Hola Followers!

I just recently found out, that my best friend is going to Varadero, Cuba for a week long stay in a fancy, all inclusive resort.

You’re probably all thinking, “So what? Big deal...”, but it is a big deal and I’ll tell you why.

There are two main reasons: 1. I am very close with my best friend, who knows and respects my decision to travel abroad this summer to a third world country, however I feel like situation completely undermines my best friend's ability to understand and take seriously what it is that I stand for being in Beyond Borders and doing this volunteer stint. It stings a little that my best friend (in the whole wide world) is going on a cruise to a third world country without looking at the implications s/he may be causing while there. I know not everyone cares as much as us Beyond Borders students do, but I thought my presence in this program might make people a little more aware of their own actions in the world, but it seems like that is not the case.
2. I am taking an Anthropology of Tourism course currently and it’s probably the most informative course in terms of becoming aware of issues that we take for granted on a daily basis, such as the all inclusive resort. It seems like a great deal, right? It is. It seems like a paradise on earth. It is. It also a main reason why countries in the Caribbean are still suffering from poverty and famine, while the wonderful all inclusive resorts are dinning out every night, blowing money at the bars; all this without even a glimpse of what’s outside the walls of the resort. This idea is discussed in Polly Pattullo’s article called “Sailing into the Sunset: The Cruise-ship Industry”, which is not specifically about all inclusive resorts, however it touches on the damages of tourism into the Caribbean. 

Because I am traveling to the Caribbean area, I am particularly concerned with the damage that a trip like mine will cause. In addition to looking at Pattullo’s article about tourism in the Caribbean, I will also look at an article by Frederick Errington and Deborah Gewertz called “Tourist and Anthropology in a Postmodern World”, which discusses the idea that anthropologists are like tourists (which is an insult to anthropologists). I want to explore both of these ideas in relation to my trip abroad this summer and hopefully answer a question that I’ve been asking myself, “Am I doing the right thing?”

When it comes to traveling to the Caribbean, it is something that I’ve always wanted to do, and I’ll admit, I wanted to do it all-inclusive-week-long-resort style. But after having my eyes opened to the world of chaos on disruption that tourism causes to Caribbean countries, and after seeing how all inclusive resorts contribute to the poverty and famine, I quickly reassessed my priorities and fantasies. The cruise ship industry within the tourism industry is that largest growing industry in the world, even greater than land-based tourism (Pattullo in Gmelch 2010: 401). The problem with cruise ships that people are perhaps missing is the fact that “the portion of Caribbean products purchases by cruise lines... remains small” and that “many lines employ European officers, with North American and western European staff in areas like business and entertainment, supported by a Third World crew” (Pattullo in Gmelch 2010: 405-6). These are issues that are prominent within the cruise industry and within land based tourism in the Caribbean as the cruise ships take away business from locals who own land based hotels, souvenir shops and restaurants (Pattullo in Gmelch 2010: 405). Another downfall for land based tourism, for places such as Puerto Rico for example is that after accommodating the port to fit the size of the cruise ships (which damage coral reef among other oceanic things); Puerto Rico had no money to spend on replenishing the infrastructure in the town to entice tourists to come and explore. Not only did they spend money they didn’t have on the port, but it lessened their tourism because they were unable to appeal to other aspects of the tourists expectations (Pattullo in Gmelch 2010: 407). The cruise lines have a lot to do with which countries are visited during the cruise and if they do not think a port is going to bring them enough success or benefit them in any way, they can simply stroke it off the list of Caribbean countries to visit. (Pattullo in Gmelch 2010: 403-4). 

Because of difficulties securing Caribbean destinations where the locals are just right, and the area surrounding the port is beautiful enough, cruise lines have begun buying their own islands! This is in an attempt to prevent “annoying, pestering” locals, who try to make tourists buy their goods, and to give tourists the experience that the island is completely theirs (Pattullo in Gmelch 2010: 411). Pattullo also notes that many islands have become dependent on the cruise ship industry to bring tourism to their country. She used Dominica as an example, a small island just North of Martinique, which turned to tourism of cruise ships in the late 1990s to accommodate for the failing banana industry on the island (Gmelch 2010: 413). 

I think it is important to look at these facts before traveling to the Caribbean. I know that I am not going as a tourist, but what is the difference between me as a volunteer student/tourist and a regular tourist. The economy of a lot of these third world Caribbean countries depend on tourism as their main source of income, which is unstable at the best of times, as Pattullo explores in her article. I find myself wondering what impact I am having as a North American traveller in the Dominican Republic. I fear that my presence there will be seen as a nuisance and that people will only see me as a snobby, rich, white girl who is doing her conscience some good by going and volunteering in a third world country. This is also addressed in Errington and Gewertz’s article about tourism and anthropology. This topic is especially important to me because I am an anthropologist and I have recently realized that perhaps the difference between tourists and anthropologists isn’t not as much as I had thought or hoped.

The article by Errington and Gewertz starts with a story about a man and his wife who travel to Papua New Guinea to study the Chambri, a native group on the island. When they arrive at a guest house which they frequent when in Papua New Guinea, they are disappointed to find a group of “travellers” (in search of the authentic, yet another topic I could get into about tourism!) taking up most of the house. The travellers were not just young, hippie like adults, but older, wealthy, retirees who were also searching for the authentic, five times a year in several different countries around the world. This made the couple quite angry because they were sharing a roof with the very type of people they were trying to get away from (Gmelch 2010: 91-2). Errington and Gewertz explore ways in which other anthropologists such as Malcolm Crick (1985) explain that “tourists lost [their] authority because, like tourists, [they] do not reach an objective understanding of the other – what [they] do is for [themselves] and in [their] own terms” (Clifford 1988 in Gmelch 2010: 92). This is an important differentiation because the tourist is someone who travels for pleasure, for fun, to get away from it all. However anthropologists travel to understand the world, to objectively understand the other, as Crick says and when these two lines become blurred, you get someone like me, who is afraid that her intentions might be taken the wrong way. 

When discussing a possible directed reading course with one of my professors, she asked me what I was going to be doing in the Dominican Republic, and when I told her I was going to help run a summer day camp program by heading up the Arts and Crafts centre, she looked a little leery of being able to find something for me to write about. I felt slightly embarrassed because I didn’t want her to think that I was simply going to this country to Westernize or Christianize (which is what North Americans seem to be known for). I had to explain all about the Beyond Borders Program and how it is probably one of the best programs at Waterloo for International Education and Volunteer work, all in one. She agreed to this after a long explanation, but it felt odd, being an anthropologist student and being, what I thought was judged (but probably not, because she is the sweetest teacher ever!) by an anthropologist for being a “traveller”. I hadn’t come to look at myself like that until I did the readings from the Anthropology of Religion course and actually talked to my professor.

And, because of all this, I have come to question my validity in travelling to the Dominican to volunteer because I am unsure of the implications that I will be causing because of my presence there. This entire thought form started when my best friend told me about his week long, all inclusive stay at a resort. 

I would love to hear all thoughts and opinions about me questioning myself. Reaffirmations that I am doing the right thing would also be appreciated! Sometimes I feel like we get lost in things that feel right, but perhaps are not, and that is why I question my presence in the Dominican. I hope that this article is not offensive to the director of the program, whom I have utmost respect for. This is just me analyzing what it means do be helpful in a third world context. I hope this is evident and that it doesn’t look like I am putting down the program, because I most certainly am not.

Cheers.

Justice does have a face and Community Development ... what do they have in common?

Hello Beyond Borders Followers!

I have just come back from an amazing lecture at St. Jerome's University. Mary Jo Leddy gave an inspirational and goose bump giving lecture about the refugees that she works with at the Romero House in Toronto, where she lives with refugees that have come to Canada from around the world, each with their own story to tell. Those in the audience were lucky enough to hear two pages from her up and coming book, which I have forgotten the title of, of course!

Leddy's inspirational lecture was about giving a face to tragedies such as poverty. Leddy gave examples from her own life and experiences with refugees that really spoke to me personally about giving a face to issues in the world that seem out of reach, or out of our hands. Leddy's main point was that, by giving a face to poverty, justice, starvation, discrimination, people can relate to those who suffer these injustices. People can start to humanize those who are suffering from poverty and discrimination and justice related issues by putting a face to some of the issues.

This is where Leddy's idea of community comes into play. I thought this was particularly interesting and important to point out, since this week at The Working Centre, all of the Beyond Border students met to discuss a chapter from Understanding Canada, called "What is Community Development" by Jim Lotz.

The idea of community as a continuously changing definition is described in the chapter the chapter we read and discussed. Lotz writes that "it began as a pragmatic, low key, low-cost approach to help people identify their problems and to work together towards solutions" (Lotz 2010:1). This is also the type of community that Leddy was talking about during her lecture. This is the type of community that we, as Canadians, North Americans and individuals with our own personal identities, need to get back to. The idea of community now, I would say has to do with the all-encompassing group of people that live on your street, or perhaps in your village, town, or city. I know, a lot of time when I refer to my "community", I am talking about the people that live on my street, go to my church and go to the same social functions that my family and I attend. To me, this is my community because we have similar interests and common goals. I also call them my community because in times of need we all come together to help each other out, or to help a friend of a friend when necessary. 

The idea of community development is very different within the definition of community. It has a sense of movement to the phrase with the word "development". Lotz defines it as "a simple way of handling complex problems of the impact of change on communities" (Lotz 2010:1). I think seeing community development as a phrase of movement and action is a positive thing, however I think people get lost in the idea of saying "community development" opposed to actually carrying out the action of community development. For example, lots of people in my community talk about ways to develop it further, by talking about community development, but the conversation never seems to turn to action. People like to say "community development" because it is an action phrase, but most times that's all it is: a phrase. I think this is where the problem lies. The idea of community development has become too easy to say, but not do. 

Leddy discussed community development in terms of tearing down the walls that we place around ourselves to people who we see as "other" and building community with them and having them as our neighbours. She even addressed a question in the audience about how to let these walls down and how to be more open to people such as the Muslim community when they are pegged as "terrorists". Leddy addressed this question very gracefully by saying that it's not a matter of becoming friends with Muslims right away, but becoming aware of their issues and knowing that they are out there instead of stigmatizing them. She said that we don't need to be friends or enemies of the people we see as "other" but to be aware and know them can be the start to a relationship of understanding and eventually caring (Leddy, Mary Jo. "Justice has a Face." Feb.11/11)

I think people need to critically analyze their ideas about community to get a better sense of what they are trying to accomplish with the current ideas that they hold. I have volunteered three  times now at St. John's Kitchen in downtown Kitchener, and it has definitely taught me a lot already about the importance and real meaning of community. People call it a Soup Kitchen, but I call it a Community Kitchen, because, although we have yet to serve soup, it isn't about the food, it's about the time spent with those around you, while consuming the food. Community is more than just a word that encompasses the people that live near to you, or in your village, city or town. It's about being there for people, helping them solve problems, building a house for someone who needs one, shovelling their driveway in the winter when they can't or mowing their grass in the summer when it's hot. These are all incentives that people need to take in order to experience the true meaning of community. Once you experience it and find the real joy and sense of belonging, you become addicted to it, and you want to do it every day and in every way possible. At least, it's how I feel after I have had my community stand behind me and help me find my way. 

I hope this helps some of you understand the idea of community, or at least give you something to think about in terms of your own definition of community. Here is a link to Jim Lotz's book, Understanding Canada:
http://www.theworkingcentre.org/wscd/pubs/understanding-canada.pdf, which is also available through the Working Centre website that I posted in an early blog.

Cheers!

being "at home in the world"

The sense of "feeling at home" is one that people generally associate with a location, such as the town they were born in, the town they grew up in, or the town they currently reside in, and a structure which represents the idea of a house. These are both concepts that I can identify with personally, and I bet so can many of you who are reading this right now at home, in a comfortable room, with walls and other structures to ensure your privacy.

For my ANTH 351: Indigenous Practices and Relations class I am reading a book called "At Home in the World" by Michael Jackson, an ethnographer who is originally from Australia, and decides to do some fieldwork about the local Aboriginals. His ethnography is told in more of a narrative form giving the reader just as much background about himself as the Warlpiri, the Aboriginal group he is studying.

What really struck me about this book, and why I thought it important to share is because of the title of the book "At Home in the World". This concept is one that I think will be important as me and my fellow Beyond Borderians travel to foreign countries in May for three or four months. Throughout the ethnography Jackson uses epigraphs at the beginning of his chapters, which are about the idea of home. One particular one that I laughed about, particularly pertaining to my future abroad was the epigraph at the beginning of chapter seven by Samuel Beckett, "It is suicide to be abroad. But what is it t be at home... what is it to be at home?" (Jackson 1995:60). It really made me wonder what on earth I was doing, traveling away from my home for three months; away from my family, friends, comforts of suburban living, etc. And I think I found my answer in Jackson's book.

Jackson's experience with the Warlpiri is unlike anything he's ever experienced before and he learns many things about their culture and their beliefs while collecting date for his fieldwork. He learns about their ideas and concepts of Dreamings which are stories that are given to certain individuals when they are born which describe the land where they were born (Jackson 1995:35-37). The concept was completely foreign to me because the Warlpiri use their Dreamings as a way of memorizing their vast landscape, saying, "Oh, that village, that is on the wallaby Dreaming track" for example. The Warlpiri literally knew every inch of their land. Jackson uses the Warlpiri as an example of being at home in the world. Where ever a Warlpiri goes, s/he knows where s/he came from, they know the exact location of their conception, where their ancestors died (Jackson 1995: 53-55). Because the land is so sacred in every aspect to the Warlpiri, all of it is their home and all of it belongs to everyone. They have no understanding of boundaries, except to say where one Dreaming ends and the next one begins.

Here, in the Western world, we have a very different idea of boundaries and privacy and home. Home is a private affair, something that we hold dear to ourselves but have a hard time sharing with other people. Family is important to some of us, but the Warlpiri goes as far as to give everyone "skin names" which represents the skin group in with you belong. For example all the women's names start with N and all the men's names start with J. Jackson was giving the skin name Jupurrurla and all other Jupurrurlas were his "brothers" and all Napanangkas were his classificatory "wives" because Napanangka is always the wife of Jupurrurla. And Jupurrurlas father is alwas Jakamarra, he had to regard all other Jakamarras as "fathers"(Jackson 1995: 20-21). This idea of everyone being related and everyone belonging to the land is such an amazing concept, which brought me to the realization that it didn't matter where I was in the world, if my family wasn't there, or my friends, or my comforts of home, I could still call the place home, if the others around me accepted me that way and if I was willing to accept them that way.

Jackson immerses himself within the Warlpiri culture, doing exactly as they do and going right along with whatever is thrown at him. In a ways I think that the Warlpiri are impressed with Jackson's ability to improvise and make do with what he has. As I was reading this ethnography I realized that this was exactly what I had to do when I arrived in the Dominican Republic; leave my comforts at home, leave my idea of family (even though they will be dearly miss and I will not forget about them), but try to take on the culture as my own and become as comfortable with Cabrera, Dominican Republic as I am with Arthur, Ontario and Canada. 

Near the end of the ethnography Jackson lists some of the definitions of "home" that he came across while doing his research and fieldwork with the Warlpiri. I wanted to share some of them with you to see what you thought, if you dis/agree with them, or have your own idea of home, or how to become "at home in the world".

"All really inhabited space bears the essence of the notion of home" wrote Gaston Bachelard.

"Home is an intimate place" observes Yi-Fu Tuan.

Among the Kuranko, the quintessential human space is the house, which is metaphorically the body of a person. Its thatched roof is likened to hair, its door to a mouth, its wall surfaces to skin, and houses and humans are formed of the same earth. The house is a family and family is a home.

Robert Frost: "Home is the place where when you go there they have to take you in."

"The world is an exile", wrote Thomas a Kempis "home is with God."

What is to build "a nest in the heart of another" is captured by Hannah Jelkes, talking about her grandfather in Tennessee William's The Night of the Iguana: "We make a home for each other, my grandfather and I. Do you know what I mean by a home? I don't mean a regular home. I mean I don't mean what other people mean when they speak of a home, because I don't regard home as a... well, a place, a building...a house... of woods, bricks and stone. I think of a home as being a thing that two people have between them in which each can... well, nest - rest- live in, emotionally speaking..." [a personal favourite] (Jackson 1995:121-122).

 Jackson, M. (1995). At home in the world. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.

Cheers :)