
Aug 28, 2010

Aug 23, 2010

John Humphrey: The man behind the UDHR
Aug 22, 2010

I have just finished reading an interesting and compelling essay by a graduate student on the link between the challenges in public education and the prospects for reconstruction in post-conflict societies. Focusing on post-genocide Rwanda, the essay sought to answer questions about the causes of identity-based violence, the role of historical narratives in producing identities, and the role that schooling can play in mitigating the power of divisive identities and narratives in post-conflict societies. The student argues that exposure to multiple historical narratives and the teaching of critical thinking skills is essential to mitigating the power of any single historical narrative. One part of the essay in particular caught my eye:
Schools have been sites for the dissemination of propaganda, for the cementing of divisive identities and politics, for the repression of dissent and for the carrying out of atrocities. Before the 1994 Rwandan genocide, for example, it was common for students to learn about ethnic divisions from their teachers. Many children arrived at school not knowing their ethnicity, but, because the government collected data on this through the schools, children were required to know and state their ethnicity in front of the class: “The teacher told us we were not the same: he compared our heights and noses. Then our class was divided: long noses on one side, flat noses on the other. We had not been aware of our ethnic identity... but after this incident we no longer played together with banana leaf footballs” (in Hodgkin, “Reconciliation in Rwanda: Education, History and the Stat,” Journal of International Affairs, p.201).
It is, for me, a reminder that schools and institutions of learning have historically been complicit in genocides and mass murderer. The more reasons why we much all pay to close attention not only to school curricula but also to the agendas and orientations of those who teach in our schools.
Schools and Genocide: Hate in the Classroom
Aug 10, 2010
Aug 1, 2010
After decades of campaign and advocacy the Convention on Cluster Munitions finally takes effect today (August 1, 2010). The international treaty prohibits the use of cluster bomb – a weapon containing multiple – often hundreds – of small explosive submunitions or bomblets. Countries that ratify the convention will be obliged never under
Because they are scattered over large land masses, cluster bombs kill and maim innocent victims long after war is over. They explode in the hands of children who pick them up to play with thinking they are toys. They make roads, farmlands and playground unusable.
Like the 1997 Ottawa Treaty to ban landmines, the Convention on Cluster Munitions is the product of the hardwork and dedication of thousands of citizen activists and NGOs around the world who have campaigned tirelessly to abolish this inhuman and devastating weapon of warfare.
Kudos to two organizations in particular that have been at the forefront of the campaign to ban cluster bombs:
But while we celebrate this success, let us remember that there is still much work to be done. Although 38 countries have ratified the Convention and another 70 have signed but not yet ratified it (as at August 1, 2010), there are a few countries that have chosen not to do the right thing and sign this treaty. The campaign must continue to name and shame the leaders of these recalcitrant countries into signing the Convention.
Here is the list of shame -- 8 countries that are major producers or users of cluster bombs that have not yet signed the Convention.
United States
Russia
China
India
Israel
Pakistan
Brazil
Global Treaty Bans the use of Cluster Bombs
Jul 11, 2010

Basil Davidson: Obituary

Host South Africa posts comeback Cup win
Jul 10, 2010
“Telling African Stories” celebrates diversityThursday, February 11th 2010
By NATALIE TIMPERIO
THE SILHOUETTE
The month of February marks a significant occasion in our calendar. Black history month has been celebrated for years; however, it is more than just an annual celebratory event. It is an opportunity to commemorate the history of African Americans and a chance to discover their distinct ethos throughout the world.
In honour of this, the McMaster Alumni Association hosted an event at the Discovery Centre located in Hamilton Harbour last Wednesday evening. This event, Telling African Stories: Literature, History and the African Experience, featured a critical discussion presented by Dr. Bonny Ibhawoh, Associate Professor in the Department of History and Director of the Centre for Peace Studies here at McMaster University.
Dr. Ibhawoh guided listeners through the history of African literature. Within his lecture, he referred to four distinct periods in the African literary history: the oral traditions and use of symbols that began with the origins of humankind, the colonial traditions, the nationalist traditions and the written word now commonly used in contemporary times.
In relation to these time periods, Dr. Ibhawoh stressed that African literature isn’t something that is exclusive to African peoples alone. Rather, it is a universal phenomenon that prevails amongst all humankind, including Canadians. While African styles of literature are unique, particularly in contrast to European and Western styles of literature, Dr. Ibhawoh explained that “African-Canadian literatures are in many ways very similar to African literature…it’s also based on the oral tradition…so it’s important to understand that even when [it’s] written down the roots are [the same].”
The theme of universality was central to Ibhawoh’s lecture in which he emphasized that literature mustn’t be thought of solely in terms of printed language, as we so often confine our definition of literature to that which is written and intelligible only to us, the West. In order to recognize the universality of African literature, particularly as university students, Dr. Ibhawoh explained that we must do so “by seeking and learning more, by participating…because they are human beings…and [we are all] connected. If you are able to establish a connection the chances are that you will be more proactive in trying to learn about a society.”
It is within a university setting that we have nearly unlimited access to the available tools and resources that allow us to begin or further study of African culture as well as other cultures throughout the world. In fact, diversity amongst cultures is apparent when simply walking through campus. As Dr. Ibhawoh stated, “[McMaster] is becoming a very diverse campus…with not just students but professors from different parts of the world.” It is precisely within this type of environment that “makes us accepting of cultures and more tolerant, and that is something we need [as] Canada prides itself as a mosaic,” he added.
The traditional images associated with the U.S. and Canada are the cultural “melting pot” of the U.S. and Canada’s “tossed salad” of ethnicities. This belief in Canada as a harbinger of ethnic diversity and a cultural mosaic is a fundamental feature of Canadian identity and nationalistic distinctiveness. Often, much of the world views Canada in this same light.
Dr. Ibhawoh said that in Canada “you are encouraged to celebrate your diversity…I think that’s what makes Canada so special and unique. It’s a place that is welcoming of cultures and sees those cultures as not just being tolerated but part of what the Canadian experience is…you have no choice, you need to make an effort to be tolerant and understand.”
While the truth of Canada as ever-welcoming of diversity has been contested, Dr. Ibhawoh’s perspective suggests some progress from our colonial past.
Although the end of February concludes black history month, attribution and appreciation of cultural diversity may be continually exercised throughout the year, as members of a culturally distinct community, both within McMaster University and in Canada.
“Telling African Stories” celebrates diversity
Jun 28, 2010
I am writing this from Sarajevo, the capital city of Bosnia Herzegovina where for the past week I have been attending a conference on International Peacebuilding in conflict-affected societies. It is a journey that will also take me through Zagreb in Croatia to Slovenia. Having visited several cities that have experienced war and conflict in Africa and Central America, scenes of urban centers devastated by wars and armed conflict are not unfamiliar.
Yet, visiting Sarajevo was an eye opener. This is a distinctly modern European city and for someone who has come to associate Europe with order and cosmopolitan sophistication, the sight of one bearing the same fresh scars of war that I have come to associate with the troubled regions of the developing world was unsettling.
The rows of high rise concrete apartments, dating from the communist era in Tito’s Yugoslavia, reminded me of similar buildings I had seen in Jena and other parts of what used to be East Germany. Walking through the street, it was easy to see how this historic town could once have been central to the history of Europe. After all, it was in Sarajevo that Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serbian student Gavrilo Princip, sparking the First World War in 1914.
The historic character of the city as the “Jerusalem of Europe” is also evident in the landscape -- the cascading hills surrounding the city, the stone facade of the buildings in the old Jewish quarters and the mosque minarets standing beside church towers. This is a city where the three monotheistic religions have long coexisted. I could hear the ringing of the church bells down the road one moment and in the next, the unmistakable sound of the “adhan” (Muslim call to prayer). One does indeed feel a sense of being at the crossroads of history.
Yet, in all these, it is difficult to escape the real legacies of war in this city. Almost every building still has bullet or shrapnel holes on the walls. Some were gaping holes. Although there were signs of reconstruction and repair, many buildings are still in ruins.
I asked my colleague and guide Goran, who works with a local Peacebuilding NGO, how so many buildings could have been destroyed in the war. He explained that during the siege on the city, Serb/Yugoslav army occupied the hills surrounding the city, making it an easy target for bullets, mortar rounds and RPGs. Most of the devastation I saw came from exploding mortar rounds that killed thousands.
We came across a street in which over 50 people were killed on a single day in mortar explosion. The buildings on the street bore little bronze plaques with the names of those killed -- many of them were women and children. War is devastating everywhere and those who bear the brunt are often the innocent and most vulnerable.
As I walked through the city centre with Goran, I asked how such intense ethnic hostility and animosity could have existed among a people that looked to me so homogenous. How was it possible to tell a Serb from a Croat and a Croat from a Bosnian during the war? They all look the same to my untrained eyes. Goran replied that most people in the former Yugoslavia speak the same Serb-Croat language and “pretty much look alike racially.” “During the war," he continued, it was your neighbor, friend and colleague who pointed you out as being ethnically different – an enemy or traitor.” It reminded me of Rwanda.
It was Jonas Savimbi, the Angola warlord, who defined peace as the “space between two wars.” The most we can do, he argued, is to make that space as wide as we can but at some point men must war. I disagree. There is nothing inevitable about war and the pain and devastation that it brings to humanity. We can choose a different destiny -- PEACE. Visiting Sarajevo convinces me even more of this.
Bosnia Herzegovina: Confronting the Legacies of War
Jun 13, 2010
- Arthur Koestler
