1930s:

LUX: Canadians targeted Aboriginal people by isolating them on reserves and in residential schools when the scare of “Indian tuberculosis” became a threat in the 1930s. Lux characterizes colonists/ the Canadian government as “racially careless” and she eludes to them as viewing the Indigenous people of Canada as “a menace to their neighbors and a danger to the nation.” (407). I think this isolation could have been a possible way for the Canadian government to have hoped parts of the reservations would “die off naturally” in large batches from the tuberculosis scare with no blood on their hands, allowing the bacterial disease to remove the “menaces” from their society, while not infecting any “good” (probably white) members on society. Lux focuses on Western Canada as she states that colonialism, medical and bureaucratic discourse had a huge threat upon this region, as the threat of “Indian tuberculosis” was very harsh in these areas (408-409). Superintendent of Manitoba’s Ninette sanatorium, Dr. David Stewart called it “the racial carelessness and ignorance’ of First Nations ‘soaked with tuberculosis [that] could no longer be left to well-meaning missionaries and apathetic Indian Agents.

MOSBY: A drop within in the fur trade dropped incomes 66% between 1924-1935, and a cutback of Indian Affairs, drawing back unemployment relief lead to malnutrition issues in the 30’s outside residential schools as well (149).

KELM: Birth rates of Aboriginal populations begin to rise, a factor in helping to raise the population numbers after a steady decline from previous years, there was even encouragements to have as many children as possible, some families having up to 20 children (4-5). In 1935, over 80% of victims from tuberculosis in BC Aboriginal communities were under 30 years old, 70% were under 20, killing mostly young people. (10). In 1935, there was 28 violent/accidental deaths from Native populations reported, and by 1939 that number increased to 42 deaths. (17), with death rates due to accidents or violence being 131.7 per 100,000 people for Aboriginals, and 69.6 per 100,000 people in non-Aboriginals in 1943 (16) some caused by fishing accidents etc.

1940s:

LUX: There is now “state-run racially segregated Indian hospitals institutionalized Aboriginal people who were not welcome in provincial sanatoria or in the modernizing community hospitals.” (407) while Edmonton was the home to the Charles Camsell Indian Hospital in 1946 which demonstrates “one of the first acts of the newly created department of National Health and Welfare” marking publically that the states would be promoting the idea of “national health” by “isolating and institutionalizing Aboriginal people.” (408). From 19945-1985 Charles Camsell Indian Hospital treated First Nations and Inuit people: in its 1^st year 69% of admissions were from tuberculosis, in its 3^rd year only 38% of admissions were from tuberculosis (431-432).

MOSBY: Indian Affairs officials began making “inquiries regarding the prevalence of malathion in remote aboriginal communities or in residential schools, [as] there had been warnings of widespread hunger in both for decades.” (148-149).

KELM: “in the mid-1940’s, the death rate due to disease…was three times higher among the Aboriginal population than among non-Natives.” (6). In 1942, “the Aboriginal death rate from tuberculosis was fifteen times higher than the rate for the population as a whole.” (9) and only worsened as the Aboriginal rate grew to seventeen times greater than the national even with country wide improvements and expansions regarding sanatorium care for Aboriginal patients (9).

1950’s

LUX: “Alberta in 1950, warned that Alberta hospitals had “‘…practically ceased to accept a sick Indian except in the most emergent of circumstances, and for the shortest possible time.’” (418) Stated Dr. E.L. Stone as costs of hospital care in the 50’s was soaring and the hospitals were “overcrowded by patients from their own municipalities.” (418).

MOSBY: Regulations were put into place (by Moore) that regulated what kinds of goods families could buy with their Family Allowance (some clothing, and goods with nigh nutritional value) (156). Great in theory until some families weren’t allowed to purchase flour (key staple) causing many Inuit families in Great Whale River (1949-1950) to go hungry then “forced to resort to eating their sled dogs and boiled seal skin.” (157).

Individuals

LUX: Fines ($) are also discussed in this journal (433) as punishment for sickness/disease, similar to the articles we read last week regarding cleanliness. As the liberal view of individualism and how one succeeds (body and mind) vary greatly from the Indigenous view where “wellness required community support…and where the value of goods was realized by giving them away.” (411) and as their legal status was not based on a rational citizenship, “without fundamental social, cultural, and political change.” (411) by colonial controls. Aboriginals are once again isolates, targeted, and excluded from being a part of a complete and whole Canadian society and was “fundamental to the emerging welfare state” (434).

-I think one of the large overarching ideas from Lux’s writing is her emphasized in her statement “I argue that the Indian hospitals emerge as Canada was consciously defining national health, or a normal while citizenship.” (409) while “the CTA (Canadian Tuberculosis Association) urged, [that] the state must include Aboriginal people in its calculations of national health, if only to keep them properly isolated. State-run Indian hospitals also acknowledged community prejudices that demanded segregated health care, ensuring that modernizing hospitals were increasing white hospitals.” (410). As Indian hospitals may “serve the social imperative to ‘break up Indian customs,’ while reserving community hospitals for white patients.” (417)

 

MOSBY: The Cross Lake First Nations Group Chief stated that “his band was running out of treaty money and that from May to October, when the muskrat trapping season was over, they were likely to face six months of no earnings and little food.” (150).

-The James Bay Survey from 1947-48 used 6 physicians, a dentist, an x-ray tech, a photographer, and 3 anthropologists to get a look at the coloration of health and nutrition in the North as well as “to elucidate the connection between food nutrition, and the ‘Indian Problem’ more generally.” (154). When investigators came to check the quality of the foods in residential schools, “the tendency of inspectors to see better food service than was typically being provided [to the students], their investigations nonetheless showed overwhelmingly poor conditions in the schools…[and] typically failed to meet the government’s own stated basic nutritional requirements.” (159), estimated by Pett that schools often served only half that of what was needed for a balanced diet (159). “

KELM: Rates of disease and death were higher among Aboriginals than non-Aboriginals in the first half on 20^th century. “Some of the most recent studies start with a population as high as 188,344 on the northwest coast at contact and estimate a 90% decline by 1890.” (4) and its presumed that “the first nations lost 65,395 living individuals in the first 150 years after contact, a 74% decline in population.” (4). After birth rated increased in the 1930s, abortion is no longer practiced in some areas (as frequently I presume) due to the introduction of Catholicism, yet maternal, childhood and infant mortality rates were high (families could lose 2 children before they reached adulthood) (6). Limited access to medical care was one reason for high death rates of mothers, newborns, while most post-neonatal deaths were caused by poor conditions on the reserve (7). Other communicable diseases and complications commonly negatively effecting Aboriginals more than non-Aboriginals: bronchopneumonia, pneumonia, whooping cough, influenza, and measles (10-11). Drinking was a way to celebrate a good fishing catch, but spun out of control and became an epidemic in some communities, and drinking became associated as a number of violent deaths over Native communities, damaging many communities. (17).

ALL:

-Interesting of how white, middle-class, colonial, men in government and medicine are still (as in these readings, as well as currently in society) the ones able to dictate who should get health care, who isn’t clean, what people should eat, all while feeling obligated to implement their Western medicine as given right based off their colonial status. As Mosby states that the most significant part of the studies being done regarding malnutrition were due to bureaucrats, scientists, and other experts “further[ing] their own professional and political interests rather than to address the root cause of these problems…[and] the Canadian government’s compliancy in them.” During the 1940’s and 1950’s (Mosby 171).

-All articles seem to refer to the indigenous communities being a part of some kind or crisis or another.

– As “the full impact of colonization played out upon Aboriginal bodies, through increasing restrictions on access to land and recourses, and through intensifying interventions into their lives.” (Kelm 18)

In Gleason’s “School Medical Inspection and ‘Healthy’ Children in British Columbia, 1890-1930,”, she continuously conveys the argument that middle-class professional white men were dictating how “the social construction of health” should be viewed and carried out in British Columbia.  Gleason talks about how First Nations people were isolated and faced blame regarding the outbreak of smallpox, Gleason stating that the health officials didn’t focus on the option of treatment, and also didn’t provide guards insuring that this outbreak wouldn’t cause a provincial wide epidemic as notices were placed on houses, but no strict isolations were carried out, and some contacts had even traveled to town  (forced quarantines were also seen as detrimental to breadwinners that were confined especially in working-class families), bringing to light the inaccuracy of the “hopes” to keep the spread of the dreaded diseases and infections as outlined by the middle-class professional white men who made the rules. All while these “procedures” seem to be ignored, actively neglecting the health of the Nanaimo Indian Reservation, while continuing to place blame on the “filth and disease”, perhaps this was the cause of “rates if death from tuberculosis among Native peoples were five times that of whites in 1929.” (Gleason 289). All the while, “the others” including First Nations, Asian immigrants, and other non-whites and foreigners (Italians, Greeks, and Russians) were targeted as minority populations with a lack of understanding of the struggles that the immigrants faced, including having children working as a way to help the family survive. This can be seen by Mary Jong, a young Chinese Canadian who had to work in the vegetable garden before school, and would be punished for coming to school dirty, while the staff at the school payed no attention to the fact that she did not have time to clean up before school stated. While more responsibility to the parents was expected as reporting a “contagious disease was considered both a moral and a legal responsibility.” (Gleason 290) which I believe is an important good step in the right direction to maintain the health and safely of the population. While the middle-class professional white men who shared their socially constructed view of what health should be, and what it meant to be healthy (clean, orderly, etc.), I don’t find it unreasonable for people to be concerned at this time for the spread of contagious diseases in families, schools, and communities. While their intensions may not have been put into place in the most respectful ways (as many people seemed to have anxieties and fears about the new reforms), it was necessary to have a standard line of cleanliness and sanitation as a way to reduce massive amounts of disease and infections from the population in British Columbia.

 

In Rutherdale’s article “Children, Health, and Hygiene in Northern Canadian Communities” shows the insensitivity that missionaries, teachers, doctors, and nurses showed towards the reformation of Aboriginal communities. Colonizers criticized how First Nations women gave birth in “untradition” ways (the rope method) causing the Aboriginal women to feel as if they had “lost their sense of empowerment through the erosion of their control over childbirth” (306). This bring back the idea (mention by Gleason) of white colonizers trying to force their beliefs of “how it should be” and “what is right” onto a group of people with different beliefs and ideals than them. While colonizers had “a profound belief that traditional [Aboriginal] culture practices could and should be displaced, id not eradicated.” (305 Rutherdale), and separated the locals from their “customary practices” (306). Yet, Wilsons description of experiences is show as “she did not want Aboriginal women to give up the entirety of their traditional practices.” (308) they only wanted the Indigenous women to give up some of them…perhaps not a great “compromise”, but it is important that Wilson is seen as sensitive to many of their practices, and “did not appear to advocate to change.” (308). Yet many new comers disapproved of other practices, including:

• the lack of clothing, allowing the outsiders to view the Aboriginals as “’Barbarism’ to ‘civilization’” as infants clothing was criticized by nurses and missionaries until the end of the 1850s (311)
• the lack of adequate bathing, as settlers were obsessed with hygiene, as a boy named Yarley is described as being a smelly “’dirty little barbarian’” (314), as Fleming then decided to slowly introduce reforms on cleanliness (similar to what we read in Gleason). As Rutherdale states “From Fleming’s perspective, the transition to Christianity required a good dose of personal and public hygiene.” (315) …but who said they Aboriginals wanted to transition to Christianity.

Scheduling, routine, and lessons were a way for all of the above (clothing, bathing birthing) to be given instruction. Would these content communities ever be comfortable with the white man’s idea of cleanliness? In the “mission-run comunit[ies], schools, continued to face missionaries and nurses who placed as much emphasis on hygiene and they did on religion and scholarship.” (316) and “Repetition was viewed as the key to success.” (317). Clean students meant studious students, according to Marsh (317) and viewed hygiene and health as important as religion and the three R’s.” (318).  More cases of Inuit’s being encouraged to leave their cultures behind and move into prefabricated homes, go to local schools (on times that were “acceptable to the outsiders, but didn’t really make sense to the geographic location due to long days due to the “midnight sun” hours) are all shown by the establishment of the Pont Inlet, established by the Canadian Government where the main language spoken was Inuktituk. In Lower Post scales were used inaccurately, doctors acted as dentists because they had “nothing better to do” (319), and Inuit students at Aklavik’s Anglican All Saints Residential School remembered being forced to have cod liver oil every morning in the 1930’s, before running to the bathroom to spit it out (320).

 

Both of these writings pose very interesting insights regarding how settlers/ middle-class white men viewed how these indigenous societies should be “changed” and abandon their traditions and roots. In turn, many sanitation procedures were places as “Children and their bodies stood at the center of the battle waged with Native people over the regimes and rituals that would govern the most intimate parts of their lives. (Rutherdale 320), allowing me as a reader to think critically about what sanitations may have been necessary (basic cleaning) and what protocols may have been overboard: unclean students meant non-studious children, as some including the Chinese girl who had to work in the farmland before school every morning before class and didn’t have time to clean up before school.

Women stars as objects:

Media gives off impressions that teach it’s audiences that women should be vied for. Women from multiple (if not all of the movies) we have seen in this course have either been:

-competed for

-objectified

-belittled.

 

Male stars as objects:

 

Objectification vs Subjectification

This week’s article on how societal norms are punishing working mothers and their reputations relates directly to my research assignment we are creating for this class, which allowed me to use this article as part of my research (I’ve done my project on The Devil Wears Prada). The aspect pointed out in this article that I will be focusing on is how women are being held back in a male-dominated workforce, as well as not allowed the same opportunity in achieving the goal of “having it all”. This concept supports the other information and articles that I have found and will be relating to in my research assignment. While the article discusses how “…having a career and raising a family [is] incompatible goals and that women who try to have it all feel miserable…” (1) showcase the ideal in the media of a great woman is a woman that is family-oriented, not career-driven. A woman cannot seemingly have both a great family and career without being shown as “unhappy,” and less of a woman due to her “…failing to maintain healthy relationships with loved ones and their family.” (10). Miranda’s seen as an extraordinary boss in The Devil Wears Prada, but her career “…prevents her from fulfilling her role as a ‘good’ mother” (10) as she is depicted as having male-like leadership qualities which aren’t culturally accepted. Also, Miranda is showcased as the breadwinner in their family as her behavior as a powerful boss-lady even threatens her husband’s masculinity. The concepts including the choice that a woman makes to strive for a successful career is at the expense of her family, reinforcing the assumption that “bad” mothers are “devils” (not always wearing Prada). The takeaway I got from this article was all the helpful insight and information that have helped/ supported my research I’ve done for my research project and am hoping to incorporate some of the main ideas of gender roles and class mentioned in my final e-portfolio.

When discussing how people view pornography in regards to these articles, I will be focusing on both anti and pro feminist views of porn, and comparing them to how pornography can encourage sex-positive behavior. As for the anti-feminist debate on how horrible pornography is, porn can be said to portray ideas that objectify women, teach men that women are only objects, and allows women to be treated as victims, all of which are clearly not what we want. I believe there must be education on this this porn to allow for it to be used in a safe manner, as porn is so easily accessible for everyone that has access to the internet.  Due to the fact that porn is easier than ever to get your hand one, I’m not surprised that people, including feminists have become detached from anti-sex views and the stigma of porn is slowly diminishing as time goes on.  Its noted that porn and internet access regarding sexual material can educate men and women about sex, their anatomy, and create new opportunities for identity blending. With the data that reveals evidence of pornography consumers to have higher satisfaction with their bodies, being less ashamed of masturbation, as well as being more open to more nontraditional sexual relationships including having: homosexual encounters, or one night stands, or masturbating. My take away from these articles as well as my outside experiences lead me to believe that with the proper sexual education men and women can use pornography to expand their sexual experimentation and knowledge to understand our own bodies, as well as one anthers bodies in everyday life. In regards to my critical analysis project, I may try and incorporate some of the statistics and sex positive information from this week’s readings as a way to show the evolution and history of female sexuality.

In this week’s readings, it was brought to my attention the social ideals and standards for men and women can be quite similar in regards to how sexuality is portrayed through cinema. The theme and concept I chose to focus on are how male superheroes seem to be objectified similarly to how women are objectified. I also found it notable that many male superheroes face more social isolated (perhaps due to being different), similar to how women have been portrayed as outsiders (women at home, not in the workplace) and secondary characters in films. This could be an interesting topic to add to my portfolio as it displays the notion of leading male characters being pushed as objects and erotic-displays for the viewers. Films show male heroes as “bodies unmarked as objects of erotic display” but undesirable men (villain) characters are seen as aggressive, hated, and feared. As my takeaway from this article, films seemingly uses men and women in similar ways to showcase district points of attraction and “physical beauty” in a way to attract and engage audiences.

For me the central argument while reading the prompted portion of Judith Butlers “Gender Trouble” as if sex is the physical orientation we are born (male, female, or intersex), and gender is the manner in which we interpret the combination of social and behaviors roles, how we find our individual gender identity. Butler argues that although sex and gender do have similar characteristics for some people, there is more to a single person’s identity than the sex they are born. For me, the gender and sex I identify as a cisgender heterosexual female, which is typically the box females get placed into. If you have been born with a physical vagina, you should not immediately be subjected to a life of being told you’re a female if you do not emotionally and mentally comply with that sex and gender. There should be an area in which you can express the gender in which you feel most comfortable with, whether that be: cisgender, transgender, gender fluid, queer, etc. When sexuality becomes something that is instinctual instead of forced, we were to see many different opinions of sexuality emerge within society, especially due to the mass amounts of social media presence, the media allows people to share their ideas and options on sexuality and relate to one another. How can we dress, treat, and educate young children in a way that they will understand that they have a choice in the different emotions they face regarding their sexuality and gender? Should we avoid dressing boys in blue and expecting them to be interested in cars and sports, and respect them having emotional outbursts regardless of what’s “masculine” and vice versa for young girls. Personally, the takeaway for me from this article is the complexity of the social construction of gender stereotypes, and how many factors there are to consider when thinking about the difference between sex and gender, especially in regards to feminism. Feminism must change with the times as more information is released regarding sexuality and gender, gender and sexuality are seen as a free-flowing fluid movement, similar to the feminist movement. I believe that as humans gain more knowledge and experience, the acceptance and understanding of gender and sex will become more universally known, bringing communities together that have previously been separated.

 

 

Fun little note: I saw a post on Facebook a few months that states the following, and I thought it was so fitting I had to share it with you!!!

Man: “Sex and Gender are the same thing!!”

Woman: “So you want to have Gender with me?”

Being subjected to social stereotypes in the media is nothing new to women since World War II, groups of women known as feminists made it their life’s goal to change the way the world saw women. Women were seen as sex objects, victims, and had an extreme lack of power in the mid-1900’s. I believe it’s possible we have forgotten to keep fighting for equality and are now neglecting the hard work that women like Betty Friedan and other feminists of this time gave their lives up for; or perhaps, has how women get discriminated against has just evolved into more sinister ways.

As more women are becoming aware of being blatantly sexualized and discriminated against in television shows and movies, women have won lawsuits and settlements in favor of the women, yet I believe the creators have just adapted into being more devious about how they perceive women in their productions. Women are shown having lead roles, carrying out prestigious jobs, and being able to support themselves as individuals, but in shows including “Suits,” “Greys Anatomy” and movies including “Wonder Woman,” yet the lack of diversity in how the women characters are portrayed is frightening. The actress’ that are shown as successful, powerful, and strong characters are typically advertised as thin, always having perfect hair and makeup regardless of any circumstance, even in cases when the actress’ are working 80 plus hours a week as a surgeon. These are all factors that women and children look at, and see as a means necessary to be successful in these social roles. Information noted in “Never Just Pictures” highlights how actress’ are shamed for gaining an extra few pounds of weight after finishing the film. This issue brings into question why does our society have such a body image problem, are these accusations of actress’ we look up to and admire being “fat” the reason we hear about so many eating disorders? These ideas all tie together in the sense that eating disorders have been linked to having the same desire of their peers, and women are then seen as a victim of the society in which they live. As more women are becoming aware of being blatantly sexualized and discriminated against in television shows and movies, lawsuits and settlements have been won in favor of the women, yet I believe the creators have just adapted into being more devious about how they perceive women in their productions. Women are shown having lead roles, carrying out prestigious jobs, and being able to support themselves as individuals, but in recent shows including “Suits,” “Greys Anatomy” and movies including “Wonder Woman,” yet the lack of diversity in how the women characters are portrayed is frightening. The actress’ that are shown as successful, powerful, and reliable characters are typically advertised as thin, always having perfect hair and makeup regardless of any circumstance, even in cases when the actress’ are working 80 plus hours a week as a surgeon. These are all factors that women and children look at, and see as a means necessary to be successful in these social roles. The moral that I got from the writings was that gaining power and control was seen as a necessity to the women’s liberation movement, yet now that we have more control and woman’s rights than in the 1960’s, women must stand up for the sinister discrimination that women face every day.