Preamble:
Another article about TRU requires time to process and is harmful to the people of Ukraine, the Canadian-Ukrainian diaspora and stand with Ukraine communities.
Please take some time to read my analysis and critique of Thompson Rivers University’s ongoing response to the russian flag controversy. March 28th article in CASTANET https://www.castanetkamloops.net/news/Kamloops/479213/TRU-wants-to-stay-apolitical-not-take-positions-or-issue-statements-on-global-events brought a lot of flashbacks since last year’s attempt to educate the TRU administration on the harm they are causing to the People of Ukraine, the Ukrainian-Canadian community in Canada and everyone who stands with Ukraine. As an associate professor of social work at TRU with tenure, currently on sabbatical, my voice and attempts to share concerns from Kamloops stand with Ukraine community are silenced and ignored by the TRU administration. We need more voices, so please share your ideas on what might work so that TRU administration will unlearn russian narratives, stop being neutral and learn what it means to stand with Ukraine.
It’s important to note that the current article is a draft version, and contributions from others on interpreting quotes from the recent Castanet news and additional resources I shared to learn about russian colonialism/imperialism are welcome and encouraged. Diverse perspectives and experiences can enrich the conversation and lead to a more comprehensive understanding of complex issues.
There are several compelling reasons why I choose to continue to raise awareness and fight against the silencing and ignoring of the stand with Ukraine voices at TRU and globally:
Personal connection:
As someone who lived in Lviv, Ukraine, before moving to Canada in 2004 and becoming a Canadian citizen in 2013, I have firsthand experience of the devastating impact of russian aggression and colonialism on the Ukrainian people, including my family who survived Holodomor, soviet made famine-genocide. My family has witnessed the suffering and oppression caused by the soviet regime, and this personal connection drives my commitment to raising awareness and advocating for the recognition of Ukrainian struggles. The university must understand that displaying the russian flag on campus is not a neutral act; it is a painful reminder of the ongoing war and a symbol of the oppression faced by the People of Ukraine.
Professional expertise:
As a social work professor, I am well-equipped to analyze the russian flag controversy through a critical lens, focusing on power dynamics, oppression, and marginalization. My professional expertise allows me to provide valuable insights into this issue’s colonial and imperial aspects and its impact on the university community. TRU needs to recognize that ignoring the concerns raised by the Ukrainian-Canadian diaspora and failing to take an active stand against russian aggression, including removing russian flags from campus, perpetuates a system of oppression and undermines the university’s commitment to social justice and equity.
Commitment to social justice:
My dedication to fighting for social justice and equity extends beyond the classroom. By continuously raising awareness about the importance of acknowledging and addressing historical and ongoing injustices, I am committed to creating a more inclusive and equitable society. The university must understand that remaining silent or neutral in the face of global events, such as the russian-Ukrainian war, is not an option. Our collective responsibility is to take a stand against oppression and support those fighting for their rights and freedoms.
Amplifying marginalized voices:
Having taught for 18 years in Northern, Rural, Indigenous, and online communities in Canada, I have witnessed firsthand the experiences and struggles of marginalized communities. This has strengthened my determination to amplify the voices of those who are often silenced or ignored, including, People of Ukraine, the Ukrainian-Canadian diaspora and stand with Ukraine communities in the context of the russian flag controversy and ongoing russian aggression in Ukraine. The university must listen to and prioritize the voices of those directly affected by these issues rather than dismissing their concerns or attempting to maintain a false sense of neutrality.
Challenging institutional neutrality:
By questioning the university’s attempt to remain neutral and apolitical in the face of global events, I challenge the notion that educational institutions can remain disengaged from the political and historical contexts that affect their communities. My advocacy encourages a more proactive and socially responsible approach to addressing complex issues instead of being silent. The university must recognize that neutrality in the face of oppression is identical to being complacent and that taking a stand against injustice is a moral imperative.
Fostering critical thinking:
My persistence in raising awareness and sharing my perspective encourages critical thinking among colleagues, students, and the wider community. By engaging in open dialogue and presenting alternative viewpoints, I contribute to a more informed and nuanced understanding of the issues. The university should embrace this opportunity to foster critical thinking and encourage the community to engage with these complex issues rather than shying away from difficult conversations.
The university must recognize the importance of taking a stand against oppression and supporting those fighting for their rights and freedoms. We can create a more inclusive and equitable environment within the university and beyond by encouraging others to engage critically with these issues and consider diverse perspectives. It is time for TRU to stop displaying the russian flag on campus and truly stand with Ukraine. Neutrality is not an option.
DRAFT ARTICLE:
The article “TRU wants to stay apolitical, not take positions or issue statements on global events,” published by Castanet on March 28, 2024, delves into Thompson Rivers University’s decision to maintain a neutral stance and refrain from making political statements regarding global events. While the university’s aim to create an inclusive environment and support its diverse student body is commendable, a critical analysis of colonial and imperial power dynamics uncovers several problematic aspects of this approach. This critique explores how the university’s actions and statements, particularly those related to the display of the russian flag during the ongoing russian aggression in Ukraine, inadvertently contribute to the normalization of war, the silencing of marginalized voices, and the erasure of historical and contemporary oppression.
The article highlights the university’s response to concerns raised about displaying the russian flag on campus, which involved surveying russian students about their preferences and ultimately deciding to keep the flag flying. This decision and statements made by university officials raise questions about the institution’s understanding of the complex historical and political contexts surrounding the conflict and the implications of its actions on the broader community, particularly the Ukrainian-Canadian diaspora.
To critically analyze the university’s approach, three key quotes from the article have been selected and examined through the lens of colonial and imperial theories. These quotes relate to the university’s consultation process with russian students, the emphasis on the flag’s historical continuity, and the framing of flag displays as a means of promoting inclusivity. By applying a colonial and imperial critique to these statements, the analysis aims to uncover the underlying power dynamics and the potential consequences of the university’s actions on marginalized communities.
This critique draws upon various theoretical frameworks and historical examples to illustrate the parallels between the university’s response and the tactics often employed in colonial and imperial systems. It highlights the importance of acknowledging the symbolic power of flags, the experiences of oppressed communities, and the need to confront the legacies and realities of colonialism and imperialism to foster genuine inclusivity and understanding within the university community.
Ultimately, this analysis aims to contribute to a broader conversation about the role of educational institutions in navigating complex global issues and promoting social justice. It underscores the necessity of critical self-reflection, open dialogue, and active engagement with all community members’ diverse perspectives and experiences, particularly those affected by war, conflict, and historical oppression.
Quote 1 from the CASTANET article: “Russian students on campus were surveyed following the incident to see if the students would prefer an alternative flag be flown — which they declined.”
The situation at Thompson Rivers University, where the russian flag was flown, and russian students were surveyed about their preferences, reflects a broader pattern often observed in colonial/imperial systems including denial or minimization, consultation with a select group, findings to justify actions, and ignoring the context and the affected communities. Here’s a parallel analysis that draws on these dynamics:
Denial or Minimization of the Problem: In colonial/imperial contexts, the initial response to grievances or problematic situations often involves denying the problem’s existence or minimizing its impact. This is akin to the initial decision to fly the russian flag, perhaps without fully considering the broader geopolitical context and the sentiments of the Ukrainian-Canadian diaspora, People of Ukraine and stand with Ukraine communities. Similarly, in colonial/imperial systems, the voices and experiences of the colonized or oppressed are often overlooked or dismissed, prioritizing the perspective of the colonizer/aggressor/dictator.
Consultation with a Select Group: The decision to survey russian students about their preference on the flag issue mirrors the colonial approach of consulting with a select segment of the population that aligns with the interests or perspectives of the aggressor. This can legitimize the initial action and ignore the broader implications or the voices of those adversely affected. This approach is used in colonial/imperial systems to create a veneer of inclusivity or democratic process. In reality, it marginalizes the perspectives of those who bear the brunt of implemented policies or actions.
Dissemination of the Findings to Justify the Action: By focusing on the survey findings among russian students and choosing to uphold their preference, the university’s response disregards the feelings, experiences, and perspectives of the Ukrainian-Canadian community. This step parallels the colonial/imperial tactic of using selected feedback or data to justify actions or policies favouring the aggressor, often under the guise of neutrality or fairness. However, it effectively silences the dissenting voices and exacerbates the hurt or marginalization experienced by those not consulted or considered.
Ignoring the Wider Context and the Affected Communities: The most striking parallel is the oversight of the broader geopolitical tensions and the sentiments of the Ukrainian-Canadian diaspora, People of Ukraine and global stand with Ukraine communities. In a colonial/imperial framework, the narratives, histories, and grievances of colonized or oppressed groups are often ignored or overshadowed by the narratives that the aggressors/dictators wish to promote. This not only perpetuates injustice but also deepens divisions by failing to acknowledge the hurt and harm caused to those already marginalized.
Summary: This analysis highlights how the response to the flag incident at Thompson Rivers University reflects broader dynamics of power, consultation, and representation characteristic of colonial/imperial systems. It underscores the importance of inclusive decision-making considering a community’s diverse perspectives and histories, especially in contexts where geopolitical tensions and historical grievances are at play.
Quote 2 from the CASTANET article: “One thing that really, really stuck out for me is the students said, ‘Our flag has been in place for hundreds of years, way before Putin and his government came to power, and it will be there after Putin and his government are gone,‘” Chadwick said.
The quote reflects a viewpoint that attempts to dissociate the russian flag from the contemporary political climate and actions under putin’s administration, emphasizing the flag’s historical continuity “for hundreds of years.” While aiming to depoliticize the symbol, this perspective inadvertently ignores the broader and more complex historical context of russian actions, including those that can be characterized as colonial/imperial towards Ukraine and other regions. A colonial/imperial critique of this quote would involve several key points:
Historical Amnesia: The quote shows a form of historical amnesia, disregarding the flag’s association with various phases of russian imperialism and colonialism. The russian empire and the soviet union have both played significant roles in exerting control over Ukraine and other nations, leading to various forms of oppression, cultural suppression, and war. By focusing solely on the flag’s longevity, there’s a failure to acknowledge the symbol’s association with these historical dynamics and their ongoing impact.
Ignoring the Symbolic Power of Flags: Flags are potent symbols of identity, sovereignty, and power. The russian flag, regardless of its age, currently represents the russian federation and its government’s actions, including those against Ukraine. This symbolic power cannot be nullified by referring to the flag’s historical existence; instead, it’s essential to recognize how symbols are recontextualized based on current events and histories of oppression.
Disregard for the Oppressed: By emphasizing the flag’s endurance beyond the current government, the statement overlooks the immediate and lived experiences of the oppressed, particularly Ukrainians. It dismisses the flag’s contemporary association with aggression and occupation, thereby neglecting the perspectives and grievances of those who have suffered under russian actions, both historically and presently.
Justifying Continuity of Colonialism: The implication that the flag—and, by extension, russian influence—will exist “after Putin and his government are gone” subtly justifies the continuity of russian dominance or colonialism. It suggests a normalization of russian influence over its neighbours and others, undermining those nations’ struggles for autonomy and recognition. This stance overlooks the necessity of confronting and addressing past and ongoing forms of colonialism for genuine reconciliation and peace.
Learning and Promoting Awareness: The Vice-President International’s interest in promoting this perspective as a learning point for TRU and the wider Kamloops community raises concerns about the emphasized narratives. It suggests a missed opportunity to engage critically with the complex history of russian-Ukrainian relations, the nature of national symbols, and the importance of solidarity with those affected by oppression and colonialism. Instead of offering a nuanced understanding, it risks promoting a view that overlooks the significance of acknowledging and addressing historical injustices and current conflicts.
Summary: The critique highlights how the statement’s focus on the flag’s historical continuity overlooks the complexities of russian colonialism and its impact on Ukraine and others. It calls for a more nuanced approach that recognizes the symbolic power of flags, acknowledges the experiences of the oppressed, and confronts the legacies and realities of colonialism for a more inclusive and informed understanding within the community.
Quote 3 from the CASTANET article: “It was really, from our perspective, to provide a sense of belonging for the international students to show that we are an inclusive and diverse university,” TRU Vice-President International said.
The quote justifies the display of flags at Thompson Rivers University (TRU) as a gesture of inclusivity and belonging for international students, which can be critiqued from a colonial/imperial perspective by focusing on how such actions oppress victims of aggression. In the context of displaying the russian flag amidst the war with Ukraine, it might inadvertently contribute to normalizing war and further oppressing affected communities. Here’s a breakdown of this critique:
Invisibility of Aggression: By framing the display of national flags as a gesture of inclusivity without considering the geopolitical contexts and actions these flags represent, there’s a risk of making the aggression and suffering associated with these symbols invisible. For Ukrainians and Ukrainian-Canadians, the russian flag can symbolize the war and oppression they or their ancestors have experienced. Normalizing this symbol without acknowledging its implications contributes to a colonial mindset that overlooks the power dynamics and histories of oppression between nations.
One-Sided Sense of Belonging: The intention to create a sense of belonging is commendable. However, from a colonial/imperial critique perspective, prioritizing inclusivity for one group without considering the impact on another replicates a colonial/imperial disregard for the voices and experiences of those who have been historically marginalized or oppressed. The feeling of belonging should not come at the expense of another group’s sense of safety, recognition, and dignity. This approach fails to account for the complex interplay of identities and allegiances within a diverse community, risking alienating those who stand with Ukraine.
Normalization of War and Conflict: Displaying the flag of a country actively involved in aggressive war and led by a President charged with war crimes, without context or dialogue about the implications of this act, contributes to the normalization of war and aggression. It abstracts the flag from the political and military actions it represents, potentially dulling the critical awareness and engagement with current global issues. This normalization process overlooks the lived realities of war, including displacement, loss, and trauma, experienced by Ukrainian, Ukrainian-Canadian, and other affected communities.
Colonial/Imperial Erasure of Oppressed Narratives: By stating that flag displays are not meant to be taken as political stances, there is a risk of erasing the deeply political narratives and struggles associated with these symbols. This mirrors colonial practices of erasing or rewriting narratives to suit the needs of the aggressor, in this case, the narrative that seeks to maintain a neutral stance in the face of aggression and conflict.
Oppression through Supposed Neutrality: Claiming neutrality through inclusivity initiatives can act as a form of oppression when it disregards the significant harm and trauma associated with certain symbols or actions. This supposed neutrality can silence dissenting voices and invalidate the experiences of those who are directly impacted by the war, further entrenching colonial dynamics of power and erasure.
A colonial/imperial critique of the quote highlights the complexities and unintended consequences of striving for inclusivity without fully engaging with the political and historical contexts of symbols such as national flags. It underscores the need for a more nuanced understanding of inclusivity that genuinely respects and acknowledges the diverse experiences and needs of all members of a university community, especially those affected by war and conflict.
Suggested Resources
I suggest exploring works and resources that delve into postcolonial theory, the politics of symbols and representation, and the dynamics of power and resistance in global and local contexts to better understand the colonial and imperial theories used in this analysis. Here are a few foundational and informative sources that provide a broader understanding of these themes:
“Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples” by Linda Tuhiwai Smith: Smith critiques how Western knowledge production has marginalized indigenous ways of knowing and being, proposing methodologies for decolonizing research. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/225063.Decolonizing_Methodologies
“Imperial Knowledge: Russian Literature and Colonialism” by Ewa M. Thompson: Thompson’s book critically engages with Russian literature to argue that Russia’s territorial expansions are acts of colonization, a perspective often overlooked due to the contiguous nature of these expansions. This volume challenges the conventional failure of literary critics to recognize Russia as a colonial power, placing Russian literary tradition within the broader context of postcolonial discourse and examining its role in supporting imperial habits within Russian culture. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1620644.Imperial_Knowledge
“Pedagogy of the Oppressed” by Paulo Freire: Though not strictly about colonialism, Freire’s work on education, oppression, and liberation offers insights into the dynamics of power and the potential for critical consciousness to challenge injustice. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/72657.Pedagogy_of_the_Oppressed
“Challenging Oppression and Confronting Privilege: A Critical Approach to Anti-Oppressive and Anti-Privilege Theory and Practice” by Bob Mullaly and Juliana West: Mullaly and West’s work is a comprehensive guide to Anti-Oppressive & Anti-Privilege AOAP theory and practice, highlighting its significance in the Canadian context. The book delves into the various manifestations of oppression and privilege at personal, cultural, and structural levels, providing a detailed exploration of the complexities involved in identifying and addressing oppressive and privileged ideology, systems, media, discourse and personal dynamics. https://www.amazon.ca/Challenging-Oppression-Confronting-Privilege-Anti-Oppressive/dp/0199022321
“The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine” by Serhii Plokhy: Plokhy offers a detailed account of Ukraine’s history from ancient times to the present day, focusing on its strategic position between Europe and Russia and the many conflicts this has engendered. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25255053-the-gates-of-europe
“Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin” by Timothy Snyder: While not exclusively about Russian colonialism, this book provides crucial context for understanding the brutal history of the region, including the devastating impact of both Nazi and Soviet policies on Ukraine. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6572270-bloodlands
“Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine” by Anne Applebaum: Applebaum details the Holodomor, the catastrophic famine in Ukraine caused by Stalin’s policies in the early 1930s, arguing it was part of a wider assault on Ukrainian nationalism and identity. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33864676-red-famine
These sources range from historical overviews to analyses of current events, offering a multi-faceted understanding of russian colonialism and its effects on Ukraine. They provide valuable insights into the critique of actions and statements related to the TRU flag display, illustrating the importance of considering historical contexts, power dynamics, and the voices of marginalized communities in contemporary debates and policies. They also highlight the historical roots of the conflict, the cultural and national identity of Ukraine, and the geopolitical strategies at play in the region.
Conclusion:
The colonial and imperial critique of Thompson Rivers University’s handling of the russian flag controversy and its approach to global events reveals the complexities and unintended consequences of pursuing neutrality and inclusivity without fully engaging with the political and historical contexts. By attempting to remain apolitical and prioritizing the sentiments of one group over another, the university risks perpetuating power imbalances, silencing marginalized voices, and normalizing aggression.
This critique calls for a more nuanced understanding of inclusivity that acknowledges and respects the diverse experiences and needs of all community members, especially those affected by war, conflict, and historical oppression. It emphasizes the importance of recognizing the symbolic power of flags and the impact of their display on different groups within the university community, particularly the Ukrainian-Canadian diaspora.
Furthermore, the analysis highlights the need for educational institutions to engage in critical self-reflection and foster open dialogues that address the legacies and ongoing manifestations of colonialism and imperialism. This involves confronting historical injustices, acknowledging the experiences of oppressed communities, and actively working toward decolonization in both theory and practice.
By applying a colonial and imperial lens to the university’s actions and statements, this critique aims to contribute to a broader conversation about the role of educational institutions in navigating complex global issues and promoting social justice. It underscores the importance of considering all community members’ diverse perspectives and experiences, particularly those historically marginalized or oppressed, in decision-making processes and public statements.
Ultimately, only by engaging in critical self-reflection, fostering open dialogue, and actively working toward decolonization can universities create truly inclusive and equitable environments that respect and uplift the voices of all students, staff, and community members. This requires a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths, challenge existing power structures, and commit to ongoing learning and growth.
As educational institutions grapple with the challenges of an increasingly interconnected world, they must approach global issues with a deep understanding of historical contexts, power dynamics, and the impact of their actions on diverse communities. By embracing a more nuanced and critically engaged approach to inclusivity and social justice, universities can play a vital role in shaping a more equitable and just society for all.
Leave a Reply