WB Yeats

WB Yeats

In early April I participated in the Spur festival in Toronto. This year, I had to restrict myself to just a couple of programs – a documentary on WB Yeats and a panel discussion on journalism. The film A Vision: The Life and Death of WB Yeats (2013) by Alan Gilsenan.

“The film is a response to Yeats' vast body of work. A visual – and avowedly experimental – ‘film-poem’, to coin an uneasy term. Using solely the words of WB Yeats, the filmmakers attempted to take the viewer on a cinematic journey of sorts into Yeats’ extraordinary imagination. 

"It is a biography of a kind, but not in any conventional way. Yet, beyond Yeats’ popular profile and his cultural tourist caché, little is really known of his complex life, despite having articulated it so completely, so creatively. In so many ways, Yeats dreamt up his life. He fashioned his own majestic screenplay and we are – endlessly – the beneficiaries.”

A panel discussion followed the film on the significance of Yeats'poetry. The panellists were Mary Noonan, Adam Crothers and Charles Foran. You may listen to the discussion here: 

Yeats at Spur (recording)

Yeats is important to many Indians, especially those over 60, and with some interest in poetry. My father, Meghnad Bhatt, a poet in Gujarati language, loved Yeats. Whenever he was invited to a wedding, he’d write his own unique message of greeting, but each message always ended with the line ‘tread softly for you tread on dreams’. I picked up the line without knowing it is from Yeats’s poem.

Aedh Wishes for the Cloths of Heaven

Had I the heavens’ embroidered cloths,  

Enwrought with golden and silver light,  

The blue and the dim and the dark cloths  

Of night and light and the half light,  

I would spread the cloths under your feet:

But I, being poor, have only my dreams;  

I have spread my dreams under your feet;  

Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.

 A journalist friend who had done English literature and had studied Yeats gave me a collection of Yeats poems in the 1980s. The collection was meant to be an introduction for neophytes and had some of his best and most cherished poems. Even a cursory reading of Yeats would reveal his comprehensive influence on 20th-century modern thought. His Second Coming is one of the most anthologized poems in English continues to be as relevant today, nearly a century later. It was written in the aftermath of the First World War. Here’s just the first stanza.

The Second Coming

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

In the Wild Old Wicked Man, he captures the essence of life’s struggles.

'All men live in suffering,

I know as few can know,

Whether they take the upper road

Or stay content on the low,

Rower bent in his row-boat

Or weaver bent at his loom,

Horseman erect upon horseback

Or child hid in the womb.

Daybreak and a candlc-cnd.

'That some stream of lightning

From the old man in the skies

Can burn out that suffering

No right-taught man denies.

But a coarse old man am I,

I choose the second-best,

I forget it all awhile

Upon a woman's breast.'

Daybreak and a candlc-end.

And here’s another, about imitators

To A Poet, Who Would Have Me Praise Certain Bad Poets, Imitators Of His And Mine

You say, as I have often given tongue

In praise of what another's said or sung,

'Twere politic to do the like by these;

But was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Here are a few links to Yeats poems

http://www.potw.org/archive/potw351.html

https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/aedh-wishes-cloths-heaven

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/50311

https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2010/aug/09/poem-of-the-week-wb-yeats

https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/tower

https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-wild-old-wicked-man/

https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/to-a-poet-who-would-have-me-praise-certain-bad-p/

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/43288

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/43281

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poets/detail/william-butler-yeats

https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-lover-asks-forgiveness-because-of-his-many-m/

The audio recording of the panel discussion was done at the Spur festival. I don't have any copyright over the recording. 

Human Migration and the Changing Demographics of Canada

Immigration and refugees are words that have become an anathema in Europe, evoking strong emotional responses, making it impossible to conduct a rational debate on the subject. The rise of the Donald Trump brand of politics in the United States indicates that there is a groundswell of opinion that covertly supports stringent measures to keep a check on the influx of immigrants. Even though the other side of the political spectrum may seem balanced, there is an unmistakable unease amongst some of the most liberal minded leaders and their followers about the possibility of the great unwashed turning up in planeloads at the nearest airport.

Most of us in Canada take pride in the Justin Trudeau brand of liberalism that encouraged 25,000 refugees from Syria to come to Canada in 2015. However, as the recent Munk debate in Toronto on the subject clearly showed, even those who are inclined to support immigration of refugees appear to want strict measures in place to control the influx. 

I urge you to watch the Munk debate on the subject because it is indicative of the gradual shift of public opinion away from the liberal ethos that Canadians have by and large embraced (irrespective of their political inclinations) on the question of immigration and allowing refugees.

In the Munk debate, the audience poll showed that prior to the debate an overwhelming majority was in favour of refugees being allowed into Canada; however, the pendulum of opinion swayed dramatically in the other direction by the end of the debate. And on conclusion of the debate, even though a majority of the audience members were still in support of Canada’s liberal policies on refugee immigration, the margin between those in favour of and those opposed had shrunk dramatically, not to say disconcertingly.

The same issue was debated at the 2016 edition of the Spur Festival. The subject of the debate was ‘Human Migration and the Changing Demographics of Canada.’ The panelists were Margaret Kopala, a journalist and Conservative political activist; Kiran Banerjee, a doctoral candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto; Abdul Nakua, a community organizer and activist; Dana Wagner, senior research associate at the Global Diversity Exchange. CBC’s David Common moderated the debate.

The debate was pertinent, engaging, and provided a fresh perspective to the Canadian experience. Setting off the discussion, David Common observed that in the Canadian context, the debate on immigration would not be on “whether to,” but on “how to,” because, uniquely in Canada, the entire political spectrum supports immigration.

Abdul Nakua observed that increasingly the debate has veered towards the status of Muslims immigrants in the western world, and the third generation of Muslim immigrants are seriously questioning their status in the western society vis-à-vis their identity. He said that by 2030, nearly 80% of Canadians will be immigrant, so it is necessary for Canada to develop mechanisms to accommodate immigrant aspirations – immigrants continue to face cultural, economic and social barriers. Nakua emphasized that Canadian identity is not based on ethnicities but around values – Canadian values.  

Dana Wagner said in Canada integration of newcomers whether immigrants or refugees has worked quite well. She explained that when multiculturalism as a program was launched, it was state-led and aimed at the majority community to help change Canada’s predominantly British identity to a more diverse identity. However, Wagner said, Canadians cannot be complacent about social licenses because there is race-based poverty.

Margaret Kopala demanded that the influx of refugees should be slowed down immediately till Canada has proper controls in place. She said in 1981 there were just six ethnic enclaves in Canada, but that number has leaped to over 200 in present times. She warned that the 25,000 Syrian refugees who were allowed in Canada in 2015 will be allowed to sponsor their relatives and that would lead to more than 150,000 refugees coming into Canada. Kopala insisted that screening of refugees and immigrants should not just be for security but also for compatibility.

Kiran Banrejee observed that in present times, over 60 million people are affected by war and there are more than 20 million refugees across the world. He said the norms and definitions for refugees laid down in the UN convention on refugees (1951) is to a large extent outdated, but is the only policy document that protects displaced persons. He said refugee camps have been permanent when by nature they are temporary, and increasingly, refugees are unable to access permanent resettlement.

In the ensuing debate, Kopala observed that it was necessary for the countries in Western Europe and North America to go to the refugees where they are to provide them succour rather than have them immigrate. Wagner said clarity on the subject has been hampered because of a huge gap between perceptions and reality. There are two systems of permitting refugees in Canada – resettlement and inland system, she said, adding that there are three streams of immigrants – economic, refugee and family. Wagner advocated for private sector participation in integration of refugees and immigrants.

Kopala said newcomers need to understand the influence of sex, drugs and social media on their young adults. She also seemed to imply that immigrants and refugees are not economically as productive as native Canadians, and this is the key factor for the lowest productivity indices that Canada has amongst OECD countries.

Towards the end of the debate, panelists appeared to come to a consensus that for immigration to succeed, economic integration of the immigrants had to succeed.

The role of religion in contemporary society

What is religion’s place in the society? Should a non-believer be described differently, without – or outside – the frame of reference of belief? In a postmodern world, do we now need to redefine the notions about secularism which have fostered the idea (dogma?) that religion should stay personal, and that it has no place in the public. Is religion inherently pernicious? 

These are straightforward questions with too many answers, and therefore no answer; also these are some of the many contentious issues that surround religion in the Canadian society that is avowedly multicultural.

Spur Festival, the annual celebration of politics, arts and ideas that shape Canada, organized a discussion on the Role of Religion in Contemporary Society.

The participants were Ara Norenzayan, Ingrid Mattiso, Eva Goldfinger, and Mark Toulouse. Three of the four (Ingrid, Eva and Mark) are believers, and three of the four (Ara, Ingrid and Mark) are academics. So, the discussion was expectedly erudite, polite and agreeable. Brent Bambury, of CBC moderated the session.

The Al Green Theatre at Miles Nadal Jewish Cultural Centre (Spadina & Bloor) was surprisingly filled to capacity, despite it being the first day of spring weather in Toronto (April 11). More than a discussion on religion, it turned (again, expectedly) into a discussion on the need to evolve interfaith understanding.

But to achieve interfaith understanding is almost impossible. A majority of believers have to depend upon agents of god (there really is no better way to describe the swamis, priests, mullahs, rabbis) to understand their own beliefs, and these agents prefer to protect their own turf rather than get into others’ domain. Their interests are better served by being isolated, not by amalgamation.

So, for all practical purposes, the interfaith dialogue and understanding has a limited appeal, and is likely to be so for the foreseeable future.

But, coming back to the discussion: Scholarly erudition can make even the most complex ideas accessible. And during the hour-long discussion the audience must have felt warm and happy that in Canada (unlike down south) we’re all tolerant and conscious of the need to be more accommodative of alternative belief systems.

The usual suspects – Stephen Harper, Quebec Charter of Values, Charlie Hebdo, Bill C-51, ISIS, – got the knuckle-rap they perhaps deserved.  The panel also questioned the selective demonising by the media of some events, and selective amnesia of other events; it questioned the selective funding of religion-based schooling by the government.

Each panelist had at least one idea that was thought-provoking. Norenzayan said we need to acknowledge the universality of religion in public life and be curious about it before analyzing or critiquing it. Mattiso said we must break down the silos and compartments and reach out to believers of other faiths in a genuine attempt to foster better understanding. Toulouse said we are in a postmodern world where the traditional European dichotomy of the separation of the state and the church was no longer meaningful or relevant. Goldfinger said it’s necessary to redefine the debate over belief and non-belief. To term non-believers as atheist is restrictive. She said she preferred to be termed a humanist.

These scholar-believers stressed on tolerance. The hurdle here is that the common believers of all religion generally prefer to be among their own kind, secure in their belief, and don’t necessarily go out of their way to mingle with believers of other faiths.

Also, the implication of a more public role of religion in the society that was advocated by at least two of the panelists, seems to ignore the potential of trouble it would create in something as basic as the workplace, where people of many religions work together.

Moreover, it is unrealistic (as the panelists advocated) that religion or religious practices would change and become more attuned with the changing world. It means acceptance of blasphemy, sexual orientation, interreligious marriages; it also means rejection of proselytizing, religious texts that propagate bigotry and intolerance. This is unlikely to happen in a hurry.

It may sound terribly antiquated, but I think Marx got it right: Religion is the opiate of the masses, and of scholars as well.

Image: http://www.foodgalaxy.org/food-and-religion