginal community because of differing dynamics between the communities. Aboriginal communities are separated by economics, health needs, cultural ties and backgrounds, demographics, and various other social-cultural-political issues. Nevertheless, in a theoretical sense, sustainability solutions can cross over and have impacts upon all the different communities providing that the solutions are properly contextualized.  In general theory, a sustainable community is one that can continue to grow, adjust, and function at a pre-existing level, i.e. healthy levels, but in a modern context without the immediate threat of a total collapse and can provide adequate resources for future generations. Functionality can play a major role in any society and to find a significant role in the community is imperative in all Aboriginal worldviews. Relationships and cooperation are imperative for sustainable communities and this relates directly to the importance of building strong social capital in order to meet the needs of a changing world.

Social capital is imperative in building a resilient and sustainable community. Ann Dale states that “ social capital can be defined as the set of norms, networks, and organizations through which people gain access to power and resources, and through which decision making and policy formulation occurs” (Dale, 15). Social capital encompasses strong ties to communal relationships and mutual cooperation as well as governance capabilities. Access to adequate health care systems is a major resource in the building and sustaining of any community. Social capital is also directly inter-related to resiliency and adaptation. W. Adger states that “resilience of those most vulnerable societies is dependent on the social capital of societies… (and that) social vulnerability is a state. It is the exposure of groups or individuals to stress as a result of social change….”  (Adger, 31). This means that any vulnerable community in question must first recognize its vulnerabilities to stress and risk, adapt to its vulnerabilities, and eventually attempt to eradicate the more pressing vulnerabilities in order to build a resilient community. Strong levels of social capital are crucial to the success of the resiliency-building process.

Cultural resilience attempts to narrow the scope of social capital theory. Cultural resiliency is communal-based (shared identity and norms) and is directly related to societies that are in danger of collapse. Ledogar and Fleming state that “community or cultural resilience is the capacity of a distinct community or cultural system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to retain key elements of structure and identity that preserve its distinctness (Ledogar and Fleming, 2). In the health care context, it appears evident that the capacity to absorb disturbance is being tested to its full limits for several Aboriginal communities. Reorganization is slow while the disturbances are mounting quickly and various community governance institutions are not able to catch up to the needs of their citizenry. Urban Aboriginal communities best demonstrate the inter-connections between weak and/or negative social capital and direct exposure to vast disturbances and vulnerabilities.

Several urban Aboriginal communities throughout Canada (ex: North Central Regina) are demonstrating the more negative aspects of social capital and this is intrinsically destroying the resiliency of these urban communities. Negative social capital that favours aggression and violence (gang culture) will contribute to the spread of communal weaknesses. If the social capital of a community is internally aggressive and violent, no matter what the causality, it stands that this community is in imminent danger to exposure of risks that may not even be fully perceived to the community. Social unconsciousness is the outcome of negative social capital. Aboriginal urban sprawls, primarily throughout the Prairies (West), are in danger of rampant social unconsciousness, mass internal violence, weak social capital, negative social capital, and mass vulnerability to imminent social, political, and economic disturbances.

Reorganization of adaptive capacity may contain a solution to meeting the social capital needs of urban and rural Aboriginal communities. Adaptive capacity needs to address the areas of: human resources, education, positive cultural paths/direction, networks, governance institutions, reciprocity, kinship, and communal relationships. Adaptive capacity also has to actively combat the weak and negative aspects of Aboriginal social capital that can cause social unawareness and unconsciousness. Adaptive capacity is case specific and community specific in its scope and this means that each community will have to apply its own model (Adger, 44). The determinants of adaptive capacity are: economic wealth, access to technology, information and skills, infrastructure, institutions, social capital, and equity (Smit and Pilifosova, 22-23).  The key to the success of building strong adaptive capacity is in reaching the stakeholders and citizenry. Adaptation to stress requires: addressing local vulnerabilities, involving real stakeholders, and connecting with local decision-making processes (Smit and Pilifosova, 24).

The final area of social capital that is imperative for rebuilding resilient communities is in the area of collective action. Adger states that “collective action is at the heart of all adaptation decisions” (Adger, 35). Collective action takes on the characteristics of cooperation and mutual interests/benefits in attempts to achieve positive outcomes. The term ‘collective’ applies not only to citizenry and social groups but also to the formal institutions of government. Collective action is often citizen-led but it can also initiated by governance actors, either way an interrelated partnership is necessary to enhance collective action within a vulnerable community. Collective action encompasses anything from small-scale social movements to forming official political parties. The main impetus behind collective action is a goal-oriented approach that seeks to raise attention, change social-economic-political situations, give voice to a community, and inspire direct action. Ann Dale states that “it is only through mobilization of social capital that we will be able to collectively ‘see’ the problems, and the critical actions necessary in human behaviours and values locally, nationally, and globally” (Dale, 18). Mobilization of social capital is a collective process that enables a community to not only “see” its dysfunctions but also act swiftly in eradicating the overt vulnerabilities that threaten to destroy the resilience and sustainability of the community.

References

Adger, W. 2003. “Social Aspects of Adaptive Capacity.” In J. Smith, R. Klein, and S. Hug, eds., Climate Change, Adaptive Capacity and Development.  Imperial College Press: London, pp. 29-49.

Dale, Ann, 2005. “Social Capital and Sustainable Community Development: Is There a Relationship?”, in A. Dale and J. Onyx eds., Social Capital and Sustainable Community Development: A Dynamic Balance, UBC Press: Vancouver.

Fleming, John and Ledogar, Robert J. 2008.  “Social Capital and Resilience: A Review of Concepts and Selected Literature Relevant to Aboriginal Youth Resilience Research.”  Pimatisiwin: A Journal of Aboriginal and Indigenous Community Health 6(2) 2008. Alberta. pp. 25-46.

Smit, B. and Pilifosova, O. 2003.  “From Adaptation to Adaptive Capacity and Vulnerabuility Reduction.” In J. Smith, R. Klein, and S. Hug, eds., Climate Change, Adaptive Capacity and Development.  Imperial College Press: London, pp. 9-28.

The Continuation of Cultural Assimilation: The City and the Workplace

Assimilation is an ugly word. Assimilation can translate to meaning absorption, digestion, integration, incorporation, or adjustment but neither of these previously mentioned words is any less dreadful sounding than assimilation. Assimilation is an especially ugly word to speak around individuals of Aboriginal ancestry (First Nation, Métis, and Inuit). The mere mention of the word assimilation will stir up disturbing thoughts within the mind of the Aboriginal individual due to the mass abuses that have been perpetrated in the name of Canadian assimilation. It is important to understand that assimilation was not merely an odd historical idea that was once bantered about in Canadian policies regarding “Indians” but rather assimilation is an ongoing course of action that is ever-present throughout Canadian society. Cultural assimilation is a course of action that is particularly bent on forcefully eliminating all rival cultural group identities and replacing them with a singular group identity. Thus the outcome is the creation of a type of super-identity, i.e. the Canadian, and this hegemonic identity takes precedence over all other competing identities. The status of the hegemonic identity, which relies on the cooperation of the masses, is perceived to be of greater prestige when compared to those of other cultural groups. These “other” identities are inherently viewed as lesser than that of the superior and thus the lesser is seen as being ripe for usurpation, which essentially means to succumb to the pressures of the greater mass identity. In the end, the other identity is terminated and a new glorious cultural identity takes its place. Aboriginal societies in Canada continually bear testament to the reality of this cultural usurpation phenomenon.

En masse cultural usurpation continues within our present society and this phenomenon is perhaps best evidenced today by the rampant assimilation factors that are present within Canadian workplaces. Assimilation is still an ugly word and the organizational world of work and labour in Canada offers no exception to the history of cultural assimilation in the country. The terminology in the workplace is slightly different, the aforementioned incorporation and integration, but the results are just as powerful in regards to assimilation of cultural identity. The social reality of the Aboriginal individual is continually shaped by cultural competition bent on social conformity. Social conformity is a constant in not only Canadian workplaces but in most other non-Aboriginal social organizations. Social conformity, from the perspective of the Aboriginal, is often viewed as being necessary in order to meet the demands of the greater working classes, specifically management, that have already adapted to their work roles and statuses. The learning of a new cultural identity comes with the territory for the Aboriginal individual, as it does with all other workers, but it is safe to argue that the Aboriginal worker will face much more severe alienation in the process. The Aboriginal individual does not only have to succumb to the pressures within the modern workplace but also to the pressures of Canadian society at large which is in constant competition with that of the Aboriginal. The Aboriginal worker therefore is pressured from all sides within the city landscape and societal retreat is often the outcome. The workplace is no safe haven.

Work and labour organizations/systems in Canada are wholly steeped in Eurocentric cultural values and norms and it would be pure ignorance to state otherwise. The captains of industry that created Canadian workplaces and organizations predetermined the cultural values, norms, and ideals according to their own biases and predilections. The organizational demands were then facilitated by pre-selected workers that fit into the desired mould; owners need productive workers that will sell their labour for a cheap price. The agreed upon prototypical worker was the young, lower class, healthy/able-bodied, straight, white-male. This group of workers were given ample time to develop into a strong middle class and increase their labour power and as a result their political influence. The power of this previously mentioned group is still highly concentrated throughout all Canadian industries but the preferred worker is now expanding to include the young, middle class, straight, highly educated, white-female as well. The difference is that the white woman does not have control of the means of production because her labour is also exploited for a relatively cheap cost but of course she still faces a far better situation than the Aboriginal female. All relative statistics regarding the majority of paid workers in this country, particularly full-time, will testify to this ongoing social reality, with the masses of Aboriginal men and women being at the very bottom of the paid labour force (Ben Brunnen, “Working Toward Parity” and “Achieving Potential”).  The racial divide in Canadian workplaces and its ramifications stretch across the country and across the spectrum of work and labour in Canada. Thus any individual that does not fit into the prototypical and preferred mould has the very real possibility of being shut-out of the paid workforce or merely filling those roles that are at the bottom of the division of labour; the new form of economic slavery. The Aboriginal can forget about controlling any industries in this country and in all reality the Aboriginal should count it as being highly fortuitous to even find full-time work in Canada. When, or if, Aboriginal workers do get a foot in the door then there is a very good chance that they will feel desperately alone (being the single Aboriginal) and suffer from a case of regenerated culture shock.  

Howard Adams in Prison of Grass reiterates Canadian workplace alienation and barriers, regarding Aboriginal workers, by stating:

“Seeking employment as a native was more than looking for a job. It was asking to be insulted…. As long as jobs were available, a native would not apply for jobs he knew were for whites only….. In my youth I therefore applied only for jobs that I knew had possibilities for half-breeds, such as picking roots and rocks, haying, and unskilled labouring jobs in construction ….The jobs degraded me and destroyed my sense of esteem and humanity, but I had to have money (Adams, 10-11).” 

Adams pinpoints the cultural/ethnic divisions that are existent in Canadian workplaces. Adams is not alone in his experience and this is the reality of most Aboriginal workers in the city. In order for Aboriginal people such as Howard Adams, myself included, to fit in with the status quo of Canadian workplaces there must be a significant amount of compromise within personal identity. The Aboriginal labourer needs a job in order to decently survive, in our consumer-based capitalist world, but the system in which this Aboriginal individual will enter is slanted against her/him from the outset. What is the ultimate solution for the Aboriginal? It is either resistance to the whole labour process or desistance from self-identity protection, in both cases something very essential is surrendered. In the first scenario the Aboriginal individual may retain a sense of ancestral-self but they will slip further to the economic margins of the city. This of course might not pose a huge problem for the Aboriginal individual because it is more than likely that she/he has already learned to live within those narrow margins. The margins feel like home because there are many group cohorts that share the same space. In the second scenario the Aboriginal is forced to give up all identification with their ancestral-self, due to workplace pressures to conform, and assimilation wins the day.  

The marketplace options are always few for the Aboriginal labourer and what jobs are given are often handed out to a small minority among the growing swell of capable Aboriginal labourers. Thus the idea of the “token-Indian” is persistent among most, if not all, city workplaces (they thought we didn’t know about this terminology, but we do).  The token is always the “other” no matter how much they desire to fit in and the very term “token-Indian” reinforces the cultural divisions and realities of Canadian city workplaces. The token-Indian is a creation of the Canadian workplace because the very term “token” denotes that something has been generously given, in this case a job, and labour worth is negated. The social reality of the token-Indian is the height of insult to all Aboriginal workers who seek to better the lives of their family and community. The token-Indian starts out as an alien that does not fit the mould of the workplace but this begins to change when the token takes on the hegemonic identity of the co-workers. The token then becomes a good little Indian and their lazy, welfare-sustaining, savage ways are forgotten, of course I am being sarcastic but you understand what I am saying. All conformity aside, the token-Indian is always viewed as inferior due to his/her ethnic connections and the cultural identity that comes with this ancestral connection. The token-Indian is most certainly an assimilated individual because she/he has been broken down from possessing a strong collective identity to possessing an individualistic identity, i.e. the Canadian. This tokenized person is always a very lonely individual that has little to no labour power on their own and their collective group (Aboriginal) is the ultimate loser. The Aboriginal collective gain nothing from tokenism and the economic and political power of the Aboriginal collective remains painfully stagnant. The old saying that there is “power in numbers” rings true in this analysis and the lonely individualized worker possesses no power to advance radical change.    

The term “token-Indian” is an often used racist slur within the white-capitalist-Canadian work world. The token-Indian is a creation of fictitious misunderstandings and racist biases that are rampant in the modern Canadian work world. Regina bears evidence of such designated token-Indians and it goes without saying that Regina workplaces are full of stereotypical biases and racist patterned behaviours. The labour of Aboriginal workers is often viewed as a lesser form of labour when compared to the preferred prototype and this lessens the demand for Aboriginal labour. Thus tokenism remains rampant. The myth of the token-Indian persists due to internal cultural identity differences among Canadian workplaces. These identity clashes are constantly pushing and pulling in conflict with one another until the day that the “other” (in this case the Aboriginal) will succumb, as it is the other that often succumbs. The Aboriginal individual, alone, alienated, and fearful to speak out against the system usually gives in and believes the myth and perhaps even reinforces racist norms when examining their own communities and the overwhelming poverty within. This phenomenon is a powerful tool within the landscape of the city and it is cultural assimilation at its height. At present there is little escape from this type of alienation for the Aboriginal worker.    

In order for “good little Indians” to become good little middle-class workers they must first succumb to the demands of the work environment. The first to go is the sense of identification with Aboriginal sensibilities because among most Canadian city workplaces there are no Aboriginal sensibilities present. This does not mean that cultural sensibilities are not present in Canadian city workplaces. I have already established that most, perhaps all, Canadian workplaces display a very formal and informal sense of Eurocentric values. The Euro-workplace culture is present in the modes of dress, language spoken, spiritual beliefs, collective work norms, values, ideals, ideas, and ethical beliefs, none of which display an Aboriginal-centered philosophy or personality. An identity clash is inevitable for the Aboriginal worker among this setting and as the work clampdown takes hold the Aboriginal slips into oblivion and a good little worker is born. Thus the machine continues to run smoothly and according to its predetermined predilections.  

At present, a very noticeable racial underclass is being entrenched throughout various inner-cities of Western Canada. This racial underclass is impoverished and increasingly growing in numbers and also in societal alienation. The situation is becoming ripe for violence and increased racial tension. Innovation is taking over the inner-cities, that is, criminal innovation. Criminal innovation is growing in the form of gang membership and acts of internal violence are spreading. This is a volatile situation that is growing serious within the inner-cites. It is likely that Western Canadian inner-cities will explode into severe anti-social behaviour, in greater numbers, if the needs of this underclass are not addressed. The violence will be initially perpetrated from within, as it is happening now, but will ultimately escape to the outside of the inner-city once the masses become socially and politically conscious to their situation. The solution is not the mere handing out of low-end jobs to a few tokenized workers but neither is the solution found in asking the Aboriginal community to conform to the demands of the predetermined mould; this is identity suicide.

The solutions are complex and so are the problems. Therefore the solutions cannot be based on mere dollars and cents, as they have been in the past, because the problems are intensely rooted in cultural competition and mass conformity of identity. Economics is inter-connected but it is not the single root cause of cultural assimilation. Cultural assimilation is systemic throughout Canadian social organizations and the workplace is a great example. Aboriginal individuals need to remain culturally distinct and they also desire to be treated as equals within the workplace. This type of equality is not found in policy lip service but in concrete reformatory actions based on Aboriginal ideals. This previous statement can be applied across all Canadian social organizations in order to facilitate meaningful change.  It is apparent that high levels of re-education are desperately needed before equality can occur in Canadian workplaces and before cultural assimilation can be put to an end. Of course, putting an end to workplace tokenism would be a significant start toward meaningful social change. 

Summary

Cultural assimilation has not ended for the Aboriginal individual in Canada. There is a new era of cultural assimilation presently taking place across the country. Neo-assimilation is rampant throughout the city life. The city life and its social organizations expect the Aboriginal individual to fit the mould of the preferred worker, i.e. the white-suburbanite middle-class denizen. The Aboriginal individual is expected to conform and compromise everything that makes them distinct. The Aboriginal individual has to take on the cultural characteristics of a foreign mould within the workplace in order to remain employable. Within this workplace the Aboriginal individual is often isolated and alienated from fellow Aboriginal workers, that is, if there happen to be any other Aboriginal workers in the same workplace. The ongoing struggle of cultural identity versus cultural identity is often heightened within an uncompromising workplace atmosphere. Aboriginal individuals are coerced into succumbing to a foreign identity and this will result in a mental wound that is unbearable and perhaps unrepairable. Thus the community will ultimately lose its best and its brightest, one at a time. Needless to say, any significant social changes become highly individualized and separate from the Aboriginal community as a whole.  

To fully understand cultural assimilation and the resulting identity crises among urban Aboriginal peoples it is important to know what is at stake for those that lose their cultural/ethnic identity. First, it is imperative to know that cultural assimilation is a major aspect within the creation and preservation of the dominant “Canadian” identity. Thus it stands that all other competing identities will be critiqued according to the dominant standards of the super-identity. The “inferior” identity is judged and created within the eyes of the hegemonic. This inferiority complex stems not from the assimilated but from the assimilator (in this example it is the colonist and the colonized) and then it becomes internalized. Second, assimilation is never an option because it is always a forced course of action; a type of forced social coercion. The individual can either resist or desist usurpation but either way the action of assimilation has been forcefully thrust upon her/him. Third, the affects of assimilation may never be undone and what is lost may never be fully restored to the injured party. The loss and compromise of identity is often felt throughout the generations and identity may be re-forged in the image of the old but it may never be restored to be the same as the old. Some aspects of the original culture will forever be lost due to the fact that assimilation erases history and replaces it with a new interpretation. This is evident when examining the Aboriginal urban masses and their detachment from their own cultural history and tribal/band identity.

I am a living testament to the reality of the inner-city struggle and how assimilation has weakened my cultural (Cree/Saulteaux) identity. I am a social product of the inner-city (North Central) and my personal cultural identity has been compromised by living in Regina. It is imperative that I attain a post-secondary education in order to work and ultimately I need to find full-time work in order to live a decent existence in the modern capitalist world. The problem is that my labour is easily exploitable, through tokenism, and my cultural identity is nullified in the workplace through assimilation. My personal experience is not mere anomaly. The social phenomenon of a weakened Aboriginal cultural identity is rampant throughout Canadian cities. Cultural identity retention is a constant struggle for those that are colonized and are living in the city. The sociological philosopher Frantz Fanon, in Wretched of the Earth, sums up the experience of being an Aboriginal/colonized person who is trying to find a safe communal space within the city but is constantly coming up short. Fanon states that:

“The colonist makes history and he knows it. And because he refers constantly to the history of his metropolis (large city), he plainly indicates that here he is the extension of this metropolis. The history he writes is therefore not the history of the country he is despoiling, but the history of his own nation’s looting, raping, and starving to death…. A world compartmentalized, Manichean (dual) and petrified, a world of statues: the statue of the general who led the conquest, the statue of the engineer who built the bridge. A world cocksure of itself, crushing with its stoniness the backbones of those scarred by the whip. That is the colonial world” (15).      

In this vision of the colonial world there is no room for the colonized subject, that being the Aboriginal, within the metropolis. The constant reminders and social realities of the colonial “conquest” are what Aboriginal communities are struggling to overcome. The city offers no refuge from the harsh realities of this “conquest.” Thus the identity of the Aboriginal individual has to be forgotten in order to blend into the status quo of the city and its colonist-based identity. The social organizations of work and labour offer no refuge from these harsh realities and in fact the workplace will often reaffirm identity conformity. The majority of Aboriginal individuals cannot escape the social realities of the city life and as a result they will actively retreat, or be economically forced, into ethnic ghettos. This act in itself is a form of resistance against assimilation. The only problem is that we are sick of constantly retreating and we desire a world that is de-compartmentalized, safe, respectful, and equal. This includes the world of work and labour. It is probably fair to say that active resistance will only be heightened until we can create such a place in this dual society.

 

 References

Adams, Howard. Prison of Grass: Canada from a Native Point of View. Saskatoon: Fifth House Publishers. 1989.

Brunnen, Ben.  “Working Towards Parity: Recommendations of the Aboriginal Human Capital Strategies Initiative.” Building the New West Project Report, #24. 2004.  Retrieved March 20, 2008 from: http://www.cwf.ca/V2/cnt/e4e0b18a2dceb0d087256e45000c74b1.php

Brunnen, Ben.  “Achieving Potential: Towards Improved Labour Market Outcomes for Aboriginal People.” Building the New West Project Report, #19.  2003.  Retrieved March 20, 2008, from: http://www.cwf.ca/V2/cnt/7a5543a67268d8c687256db0007ba6f3.php 

Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press. 2004.