Latest News

Opinion

THE SITUATION: Ready to make nice

I know a lot of things.

Not that I’m trying to be immodest. I mean, I am immodest: I spend most of my Facebook hours stalking myself and am the star of most of my favourite conversations. But in this case, I’m really not being self-indulgent. After two and a half years of university education and campus media, not to mention a lifetime of reading the news, I know a ton of facts.

I know, for instance, about the United States. I know its current events – how it’s an oppressive liberator with a socialist conservative imperialist unpatriotic president. And I know its history – all about how it gallantly defeated the evils of communism through its faith in the world-raping travesty of capitalism.

And if you think that’s impressive, just wait – that’s not all I know.

I know for a fact that colonialism, capitalism, socialism, liberalism, neo-liberalism, fascism, Marxism, and all their theoretical brethren are really, really bad things. I think it would be easier to pin down why they’re so awful if their definitions didn’t change all the time, but one of the other things I know is that it’s more important to understand whether things are good or bad than to know what they actually are. Right?

Well, maybe the only thing I really know is that I don’t know much.

But I do think a lot.

I think that Ferris Bueller was probably the best political theorist of our time, when he suggested that he didn’t “condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism’s in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself.” Plus, his twist and shout scene is pretty much the best in movie history except for the food fight in Hook: “you’re doing it Peter; you’re using your imagination.”

Maybe we can take a lesson from Ferris and Peter, and start using our imaginations to look a bit deeper, to consider more than the theoretical framework that makes for a fashionable explanation of the world’s troubles. People were beating each other over the head, stealing each other’s things, and generally exploiting each other long before they invented formal structures to help them do it. And in terms of economic determinism, maybe when the world experiences an unregulated capitalist society, or an unadulterated communist one, we’ll actually know what the two systems are like. Until then, invoking either as the cause or panacea of global suffering just seems a little too easy.

It seems that a more poignant explanation for the world’s ills is a simple case of people not being very nice to each other. And in my experience, a lot of people purportedly trying to fix those problems aren’t very nice to each other either. My interactions with self-proclaimed activists on campus, with notable exceptions, have often involved name-calling, angry polemics, negativity, and very little time spent actually helping people. And call me naϊve, but it feels like trying to change the world by being mean about things is just going to create a new world in which people are, well, still mean.

So we can go ahead, and imagine a world with no religion, countries, or anything different between us, and we can devote a lot of time to being against things and tearing them down. Or maybe, as we try to make the world a better place, we can start with people in our own community; with a smile and some laughter and a ‘Hey, how are you?’ Maybe that won’t make all those nasty ‘isms’ go away, but it’s probably worth a try. I mean, hey – what’s the worst that could happen?

Letters to the Editor, Opinion

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Byron can’t let go

Re: “A disingenuous debate” by Max Silverman (26.1.10)

Max Silverman is woefully misinformed as to the terms of the debate over health care here in the United States – as are most Canadians. While it might feel good to sneer about the American system of government being beholden to “corporate interests” (especially in the wake of the Citizens United case), can we all adopt a little nuance here and recognize that corporations have a spectrum of competing interests, not all of which align in perfect lockstep unison?

The truth about the health care debate is that the insurance companies and HMOs were relatively cooperative early in the debate over health care reform. Why? Because the proposed reforms would have brought 20 to 30 million new subscribers onto their rolls, and made government money available to some of them to make sure they could afford insurance. It represented potential profit and market expansion. They only revolted publicly when it became clear that the so-called “individual mandate” – that people purchase insurance or face fines – was in danger of being stripped from the bill.

And it was the “American Right’s” hissy fit over the individual mandate being “compulsory” or “socialism” that made that provision endangered in the first place. In short, the “American Right” and the insurance companies came down on opposite sides of the issue – if the bill passed without an individual mandate, then insurance companies would be unable to force healthy patients to buy insurance, yet they would be unable to keep expensive patients with pre-existing conditions from signing up – a disastrous public policy option. You tend to write an interesting column, Max, but try not to lapse into unsophisticated sophistry about a complicated political system that you only half understand.

– Byron C. TauB.A. 2008Former McGill Tribune Opinion Editor

Letters to the Editor, Opinion

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Remembering nuances

Re: “Letter to the Editor: Gaza Remembrance Week” (26.1.10)

Jamal Daoud rightly notes that the one year anniversary of the Israeli operation in Gaza has passed. I would like to see McGill remember this anniversary by remembering the purpose of this operation: to eliminate the terrorist threat stemming from within Israel’s borders. The Canadian government supported Israel during this campaign and supported her decision to protect its citizens, something Hamas refuses to do. After years of countless rocket attacks, after pulling out of Gaza in 2005, Israel refused to be taken advantage of. Perhaps Hamas refuses to take care of its citizens, and therefore refuses to distribute the resources Israel gives to the population in Gaza.

It’s very easy to see this situation in black and white. It’s much more difficult to understand the complexity of this protracted conflict in the Middle East. We cannot blindly state one side is correct or not. However, we can ask ourselves what we would have expected our governments to do, had we been subject to attack day after day. We can try and learn from the situation, rather than attempting to judge such a complex matter.

– Vicky TobianahU3 Political Science and English Literature

Letters to the Editor, Opinion

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Opting out of Brendan’s column

Re: “Opting out of QPIRG” by Brendan Steven (26.1.10)

If the groups conducting the QPIRG: Opt Out campaign would like to stay atop their high horses, they should request that students be able to opt out of funding their activities as well. My student fees support many opportunities of which I do not take advantage (e.g. the McGill Gym), some which do not particularly apply to me (e.g. the National Society of Black Engineers), and some which pursue activities which I find wasteful and detrimental (these shall remain nameless). But I support all of these willingly – they’re part of our campus culture, encouraging a diversity of opinion on today’s important issues. QPIRG McGill has fostered many groups in their naissance, including Queer McGill, the McGill Food Systems Project, SACOMSS, the Plate Club, Greening McGill, Campus Crops, Tapthirst, KANATA, the Indyclass Collective (Designing your own class? Far too dangerous to the conservative mindset.), and the McGill Global AIDS Coalition, among others. (Full disclosure: I’m a former member of Greening McGill.)

As to Steven’s criticism of those “others”: what is so abhorrent about opposing security certificates, which assume detainees guilty until proven innocent, allow evidence produced under torture, and blinds the defence by denying them access to evidence? About exploring anti-capitalism? About promoting discussion of the meaning of “terrorism” and the conditions that create it? You’re welcome to attend QPIRG Board of Directors meetings. Speak with your SSMU or PGSS reps on the Board. Engage in a civil debate. But please stop attempting to bully and suppress a group of your fellow students. Give up one gourmet coffee and hand over your $3.75 to QPIRG – to a diversity of voices on campus, to an innovative organization that continues to bring passionate people together, to an organization that McGill would be much more stodgy and conservative without.

– Maggie Knight U2 Environment & Economics

Opinion

COMMENTARY: Communication breakdown

It’s amazing that in this advanced age we have yet to master the simple skill of communication. Communication is an ability that doesn’t rely on individual capabilities, but on the cooperation of the group, and on trust. Like paper money, words carry with them a meaning and value that is entirely derived from our trust that other people mean what we do when they say any given word. Lies and word manipulation are therefore not only crimes against the victim of such slander, they also damage language itself, and thus communication in general.

Unfortunately, there is a troubling movement away from truthful communication in the developed world. This movement has no direct political affiliation, though it has been ubiquitous in the American right in the last few months, and reflects an alarming shortsightedness.

Consider the Tea Party movement: with a game of word-association, the new right slanders policies with labels and terms that are often contradictory (socialist and Nazi in that same sentence) and nearly always inapplicable to the situation. FOXNews personality Glenn Beck recently aired a documentary on “progressives” that contained misquotes and misrepresentations that were repulsively ubiquitous. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, who (for some reason) some look to as a counter to the conservative bias on FOXNews, delivers similar factual distortions – most recently in a series of vague accusations against Senator-elect Scott Brown. The cynicism that this represents is saddening – for either Olbermann and Beck feel that their viewers won’t be swayed by factual evidence, or they think that their ratings will increase with bold and inflammatory statements.

However the trouble is far worse than that. By not trusting the people, these talking heads, politicians, and religious fundamentalists undermine trust and truth. The argument is no longer about being right – it’s about shouting the loudest. We can no longer rely on some news networks for “reliable” information, and must therefore sift through the rubbish-heap of distortions and lies to find what happened.

This is not a world where the validity of ideas determines their success anymore. Maybe it never was. But what possible loss could incur from developing into a society where ideas are judged by their merit, not by how vehemently they are debated. This development can only come through education. The more educated a people, the harder they are to deceive. That is why we have an obligation to educate ourselves – why school is not just about the diploma. In order to make a better world, we have to understand this world as it is, without the distortions that we have been forced to endure.

Education is no longer a privilege of the upper class, it is a responsibility of all people. And as such, we cannot extort payment from people seeking to fulfill that responsibility. Education must be free, it must be of high quality, and it must be accessible to all people, out of respect for society, and for the truth. To this end, I support the motion of the McGill University Socialist Society for free, quality, accessible education for all, which will be presented at the SSMU General Assembly on Feb. 10. To enable the betterment of our future and mankind, I ask you to support this measure.

Recipes, Student Life

Sweet potato cauliflower soup

There’s cold, and then there’s Montreal cold: a rare breed of winter where the cold not only numbs your body, but also your mind.

Soup is the perfect dinner to come home to after a mind-numbingly chilly walk. It’s hot, filling, and rich in flavor and texture. Although it’s easy to buy soup in a can, throw it in a pot, and heat it up, homemade soup is almost as easy, usually heartier, and always more flavorful. When it comes to soup, the possibilities are endless, but if you’re looking for something a little bit different, this Indian-spiced sweet potato and cauliflower soup should be right up your alley.

This soup’s rich flavour comes from garam masala, turmeric, ginger, and cumin. Don’t let the spices deter you – they can easily be found at your supermarket. The rest of the ingredients are straightforward: onion, some stock, sweet potatoes, and cauliflower. Coconut milk adds a hint of tropical nuttiness, and also makes the soup creamy without being heavy. It’s just the thing to take your mind off the cold and onto your stomach.

Ingredients

  • 2 Tbsp. canola oil
  • 1 large onion, diced
  • 1 Tbsp. grated fresh ginger
  • 1 Tbsp. cumin seeds
  • 1 Tbsp. Garam Masala
  • 1 Tsp. ground turmeric
  • 2 large sweet potatoes, peeled and diced
  • 4 cups stock, chicken or vegetable
  • 1 large cauliflower, chopped
  • 1 can coconut milk, regular or light
  • salt and fresh ground black pepper
  • Directions

    1. Heat heavy cooking pot over medium-high heat. Add the oil and saute the onions until soft.
    2. Add ginger, cumin seeds, garam masala, and turmeric. Cook for two minutes.
    3. Add the sweet potatoes. Stir to coat. Add the stock, bring to a boil and then reduce to simmer. Cover and cook for 10 minutes.
    4. Add cauliflower and simmer covered until both the cauliflower and sweet potatoes are tender (about another 10 minutes).
    5. Add the coconut milk and puree until smooth. I used an immersion blender, but you can do it with a blender in batches.
    6. Season with salt and pepper to taste. Serve hot.

    Features

    Follow the butterflies: A monarch migration under threat

    Monarch butterflies are currently at their lowest population on record, according to recent data from the World Wildlife Fund Mexico.

    The current colony size is 1.92 hectares, down from the previous low of 2.19 hectares in 2004 and far down from the recorded high of 21.6 hectares in 1995. Problematic population dynamics, damage to their native habitat across the United States and Canada, and damage to overwintering sites have all had dramatically negative effects on the butterflies’ population.

    The monarch population census is conducted by measuring the total area each colony covers. There are reasonably accurate population measurements going back 16 years, and in that time, the population has declined rapidly. The average size of the population over the last 16 years has been 7.44 hectares.

    “What’s a bit ominous is that the last six years have been below average,” says Lincoln Brower, a renowned monarch expert and professor at Sweet Briar College in Virginia.

    Additionally, the migratory phenomenon – in which up to 60 million butterflies migrate from southern Canada and the northern United States to overwintering sites in Mexico each fall, and head back north in the spring – could be at risk, experts say.

    The main factor in this year’s decline is likely the weather, with extreme conditions facing the monarchs along the entirety of their migration path.

    Drought in Texas last spring reduced milkweed growth – the only plant monarchs will lay their eggs on. The bad weather continued to impact them on the journey north, with colder-than-usual temperatures impeding progress. The monarchs’ rate of development is very temperature-sensitive; in a warm summer, they might produce four generations, while in a colder summer they might produce only two. The cumulative effect would have slowed them down considerably, Brower says.

    The ability of the population to recover is uncertain. According to experts with the WWF, a smaller population now doesn’t necessarily mean a smaller population next summer; the population could recover given the right weather conditions.

    “It’s not to say don’t worry, these fluctuations happen naturally – because they do,” says Steven Price, the senior director of conservation science and practice with WWF Canada, a conservation and advocacy group. “[But] hopefully we haven’t lost so much winter habitat that one time when they go down they go down below a level where they can’t recover.”

    There are large non-migratory monarch populations in the Caribbean, southern Mexico, and Australia, as well as other parts of Canada and the U.S., making species extinction unlikely, experts say. However, the migratory pattern – which is unique, as monarchs are the only example of long-distance insect migration – is at risk.

    “Its migratory behavior for an invertebrate, for an insect, is a truly incredible phenomenon,” says Christopher Buddle, an associate professor in McGill’s Department of Natural Resource Sciences. “It’s not the same individuals that fly north as those that fly south, so it’s an incredible aspect of biology and natural history. It’s fairly unique, and I think that warrants it attention.”

    Monarchs leave Canada and the northern parts of the United States in the fall and migrate almost 2,500 kilometres to central Mexico, where they spend the winter in colonies in high-altitude fir forests. The ones that survive the winter fly to Texas in late February and March, producing a new generation whose offspring eventually make it back to Canada.

    The migration pattern was only discovered in the 1970s through the efforts of Fred Urquhart, a professor in the Zoology Department at the University of Toronto. Urquhart, working with his wife, Nora, and several volunteers, tagged thousands of monarchs with tiny adhesive “Send to Zoology University Toronto Canada” labels, and tracked the locations from which people mailed the dead butterflies.

    “The ones that fly back to the same places in Mexico have never been there before. No one has a clue how they get to the same trees every year,” says Brower.

    While weather can impact the population on a year-by-year basis, more generally, monarchs have been suffering from a loss of habitat.

    In their overwinter home in central Mexico, deforestation has contributed to population decline. The trees provide shelter for the butterflies, keeping them from getting too warm or too cold. The trees also provide protection from storms, such as one in 2002 that spread across the Tropic of Cancer and killed 80 per cent of the colonies’ population.

    “If there’s too much illegal logging or too many holes cut in the blanket cover or too many forest fires that can now escape up these degraded and destroyed tracks in the forest, we may well degrade that wintering home up to the point where not many monarchs can survive a cold blast,” says Price.

    Saving the overwintering areas is important not just for preserving the monarchs and the migratory phenomenon, but also because the colonies attract a large number of tourists in the winter months.

    “It’s a phenomenon that’s incredible,” says Buddle. “It’s beautiful, it’s magical, so that habitat has to be conserved.”

    In 2007, Mexican President Felipe Calderón pledged $4.6-million US towards advertising for the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve, which covers a 50,000-hectare area in which there are many monarch colonies.

    The initiative was initially meant to curb illegal logging by bringing tourism money into an otherwise poor area. In the first year of the program, the WWF reported a 48 per cent drop in illegal logging.

    Along the rest of the migratory path, generically engineered crops have also negatively impacted monarch habitat. Milkweed, commonly found in and adjacent to agricultural fields, is the only food that monarch caterpillars can eat, and the only plants females will lay their eggs on.

    A study in 2000 showed that agricultural habitats were very important for the monarch population, because of the presence of milkweed in agricultural fields. However, genetically modified crops such as soybeans and corn that are resistant to post-emergence herbicides have meant that milkweed in those fields has been all but eliminated.

    “The use of [genetically modified] crops has meant that there’s less milkweed in agricultural fields,” says Karen Oberhauser, a professor in the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology at the University of Minnesota.

    “At the current level of loss of habitat, the individual monarch’s ability to reproduce on average is down by 20 per cent,” says Brower.

    Outside of an agricultural context, milkweed is still considered a weed, but by reducing pesticide and herbicide use, there’s a greater chance of preserving the monarch. Experts have been encouraging farmers and garden owners to plant milkweed to help the species.

    And there are other factors, such as climate change, whose full effects have not yet been felt. It has the potential to impact the overwintering grounds, the migratory routes, and whether the flowers monarchs feed off when they head south – primarily asters and goldenrod – are in bloom.

    “Nobody knows what the hell’s going to happen with climate change,” says Brower.

    The result is that the future of the monarch is somewhat uncertain. It is also of little ecological significance, say experts. Monarchs are an emblematic species, and are usually the only butterfly the average North American knows. However, monarchs are generalist pollinators, which means that no specific flower depends on them for its survival. In addition, as far as researchers know, monarchs don’t play a role in controlling the milkweed population in the same way that other herbivores play important roles in controlling the spread of their primary source of food.

    The result is that monarchs seem relatively unimportant.

    “Some species play more of a keystone role in ecosystems, and monarchs aren’t one of the
    m,” says Oberhauser. “[But] do we only conserve things that play what we would consider important roles, or is just their existence value enough? There is not an easy answer to that question. If we pull monarchs out of the system, we wouldn’t really notice – except monarchs would be gone, and that’s important.”

    News

    McGill Model United Nations conference celebrates twenty years

    This past week, McGill hosted the 20th annual McGill Model United Nations conference, a series of simulations where delegates debate and draft proposals to deal with past, present, and future international issues. The four-day event opened with Canadian Member of Parliament and McGill alumnus Justin Trudeau’s keynote address, in which he encouraged students to be politically involved.

    McMUN, the largest mock UN event hosted by a Canadian university, attracted 1,400 delegates from over 80 schools across Canada and the United States. Working with a budget of under $100,000, Secretary-General Sarah Quinn was confident that this year’s secretariat and 250 McGill student-staff members upheld McMUN’s tradition of holding high-profile conferences.

    “McMUN looks big budget and that’s the result of our secretariat working day and night to make this conference a success,” said Quinn. “We’re keeping it together with string and personality.”

    Trudeau, like past keynote speakers – including former UN Deputy Secretary-General and McGill Law Professor Payam Akhavan, and Princess Badiya bint El Hassan of Jordan – engaged the audience during McMUN’s opening ceremonies.

    “We were definitely lucky to book Justin Trudeau,” said Quinn. “Trudeau was very charismatic and his speech was well-received. He’s a captivating and high-profile speaker.”

    This year’s conference featured 26 committees, ranging from mainstays like the United Nations Security Council to novel ideas such as the Paris Peace Talks 1919 committee, which challenged delegates to rewrite the 1919 Treaty of Versailles.

    “We wanted to mix in historical topics as well as have committees that reflect modern problems,” said Molly Krishtalka, undersecretary-general, committee affairs. “We also introduced future scenarios, such as the Olympic Selection Committee 2020, where delegates decide which city hosts the 2020 Olympics.”

    By the end of the weekend, committees had completed drafting their resolutions – five- to 10-page documents that provide plausible solutions to proposed situations.

    Registration was open to all Canadian and US schools with model UN clubs, although there were exceptions, including the University of Montreal’s political science and law student unions. Quinn explained that Model UN events are popular on American campuses. She pointed to delegates from Michigan State, Georgetown, and the US Military Academy at West Point as being particularly notable.

    Katie Amey, director of public relations, believes students learn invaluable skills at Model UN events, “such as improving their abilities for public speaking, expressing viewpoints clearly, cooperating and compromising, and critical thinking. Model UN can be for everyone.”

    Off the Board, Opinion

    OFF THE BOARD: Trouble down under

    Viewers of x-rated films should be able to appreciate the pornographic prowess of men and women of all shapes and sizes as they please, free from fear of censorship. It seems, to me at least, that this is the objective of porn. But members of the Australian Classification Board, however, disagree. Much to the indignation of the porn industry, quite a few feminists, and a whole lot of angry Aussies on Internet forums, the Board has allegedly imposed a ban on depictions of female ejaculation and small-breasted women in all adult films and publications.

    According to the Australian Sex Party – the political faction that promotes tolerance of freedom of sexual speech and expression – formerly x-rated depictions of female ejaculation are now being censored. A recent ASP press release alleges that the Australian Classification Board is beginning to “refuse classification” of films featuring female orgasms accompanied by ejaculatory fluid, and such films will be confiscated by customs officials.

    The depictions are allegedly being “refused classification” based on one of two premises. The first is that female ejaculate is a “form of urination,” which is banned in the Classification Guidelines under the label of golden showers. The even less valid – and more offensive – second premise is that female ejaculation is simply “abhorrent.”

    First of all, classifying female ejaculate as urine is just plain misinformed. Numerous scientific studies have shown that yes, women can and do ejaculate when they orgasm, and no, the ejaculatory fluid is not the same thing as urine. Female ejaculation – a topic of historical controversy and speculation – is, in 2010, no longer a matter of debate. Second, the claim that images of womanly fluids should be banned simply because they’re “disgusting” is archaic and silly for obvious reasons, and doesn’t deserve to be justified with much of any response. I’ll instead turn my attention instead to the second, even more laughable restriction.

    The ASP also claims that the Board will be assigning refused classification to all pornographic depictions of small-breasted women. According to the ASP, the logic behind this decision is that small-breasted women look like children, and therefore that pornography featuring women with smaller-than-typical porn star breast proportions promotes pedophilia because these women appear underage. That’s right – A-cup porn stars may soon find themselves banished from pornographic films in Australia because they resemble children a little too closely for comfort. This is clearly problematic for individuals of either gender who appreciate a small rack – the logical extension of the argument is that those who fantasize about hot flat-chested women like Kiera Knightly and Kate Hudson are creepy and pedophilic, and that the boyfriends, lovers, and husbands of smaller women are comparable to child molesters. What the alleged ban refuses to acknowledge is that A-cups – and, for that matter, breasts of all sizes – are sexy in their own right, and not because they may incidentally have a Lolita-esque appeal. Not to mention that if looking underage is what the Board is so concerned about, perhaps a ban on Brazilian waxes is also in order.

    Women with small boobs are discriminated against enough already – A-cups make less money as bartenders and have little chance of ever getting hired at Hooters – and they deserve the right to be porn stars if they choose. Australia’s inane censorship guidelines are a throwback to the Victorian era, when women who enjoyed sex were considered responsible for the moral degeneration of society. Arbitrary discrimination against small boobs and female fluids deprives both men and women of pleasure for no good reason. I thought Australia was a nation of deported outlaws and criminals, not prudes.

    Opinion

    PIÑATA DIPLOMACY: Middle-class guilt

    “Social organization, for all its clumsiness and evil, has accomplished far more and embodies more good than I do, for at least it sometimes gives justice. I am a mess, and talk about justice. I owe the powers that created me a human life. And where is it! Where is that human life which is my only excuse for surviving!” – Saul Bellow, Herzog

    I live in the Global North. I own four or five pairs of sneakers despite having only one pair of feet. I keep my room warm enough in the winter months so that I’m comfortable lounging in cut-off shorts and a T-shirt. I’ve never had to worry about life’s essentials. The problems I do have, or claim to have, are obviously minor. Repulsively fortunate, I take pretty much everything for granted.

    In this story, I can only be the villain. Even worse, I rarely ever think of this as my position in the world. It’s always in the back of my mind, rarely the front. This, too, is despicable. For if I were to constantly think of myself as abundantly lucky and hence unworthy…

    It’s not clear to me where the syllogism goes from there. If I were always thinking about how I have it better than others, I’d do what? I’d major in International Development Studies? I’d become homeless on purpose? I’d refuse an opportunity to study French in Paris, on the principle that there are many people in the world without such opportunities, as a good friend of mine recently considered doing? I’d smile less?

    Middle-class guilt begins with the notion that there is something fundamentally inauthentic about being born with more money and less melanin than the average Homo sapiens. My ancestors were the conquerors, the oppressors, the immoral – the antithesis of the postmodern hero. My life is not real life, only a stolen, coddled version thereof.

    (Let’s momentarily forget I’m Jewish, forget I wouldn’t have been welcome at this university until a half century ago, forget the suffering of my ancestors who survived centuries of exiles, inquisitions, persecution, massacres, pogroms, and holocausts. Today’s young Western Jew is supposed to feel this guilt nonetheless.)

    I haven’t really earned this – a soft but omnipresent qualifier of everything I do, everything I experience, everything I am. It hardly abates when I settle into my soft pillow at night; rather, it grows louder.

    Yet I know that I’ve done nothing wrong. Besides some misplaced jests, some unreturned e-mails, that one kid I punched in the chin when I was 12, absolutely none of the misery in the world is my fault. So why do I constantly feel as if it all is?

    Of course, there’s that “complicity with the system” business. I buy coffee without checking if it’s Fair Trade certified. I didn’t skip final exams to fly to Copenhagen and protest for action against climate change. Everyday I benefit at the expense of others.

    I don’t deny this empirical fact. But you can’t tell people that by taking the next breath, by eating dinner tonight, by waking up in the morning, by being at McGill, by studying French in Paris, by merely subsisting, they are “complicit with the system.” It’s cruel not to give people credit for their good intentions.

    If we want to live 20 years hence among perennially unhappy people who write off as illegitimate their entire realm of experience just because they never survived real hardship, people who claim no individuality or personhood for themselves, only the unique, rotten way in which they were malignly “socialized” by the system, then let’s change nothing.

    Otherwise, let’s not waste our lives in the unproductive mire of self-contempt – the worst kind of self-indulgence. Middle-class guilt, while posing as worldly and profound, is really only the false (and psychologically unbearable) notion that your woeful, half-informed lifelong mea culpa will set the world straight, and make it easier for a billion people to starve everyday. I’m quite fed up with this notion, and also with the insinuation of “apathy” or, worse, malevolence on the part of those unwilling to posture themselves in such a self-serving fashion.

    Middle-class guilt is hardly an effective means of ameliorating suffering – it’s only easy.

    Read the latest issue

    Read the latest issue