Government ignores majority will to withdraw Forces from Afghanistan

November 2008 Issue

A little boy chants “shame” at the front of the crowd. He holds a placard that reads in bold letters: “Stop the War in Afghanistan Now.”

Canadians woke up to another minority leadership under the Conservative government after the Oct. 14 election.

What the outcome meant was another three years of Canada’s occupation in Afghanistan, at least. For some, it meant a continuation of high tuition fees, absent national housing programs, unaffordable daycare and family members risking their lives overseas.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper extended the mission a second time, insisting that Canadian troops will be pulled out by 2011.

The number of soldiers that have died on military duty in Afghanistan is approaching 100. The number of civilian deaths is nearly 6,500 in 2007 alone.

On Oct. 18, citizens of all types gathered at Queen’s Park to protest the current occupation, a demonstration that took place among

15 others across cities in Canada. In Toronto, the student voice was loud and clear throughout the march. Students’ unions representing Ryerson, the University of Toronto and York University all came to deliver a message to the federal government - more priority for education, less on war.

Various groups participated in the rally to protest the occupation, including the event organizer Toronto Coalition to Stop

the War, the War Resisters Support Campaign and the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee.

With Harper’s initiative to put $490 billion over the next 20 years towards the military, organizations and individuals took over the downtown streets of Toronto, marching past curious pedestrians to shame the government and call for an end to the war in Afghanistan.

Toronto After Dark Festival brings blood-sucking and seduction back to the vampire flick

Lately, zombies and monsters have taken over horror movies. And vampires, when they are on the big screen, have lost that special scare and seduction factor. But Let the Right One In gets back on track, combining fresh faces and fresh flavour. Max Arambulo gives you a taste.

Let the Right One In is a dangerous vampire movie — something moviegoers have not seen in a long time. 

The vampire has been pretty much ignored, even completely neglected, in the past few years, unlike the other horror movie subgenres. The zombie was reanimated with Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later. The French, with films like L’Interieur and High Tension, have carved their niche in the slasher market.

What we have been getting the last few years, vampire-wise, with the Blade films and Van Helsing, are the filmic equivalents of a middle-aged marriage: simple, safe, and sexless. And Hollywood’s latest foray into the world of the vampires, continues to follow in the same bland footsteps with last month’s debut of Twilight, inspired by the tween novel of the same name. But, real vampire movies can only be about sex and seduction. With all that biting, black leather, and fluid exchange, what else could they be about?

Oskar (Kare Hedebrant), the protagonist of Let the Right One In, is an awkward 12-year-old, friendless and tormented by a particularly sadistic group of bullies. Perhaps it’s deserved torment, as he is weirdly obsessed with murder and arson, keeping a scrapbook filled with violent newspaper clippings under his bed. He is a curious kid, though, trapped by circumstance: he lives with his single mom in a lower middle class quarter, among neighbors who, seemingly, live part-time at the neighborhood pub.

When a 12-year-old girl named Eli (Lira Leandersson) moves into the apartment next door, Oskar finally makes a friend, and a worldly one at that. She’s a vampire and there’s more to her than everything Oskar has experienced in all of his short life. Eli is death and destruction, but maybe for Oskar, also a bridge out of his limited world. Eventually, Oskar learns that vampirism is only the second most unusual thing about Eli.

Since vampire movies are about sex, what happens when the characters are prepubescent? When that sex is combined with children, something has to give. That other current vampire movie, Twilight, takes the lighter Archie road with its teenaged protagonists and their romances. But Let the Right One In takes its pre-teens follows more of a Crying Game and Cronenberg Crash sexual subversion route. This is really young boy meets really young-looking girl who really doesn’t look her real age. “I’m twelve,” Eli explains, “But I’ve been twelve for a long time.”

The two child actors – with the restraint of seasoned veterans and none of that North American Haley Joel Osmont affected shit – help craft a very genuine feeling relationship. “I can’t be your friend,” Eli says transparently upon meeting Oskar. Of course, she intends to do the complete opposite. They both deliver their lines with that childish honesty and awkwardness that often makes kids their age substitute hours of MySpace for flesh and blood interaction.

So, the true age difference between Eli and Oskar, who look so close in age, gets hidden. Eli, at least not in any obvious ways, betrays no ulterior motive, no hidden seduction. Throughout the film, she seems just like Oskar, feeling her way through a childhood romance. Eli’s periodic hunger, though, reveals, barely, something underneath her childish façade: a cunning quality far beyond her dozen years. For example, Eli has a very human and very middle-aged caretaker whom she directs with the firmness of a seasoned middle-manager.

These little hints of maturity add an unwholesomeness to the film. There is, as a result, a not-quite-right nagging feeling when we watch Eli, naked, climb into bed with Oskar. Is it simple friend-making and childish experimenting? Or something more complex and adult-like?

Though the trailers and posters reveal Eli’s supernature, the film still manages to surprise. Let the Right One In is a graceful and complex movie filled with layered performances. Hopefully, this film will remind filmmakers and viewers how challenging vampire films can – and should – really be.

Let the Right One In opened the Toronto After Dark Film Festival. For more information on this awesome genre fest, visit www.torontoafterdark.com.

Odetta to be remembered as “The Voice of the Civil Rights Movement”

 

By Norman (Otis) Richmond

On Dec. 2, the world mourned the passing of Odetta, a legendary figure who is almost unknown to the masses of the American people. However, her place in African-American, as well as American history, is secure.

Odetta and Mahalia Jackson were among the few women on stage at the 1963 March on Washington. Dr. Martin Luther King introduced Odetta and she performed “We Shall Overcome.” She was the first guest on David Letterman’s show after September 11, 2001, the “The Day the World Changed.”

Born on December 31, 1930, Odetta was a singer, actress, guitarist, and songwriter, who is often referred to as “The Voice of the Civil Rights Movement.” She grew up in Los Angeles, CA, and studied music at Los Angeles City College.  Her musical repertoire consists largely of American folk music, blues, jazz, and spirituals.

An important figure in the American folk music revival of the 1950s and ‘60s, Odetta was a formative influence on dozens of artists, including Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, and Janis Joplin.
She performed Oct. 24-25 at the Hugh’s Room in Toronto for two sold out performances. Accompanied only by Radoslav Lorkovic, a pianist who has played with her for the last two years, she performed 12 songs. She opened her set with the anti-apartheid anthem “(Something Inside) So Strong,” which was by written by Labi Siffre. It was released as a single in 1987 and was the song that brought him back to mainstream popularity in his home country England. It was also used in the John Pilger documentary “The War on Democracy.”

Her second song was “Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child” (or simply “Motherless Child”), a traditional Negro spiritual. The song dates back to the era of slavery in the United States when it was common practice to sell children of slaves away from their parents. An early performance of the song dates back to the 1870s by the Fisk Jubilee Singers. The Fisk Jubilee Singers first took Black Music to Europe in 1883. Odetta brought the song to life and it was indeed a tear jerker. She then turned to “This Little Light of Mine,”a gospel children’s song written in 1920.

Often thought of as a Negro spiritual, it does not, however, appear in any collection of jubilee or plantation songs from the nineteenth century. The song takes its theme from Mathew 5:16, “Let your light shine before men, that they may see your fine works and give glory to your Father who is in the heaven.”

Under the influence of Zilphia Horton, Fannie Lou Hamer and others it eventually became a Civil Rights anthem in the 1950s and 1960s. The music of Odetta is and has been a weapon in the struggle for the liberation of Africans and all oppressed people.
A recording of the song by Paul Robeson can be heard in Sidney Lumet’s 1983 film, “Daniel,” Sam Cooke also recorded it on his “Sam Cooke Live at the Copa album.”

Odetta also dealt with matters of the heart and performed “Careless Love/St. Louis Blues,” which was followed by “You Don’t Know My Mind.” She paid tribute to the great Leadbelly (Huddie Ledbetter), by performing a number of songs written or made famous the legendary Louisiana born singer/songwriter.  One of Leadbelly’s most popular songs “Bourgeois Blues” a song that has been covered by Pete Seeger, Ry Cooder, Taj Mahal, Toronto’s own Faith Nolan  and it was reworked by Billy Braggs as” Bush War Blues.” She performed “Alabama Bound”, “Boll Weevil Blues”, “Roberta” “ Rock Island Line” and a song sung by Leadbelly” and others “The House of the Rising Sun.”

“Bourgeois Blues” was written after Leadbelly went to Washington, D.C. at the request of Alan Lomax, to record a number of songs for the Library of Congress. After they had finished, they decided to go out with their wives to celebrate, but were thrown out of numerous establishments for being an interracial party.

The song rails against racism, classism and discrimination in general, with such verses as “The home of the Brave /The land of the Free / I don’t wanna be mistreated by no bourgeoisie.”
Leadbelly recorded “Bourgeois Blues” numerous times, first on Dec. 26, 1938, accompanied by himself on his 12-string guitar. It should be noted that in all but the earliest recording of the song, the original line “Some white folk in Washington, they know just how, call a colored man a nigger just to see him bow” was altered to “give a colored man a nickel just to see him bow”, presumably to avoid causing offense.

Odetta also addressed the health issue and pointed out the health is a social /political matter. “The ‘T. B. Blues’ is related to the Bessie Smith song ‘The Rich Man, Poor Man Blues.’ In a capitalist environment money is necessary for your physical and mental health.” 

She closed the show with the “The House of the Rising Sun”, which tells of a life gone wrong in New Orleans. The most famous version was recorded by the English rock group, The Animals, in 1964, which was a number one hit in the United States, United Kingdom, Sweden and Canada.

As I stated in the beginning of this piece, Odetta’s place in history is secure. Dr. King pointed this out in 1961 when he proclaimed her “The Queen of American folk music.” 

Poet Maya Angelou once said, “If only one could be sure that every 50 years a voice and a soul like Odetta’s would come along, the centuries would pass so quickly and painlessly we would hardly recognize time.”

Norman Richmond is a Toronto-based writer/broadcaster/human rights activist. Richmond can be heard on CKLN-FM 88.1 www.ckln.fm Thursday’s on Diasporic Music 8pm to 10pm and Saturday’s on Saturday Morning Live 10am
to 1pm He can be reached norman@ckln.fm

Latest Ryerson Theatre School production takes off

 

By Olivia Pienkowski

Meghan McNicol and Ellen Hurley are perfect personifications of the eclectic, innovative and creative up-and-coming actors which grow and blossom in the Ryerson Theatre School.

McNicol and Hurley, both in their fourth-year of the Ryerson Theatre program, play sisters Procne and Philomena in the newest RTS play, “The Three Birds.”

The play, directed by Ruth Madcoc-Jones, graduate of the National Theater School of Canada, puts the spotlight on this dedicated duo. Their talents motion toward many more standing ovations in each of their acting futures. 

Neither of the girls are Torontonians by origin, but have gained most of their recognition on Toronto’s stages. 

“I grew up in community theatre and turned my hobby into my passion,” said Hurley, who began acting in her early years.

But McNicol realized her calling a little later on in life, in high school.  

She went on to apply that interest in different projects at the National Theater School of Toronto, from which she graduated. And the influence of classical training is definitely evident in her work in “The Three Birds.”

Hurley encourages budding actors to enroll in some classes, put away all inhibitions and take to the stage.

“The more you experiment, the more you will learn,” she said. “Worry about all the other stuff later. Take one thing at a time, look forward to the next project and work on that.”

What motivates McNicol is the awareness that she can really make a career out of doing what she really truly loves. She has always wanted to pursue a career in the arts but is realizing that in such a cut-throat industry “talent is involved, yes, but it takes a bit of luck as well, timing and a little elbow rubbing with the right people.” Thanks to the RTS, McNicol has at least been lucky to be surrounded by instructors who can offer valuable advice and often a bridge into the real world of acting.

“The Three Birds” is written by Joanna Lanrens and based on the Lost Sophoclean play, Tereus. The play centres around the notion that obsessive love for another can turn into a violent scene and trigger the sickest revenge ever imaginable. The actors are mature, strong and their performances are powerfully spoken in classic English dialogue. It includes a fine mix of today’s new music provided by Lyon Smith, as well as creative lighting techniques by Tristan Tidswell. 

This play reflects very well on the students involved in and with it, setting the standard in the areas of creativity and ambition.

‘You don’t necessarily finish art, you abandon it and move on’

Melodic hardcore band Means put Saskatchewan on the Canadian music map. But after six years of touring and recording, the band is breaking up to settle down with their families and start new music ventures. They’ve released two full length albums, been compared to the likes of Shai Hulud, and have been featured in Revolver and Alternative Press Magazine. At their last show in Toronto on Nov. 13, guitarist Matt Goud took the time to talk about the band’s last tour and his musical future.  

 

RFP: It’s your last and final tour, has it been emotional?

Yeah a little bit hear and there. The show near home was really great. We played out in the middle of nowhere, an hour outside of Winnipeg. 

It’s cool because since the band isn’t going forward, we can really soak the songs in and express yourself, more than try to impress people and thrill them. We’re more like, these are our songs let’s go as hard as we can.

RFP: Your new album (To Keep Me From Sinking) came out this summer. How’s it different from your 2007 release Sending You Strength? 

Aaron Friesen (drummer) and I wrote it in December, January - it was so cold. We were working all day and at night we’d go to our jam spot. We jam on top of a pawn shop, it’s the ugliest, greenest, most pukey looking pawn shop, but that’s our home. 

I think I was definitely at a point where I was leaning hard on music as keeping me from sinking. I don’t think I was in a great state, mentally or emotionally at that time. I was just looking forward to getting out and playing songs. Sonically, the new album is a lot more raw. The new album sounds more like the band playing live.

RFP: You’ve been a band for 6 years, you started when you were 17?

Yeah, essentially this has been the only band I’ve ever been in. 

RFP: That’s crazy, how does it feel now that it’s all ending?

I haven’t had enough time to separate myself from it quite yet. But I mean, everybody in our band has a reason to end it. We talked about it, and that we can do it together I’m proud of. But I’ll miss touring, I love touring, performing. I don’t know what the future holds for me musically, if I’ll get to play aggressive music ever again. So, I’ll miss that if I don’t. The future is a big open field. I can go anywhere, it’s scary and cool.

RFP: You have a solo project though, Emerson Letters?

Yeah, I’m going to change the name and develop that next year, that’s my passion. It’s what’s growing in my musical brain, my skull. It’s like singer songwriter, it’s folk songs from the road. The project isn’t super developed because I’ve been touring so much. 

RFP: Tonight is your last show in Toronto, how’s it going to be?

Crazy lights, monkeys on bikes. Todd Wells (bass player) in a bikini. Aaron wearing a trench coat with nothing beneath.

RFP: This is Mean’s gone wild. 

Yeah it’s like spring break Means! We’re just playing songs from the albums we’ve put out.

RFP: What’s the difference between playing in your home province and here?

We have more history at home. People have seen us on our old demos. We’ve been a band for so long we’ve grown together. I learned how to play music with these guys. I didn’t know how to play guitar, we learned together. We have all these, not embarrassing, but old recordings, it’s awesome. There’s something about art that’s kind of intrinsically embarrassing because you put yourself out there and move on. You don’t necessarily finish art, you abandon it and move on it marks the time. People at home have seen all of that. We’ve played a bazillion shows in the prairies. Out here in Toronto, it’s kind of like we’ve played here a bunch but it feels like we’re a new band so it’s kind of too bad.

RFP: What has Means meant to you?

Music in general has been one of the most important teachers in my whole life. If you count school, if you count growing up, my parents, if you count media. What are the main influences we have in our lives? I think the band has been the biggest for me. All of my formative years of becoming a person has been with the band. It shapes the person I’ve become.

Canadian border restrictions repelling small bands from touring the Great White North

Prohibitive visa system, border hassles and mandatory taxes on merchandise cited for making Canada unappealing to foreign bands

 

By Alexander Skorochid

 

By the end of the night of Oct. 14 2003, the area surrounding Le Medley concert hall was more like a war zone than a downtown Montreal street. 

After the police, in full riot gear, had managed to arrest or disperse a handful of punks, much of the street lay in ruins. In total eight cars had been torched, 42 others smashed to various degrees and thousands of dollars of damage was done to storefronts along Rue St. Denis.

Four police officers and two security guards suffered minor injuries and eight arrests were made.

It wasn’t a protest turned nasty that sparked the violence and destruction on the streets that day, but a response to a canceled gig by long running Scottish punk band The Exploited. 

Fans of the band found out that the band wouldn’t be playing that night after waiting in line for hours. Most fans left peacefully, but a small group decided to show their anger through violence.

The Exploited didn’t appear in Montreal that night because of problems that arose when they attempted to cross the Canadian border. Lacking the proper paper work the band attempted to fib their way across the border by claiming to be tourists. The Canadian border officials didn’t buy the story and The Exploited were forced to cancel the Canadian leg of their tour.  

As a result of the border incident The Exploited were banned from Canada for two years. Lead singer Wattie Buchan said in interviews at the time the band would probably never come back, even after the ban was lifted. They have not played a show in Canada since.

Unfortunately situations like the one The Exploited faced are a common occurrence for small foreign bands trying to play in Canada. Many independent bands find it daunting and often after driving to the border, find they aren’t allowed in. It could be said that border regulations are doing as much damage to the niche market for small independent minded bands as fans of The Exploited did to downtown Montreal. 

It is not unusual for small bands to be wary of trips to Canada according to Shiela Cosco, the owner and operator of Edmonton-based Border Entertainment. Her company works with Canadian Border officials to ensure a band isn’t turned away.

“The smaller bands are quite intimidated by the rules and regulations the government has set out,” says Cosco.

Work permits need to be obtained, merchandise value declared, criminal records pardoned and a host of other processes must be fulfilled. Even when everything is in place, bands can find themselves detained for hours while the paperwork is checked. These detentions are nail-biting experiences for bands familiar with the Canadian border’s reputation.

Border Entertainment takes away some of the border crossing’s intimidation by filling out the paper work for the bands, obtaining permits and generally smoothing the process along.

Cosco founded the company after attending the Big Valley Jamboree music festival in Alberta, five years ago.

 “I listened to all the bands tell their stories about crossing into Canada and being detained. I had knowledge of customs and got an introduction to the promoters at the event,” recalls Cosco. 

The odds are not in favour of small bands when it comes to crossing the border. Indeed the challenges seem to pile higher the smaller a band is.

“If [a band] is playing a bar or restaurant they have to have a work permit and that has to be filed ahead of time,” says Cosco.  

According to the Citizen and Immigration Canada website artists and their support staff can only work without a permit if they are here for a limited time and will not be performing in a bar or restaurant.

These permits cost $150 for an individual and $400 for a group, but are only required when the band isn’t the main attraction. When a large band plays a concert hall, such as the Air Canada Centre, and the patrons wouldn’t be at that business without them, they don’t have to obtain these work permits.

Cosco admits that these smaller, poorer bands really have nowhere to turn to when it comes to getting help to cross the border.

 “To pay someone an additional fee to handle their immigration is not feasible.” 

The situation becomes such an expensive endeavor, even without paying a company like Cosco’s to help things along, bands often can’t afford to make the trip legally and begin to think of alternatives. Some bands follow The Exploited’s lead and attempt to lie or sneak their way across the border. 

Elaborate lies are concocted, bands split up and try crossing independently of each other, and all manner of schemes are hatched in an attempt to fool the border officials. Whatever the lie or scheme however, the border officials have the advantage of experience on their side. Mostly these bands are trying to cross the border for the first time; this is the border official’s full-time job.

Take a simple lie: “We’re not playing any shows, we’re recording at a studio in Canada.” Seems likely enough and because no paying work is being done work permits aren’t necessary. But to a border official a quick internet search of the band’s name will turn up the tour dates posted by the band online. If any of those dates are in Canada, the band in question could be facing a two year ban from entering Canada, with or without work permits.

Add this possibility to the other difficulties that getting across the Canadian border poses and the ordeal can seem insurmountable. The crossing of the Canadian border has reached mythic proportions with touring bands. Horror stories are regularly passed from person to person and some bands have taken the stories to heart and simply do not attempt the border crossing at all. 

“We just wrote [playing in Canada] off to be honest,” says Franz Nicolay over the phone from New York.  Nicolay is a multi-instrumentalist with the Cabaret-Punk band, The World/Inferno Friendship Society. “It was always a little more hassle than it was worth.”

Nicolay also points out there are other problems that a border crossing poses for small bands that larger, more financially sound bands don’t need to worry about.

“When you think of whether it is worth it you’re also talking about leaving your merch[andise] behind and losing money,” says Nicolay. 

Small bands are often forced to leave their merchandise behind because of the General Sales Tax charged on it. GST is charged on all merchandise, CDs, and shirts, brought across the border, regardless of whether or not it gets sold. If a band misjudges the amount of merchandise they are going to sell in Canada they could very well end up losing money. On the other hand, if they leave their CDs and shirts behind, they are losing one of the most lucrative aspects of their shows.   

Nicolay has toured in Canada with his other band, The Hold Steady, and has witnessed some of the frustrating aspects of border crossing.

“[The Hold Steady] has a booking agent and she had worked it all out beforehand, but it is still really arbitrary. Some other band we’re touring with gets waved through and you get stopped and hassled,” says Nicolay with an exasperated tone. 

Nicolay didn’t pause when asked if he thought the Canadian music fans suffer from the lack of young foreign bands.

“Canadians definitely lose out,” he said.

For those bands looking to improve their career or fan base these problems don’t weigh too heavy on their shoulders. Canada has never been a must-play destination for bands and these laws only seal the deal. American bands can wait until they have the support behind them to come to Canada.

While Canada has its share of good indie bands there is a hole that could be filled by these young foreign bands. Instead of having the hole filled, music fans in Canada are left to get bitter time and time again as their favourite bands by-pass the north or are sent packing at the border. 

Chris Cresswell, lead singer of the Toronto ska-punk band The Flatliners, sees the impact on the scene first hand.

“Border patrol cops don’t really realize the impact their decisions on whether to admit these Americans or not have on the music scene in Canada,” says Cresswell, speaking while his band is on tour in the United States. “If an American band is denied entry into Canada, or worse, banned from the country, you know there will be kids at the shows in Canada waiting for them to hit the stage and there will be nothing. That’s a pretty sad fact to me.”

Cresswell and his band have toured the United States many times, even before they had the support of large San Francisco-based indie label Fat Wreck Chords. Many Canadian bands see touring in the U.S. as a necessity if they want to become popular and gain a following and because of this are more likely to deal with border problems than their American counter-parts. Cresswell feels crossing from Canada is a different experience than crossing from the U.S.

“We definitely have it easier than Americans coming into Canada,” says Cresswell. “There have been times where we’ve crossed into the States driving our van and we weren’t even asked for our IDs.”

Cresswell might be inspired by the sound of Winnipeg punk band Propaghandi’s song “Fuck the Border” playing in the background when he suggests border regulations for Americans attempting to work in Canada should be loosened.

“People should be able to work in whichever country they please,” Says Cresswell. He admits this might cause problems, but feels that the benefits outweigh any difficulties. “People will be waiting a long time still for the world to catch up with them on that one though.”

Without changes coming any time soon, fans of unique bands like The World/Inferno Friendship Society who might never play in Canada, may find their options very limited.

“You could get some friends together and make a road trip down to Buffalo,” Suggests Nicolay. “That’s about as close as we get to Ontario.”

Miriam Makeba used her voice against apartheid

By Norman (Otis) Richmond

 

Several of my son’s friends organized a small birthday celebration for him on a Sunday in mid-December. They invited me to hang out with them and I thought I’d bring a couple of DVDs for the occasion.

One of my picks was Alicia Keys’ The Diary of Alicia Keys. I like the international flavour of the DVD, which shows Keys in many countries. One of the spots she visited was South Afrika. One scene flashed on the screen showed Keys and “Mama Afrika,” whose real name is Miriam Makeba, together at a piano. 

I have been playing Makeba’s music on both of my shows, “Diasporic Music” and “Saturday Morning Live” on CKLN-FM for some reason.

After I came home, my phone started ringing and ringing. And the news was dreadful — Makeba had died after a concert in Italy. One of the calls came from Ayuko Babu, the executive director of the Pan African Film Festival. 

Babu, who had spent time with Makeba in Guinea, was clearly upset and I could sense in his voice that Afrika and the world had lost a genuine icon.
Makeba was born in Johannesburg March 4, 1932 (and joined the ancestors on November 9, 2008). Ironically, Makeba’s passing came almost ten years to the day of one of her five husbands Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael) who passed on November 15, 1998.  Makeba’s mother was a Swazi sangoma and her father, who died when she was six, was a Xhosa.
One of the tallest trees in our forest, Harry Belafonte played a major role in Makeba’s rise to fame. She documents how Belafonte “discovered” her in London and bought the cream of the show business crop to check out her opening date at the Village Vanguard in New York.

“I cannot believe who Big Brother (Harry Belafonte) has sitting with him and his wife: Sidney Poitier, Duke Ellington, Diahann Carroll, Nina Simone and Miles Davis,” said Makeba. “I have admired these people for years. They are great artists. And now they have come to see me.”
Makeba: My Story discusses her relationship with such mentors as Belafonte; her husbands, musical great Hugh Masekela and Pan-Afrikanist Kwame Ture; her protectors, Afrikan statesman Sekou Toure; and her loyal fans, including President John F. Kennedy.
She was one of the Afrikan and Afrikan-American entertainers at the 1974 “Rumble in the Jungle” match between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman held in Mobutu’s Zaire (which today is the Democratic Republic of Congo). Her appearance is captured in the film When We Were Kings. 

Nelson Mandela persuaded her to return to South Afrika in 1990 after decades in exile. 

In the fall of 1991, she made a guest appearance in an episode of The Cosby Show, entitled “Olivia Comes Out Of The Closet.” In 1992, she starred in the film Sarafina, about the 1976 Soweto youth uprisings, as the title character’s mother, “Angelina.” Makeba also took part in the 2002 documentary “Amandla! A Revolution in Four Part Harmony” wherein she and others recalled the days of apartheid.

After the death of her only daughter, Bongi Makeba, in 1985, she moved to Brussels. In 1987, she appeared in Paul Simon’s Graceland tour. Shortly thereafter, she published her autobiography, which I reviewed her autobiography for the Globe and Mail in 1988.

I remember seeing Makeba in concert in Toronto once, when she compared Chaka the great Zulu warrior to France’s Napoleon Bonaparte. She referred to Napoleon as the “White Chaka.”
While I never met Makeba, I did speak to her on the phone on several occasions. During one of our conversations she singled out Denzel Washington for his portrayal of Steven Bantu Biko in the film, Cry Freedom. 

During pianist Randy Weston’s last visit to Toronto, I gave him a copy of Makeba’s My Story after he told me he had crossed paths with her during Black History Month (Afrikan Liberation Month) in South Afrika.
Makeba was pro-Afrika and pro-Afrikans and was influenced by and influenced Afrikans in the West. She had a profound impact on popular recording artists in the United States.

She clarified why the cultural boycott of South Africa should be supported by all Afrikan people by saying “I am asked by . . . the Reverend Jesse Jackson, to come to New York for the founding of his new organization, People United to Save Humanity (PUSH). The American singer Aretha Franklin, whom I admire, is coordinating the guest list. After the Operation PUSH ceremony, she invites us to a birthday party she is throwing for herself at the Americana Hotel. I wish her a happy birthday, and she says, ‘Miriam, I need your advice. I’ve been asked to go to South Afrika.’ In an instant my mask of sociability drops. When it comes to this subject, I am always very honest.”
Makeba said the authorities “back home” love to gain status and boost their image by bringing international stars to perform in the clubs — clubs that are for whites only.

“The UN has finally applied limited sanctions against South Afrika, and one of these forbids artists from performing there. But the Americans I speak to don’t seem to know anything the UN does. I hope that Aretha does not want me to give her my blessing for her trip. But I don’t have to worry; she seems to be sincerely concerned if it is right.”

So Makeba answered her question: “I tell her, ‘Aretha, you are the Queen, the Queen of Soul. You have a big name, and you are loved everywhere. I don’t think you need a concert in South Afrika. Whether you know it or not, you’d be helping the people who oppress our brothers and sisters. No artists can go to South Africa without getting dirty herself. It’s true what they say, you can’t roll around with pigs and not end up covered with mud.’ Aretha understands. She tells her managers to turn down the offer.”

As a vocalist, Mama Afrika, enthralled millions from Cape Town to Nova Scotia. As a woman, her struggles to find love and selfhood speak to women worldwide. As an indigenous South Afrikan, she has always used her voice as a weapon in the struggle against apartheid. 

Norman Richmond is a Toronto-based writer/broadcaster/human rights activist. Richmond can be heard on CKLN-FM 88.1 www.ckln.fm Thursday’s on Diasporic Music 8pm to 10pm and Saturday’s on Saturday Morning Live 10am to 1pm He can be reached norman@ckln.fm

Is there hope for a cure? HIV 25 years later

By Alexzander Samuelsson

 

One of the most interesting contrasts between my father’s generation and my own is the difference between ubiquitous free love, and being scared straight, or at least hesitant, to touch another human being. 

I for one don’t blame our generation in the slightest. Who wants to chance becoming infected with Ebola, E.Coli, SARS, C.Difficile, Mono, HPV, or the most feared of them all HIV (Human Immunodeficiency virus)? 

The media has done a very good job of alerting us about the next pandemic which will come in the form of almost invisible forces killing us in the most horrid and excruciating ways. In an age when information and technology gives us instant alerts to everything, it seems that these deadly disease causing viruses and bacteria have been around forever, and seem like they will never be defeated. 

Twenty-five years after the discovery of the most feared Virus of them all, HIV, we’re just starting to find the solid theories in which a cure, or at least viable treatments, are within our collective grasps. 

 

Origins

 

Where in the world did HIV come from? Upon looking at the virus itself one would think it resembles an alien’s space capsule. Something artificially manufactured rather then evolving naturally. So how exactly did it evolve into something so sophisticated? 

HIV primarily has two main strains, those being HIV-1 and HIV-2, with HIV-2 closely relating to the SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus) which infects primates. Scientists have presented a couple prominent theories since the discovery of the virus back in 1983. 

The strongest theory postulates that hunters in Africa contracted a mutated version of SIV from chimpanzees they hunted for bush meat. There are other theories such as the one popularized in the early 90s suggests HIV was spread through attenuated polio vaccinations from inadvertently using infected Chimpanzee organs. This theory has however not shown enough evidence to be deemed reliable, and thus the hunter theory prevails in most scientific circles.

What captivates and frightens scientists and the layman alike is how HIV infects a host, and how it hides in the body laying dormant for an unknown amount of time. 

Of course the crux of HIV is how, even though we have developed highly active antiretroviral therapies (HAART) which all but stop viruses from attaching to immune cells and disrupting essential components of the virus within our cells, it still eludes us in reservoir or sanctuary spots in the body.

Mode of infection

 

HIV is unique in that it actually incorporates its own genetic material into the hosts DNA, and hijacks the cells machinery to create copies of the virus. It goes about this by attaching its protein sensor on the viral capsule to the CD4+ Receptor and CCR5 co-receptor on the membrane of an immune T-cell. Once it does this it fuses with the T-cell membrane and inserts its genetic material into the cells DNA. The coding information in the genetic material purposefully has flaws so when the cell replicates the virus it has a high probability it will mutate slightly. Thus deeming itself unrecognizable to the immune system, but still retains the same characteristics of HIV. Furthermore, the incorporated viral genetic material in the host cells DNA ensures that whenever that cell divides the viral genetic material also gets copied and continues to produce the HIV virus through the cells generations.

So once a cell is infected it and all of its daughter cells will carry the information to produce the virus until it is destroyed.

Now what about the quarter century of research scientists have undertaken? How come we have not been able to defeat the virus, one might ask, with on average over half a billion dollars spent per year on HIV/AIDS research? 

The short answer is that HIV is truly unique in its ability to adapt and evolve past the vaccines we have attempted to produce. Vaccines are only good for specific strains or very closely related strains of a virus so that the immune system will remember how to recognize and defeat it. Since HIV changes so rapidly all attempts to produce a conventional vaccine have failed. 

In 1996 scientists produced ways of attacking the virus’ ability to replicate by inhibiting proteins on the viral capsule from attaching to the receptors present on immune cells (CCR5), which is the function of HAART treatments. 

HAART treatments have been thought, in theory, to render a virus unable to reproduce allowing the immune system to destroy the remaining infected cells and left over viruses. Researchers then realized that HIV hides in places in which the immune system does not enter such as the Central Nervous System in the brain, the Gut lining, and the genitals. The challenge thus is to coax the virus out of its hiding spots so that the immune system can finish it off. 

Oddly enough there have been a small percentage of people who seem to have a natural immunity to HIV because of the lack of CCR5 co-receptors on their immune cells. This mutation has given researchers a new field of study to add to the HAARTs repertoire, and was the cornerstone theory in a daring operation undertaken by the German Hematologist Dr. Gero Hütter. He had an HIV positive patient with leukemia and deliberately undertook a bone marrow transplant from a matching donor with an immune system whose T-cells lack the CCR5 co-receptor. 

In this risky procedure Hütter took the patient off the HAART treatment and suppressed his immune system with powerful drugs and radiation therapy. Hütter then proceeded with the bone marrow transplant and after 600 days without HAART treatment the patient is “functionally cured” of HIV/AIDS. 

The patient’s viral load has not been detectable since the risky operation and opens up new avenues of treatment plans for future study. The remarkable results from this procedure also seemed to have destroyed the virus in sanctuary spots within the body including the central nervous system and in the gut lining. 

However optimistic this procedure has been for people infected with HIV it is far from being a widely used treatment strategy. The information does go a long way in developing effective and feasible tactics against HIV though, which has Pfizer on the hunt for a drug which will block the CCR5 Co-receptor from the virus thus robbing it of its entrance into the cell. 

25 years after the initial discover that HIV was the virus which caused AIDS and we have certainly come a long way in developing new theories and pushing the boundaries of how we treat infectious viruses, and although we have not come across a feasible silver bullet which will instantly cure a person of HIV, scientists have come up with ingenious ways of cornering the virus, slowing taking away each available asset it has in infecting and undermining peoples immune systems. 

The war against HIV may very well be far from over, but many have hope that recent studies will shed light on new treatments to land the killing blow against this terrible disease. 

If you have any questions or feedback feel free to drop Alexzander a line at scifizander@gmail.com

How will Obama’s victory affect Canada?

By James Clark

Features and Opinions Editor

 

Barack Obama’s decisive victory in the US presidential election on November 4 unleashed a wave of euphoria all over the world. Celebrations erupted in every major capital as ordinary people marked the end of eight years of the Bush administration. In the US, Americans ushered in a new period of hope, despite the widespread fear and anxiety about the deepening economic crisis.

As with all political developments in the US, this one will also have its effect on Canada. Like their American counterparts, Canadians have high expectations for real change from the Obama administration, hoping that some of the expected change in the US will spill over into Canada. The question is how much change is likely, or even possible, and to what extent will it happen here.

Obama’s victory owes its success to the overwhelming desire for change in the US, and to his campaign’s ability to harness that sentiment for electoral ends. A clear majority of Americans want the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to end, want universal healthcare, want to save their jobs and pensions, want to stop home foreclosures, want relief from the economic crisis, and want to improve their declining standard of living. The same kinds of desire exist in Canada, although no candidate with Obama’s charisma and stature has emerged in Canadian politics.

Because expectations are so high, the American public is likely to give Obama a long honeymoon, arguing that he’ll “need time” to make real change. But there are already some worrying signs about what kind of change his administration will offer. Many of his early appointments to cabinet represent familiar faces and familiar policies, dashing any hopes of a radical departure from “politics-as-usual.”

Robert Gates, the Republican Defense Secretary, has been nominated to continue his position under the Obama administration, despite Obama’s commitment to withdraw troops from Iraq and end the war. Hillary Clinton has secured the highly coveted job of Secretary of State, despite her support for the war in Iraq and association with her husband Bill Clinton’s administration. Other appointments on the economic front include former Clinton advisors who bear some responsibility for the current economic crisis.

For Canada, Obama’s foreign policy will be felt the most. So far Obama has emphasized his desire to send an additional 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan—what he contrasts to Iraq as the “good war”—and to pressure NATO allies to expand and extend their commitment to the Afghan mission. Already, Secretary Gates has made overtures to Canada to extend its mandate in Afghanistan past 2011, the scheduled end date. Stephen Harper, who promised during the federal election to withdraw Canadian troops from Afghanistan by 2011, is now looking to Obama to shore up public opinion in Canada to continue Canada’s participation in the war.

Public opinion in Canada is firmly against the war. Only weeks after Parliament voted on March 13, 2008 to extend the current mission from 2009 to 2011, an Angus Reid poll showed that 58 per cent of Canadians opposed the decision. A similar number want the troops to come home before 2011. On December 5, three more Canadian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan, bringing Canada’s death toll to 100, the highest since the Korean War. Public opposition to the war continues to deepen.

Political commentators are now speculating how more aggressive overtures from Obama to extend Canada’s mission will be received by the Canadian public. Unlike his predecessor, Obama will likely face huge public expressions of support during his first official visit to Canada. By contrast, any time Bush visited, he was met by large, angry demonstrations in cities all over the country. Canadians, like Americans, will likely give Obama the benefit of the doubt, despite their misgivings about the war in Afghanistan.

The US and Canadian anti-war movements have begun to strategize about how to deal with the “Obama effect”, especially as they ramp up their opposition to the war in Afghanistan. In the US, the anti-war movement is planning a national mobilization to Washington, DC in March 2009 to mark the six-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and to pressure Obama to keep his promise to end the war in Iraq. The American movement, however, is also anxious to raise the question of Afghanistan, so as to prevent the transfer of US troops from one bad war to another.

Likewise, the movement in Canada is preparing for mobilizations in April 2009 to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the founding of NATO. A NATO summit will take place in Strasbourg, France to celebrate NATO’s birthday where tens of thousands of anti-war demonstrators from all over Europe are expected to protest the war in Afghanistan. In Canada, solidarity demonstrations will take place in locations all over the country, raising the same demand to end the war in Afghanistan.

These mobilizations will be an important step toward consolidating anti-war sentiment, and resisting Obama’s campaign to re-focus resources on the war in Afghanistan. Many anti-war critics have argued that Obama does not really represent the voice of the US anti-war movement; instead, he represents a different tactical approach to meeting the same goals of US imperialism that the Republicans pursued under Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld: US dominance in Central Asia and the Middle East.

That said, a huge opportunity exists for the peace and social movements in the US, in Canada, and around the world to connect to the hopes and aspirations that have been cultivated throughout Obama’s campaign and in the wake of his victory. Those movements must find their way to that sentiment for change, but not allow it to rest in the expectation that Obama will simply deliver all that we demand. Like every victory that social movements have won, these will require a fight—to force concessions from whatever government is in power, no matter its political stripes. The appetite exists for real change, but whether we win it demands on how and when we mobilize to make it happen.

2008: The year we almost overthrew the government

By James Clark

Features and Opinions Editor

 

“Exciting” is hardly the first word that comes to mind when describing Canadian politics. But for a few days near the end of 2008 that’s exactly how it felt. Suddenly, the world was watching us, wondering whether we’d topple Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, just a few weeks after awarding them a slightly larger minority. The British newspaper the Guardian reported: “Harper looks set to potentially become the first western leader to lose his position as a direct result of the economic crisis.”

On November 27, Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty delivered an “economic update” that called for wage restrictions on public sector workers and a ban on their right to strike, and that offered no meaningful relief for all those suffering from layoffs, home foreclosures, and plant closures. Flaherty’s update also proposed to end public subsidies for political parties, a move that would have benefited the Conservatives who are flush with cash.

But the fact that Harper and Flaherty had no plan at all to deal with the economy created huge anger among the public, and prompted the opposition parties—including the Liberals, whose support allowed Harper to pass 43 Conservative bills in the last Parliament—to push back. Harper thought he had a stronger mandate, and could bully a weakened opposition. Instead, he managed to unite the opposition parties and brought his government to the brink of collapse.

No one expected such a turn of events. Just a few weeks earlier, Harper’s Conservatives won 143 seats in the federal election, allowing them to form their second minority government since 2006. Voter turnout was the lowest in Canadian history, at 59 percent. Over 9.5 million eligible voters didn’t bother to vote at all. Commentators lamented the apathy of the Canadian public.

In the days following Flaherty’s “economic update,” it was a completely different story. Ordinary people all over the country were suddenly caught up in a political firestorm, engaging in debates they had ignored only days earlier. The Liberals and the New Democratic Party (NDP) had proposed to form a Coalition government, with support from the Bloc Québécois—and everyone seemed to have an opinion about it. Newspapers were bombarded with record-level submissions to their editorial pages. Blogs were overloaded with commentary and discussion. Pollsters went into overdrive in an attempt to gauge the shifting sands of public opinion. Everyone was talking politics.

Those few days in early December provided some important lessons. The first is how quickly an economic crisis can develop into a political crisis. The worldwide economic meltdown—now officially a recession in Canada—made headlines during the federal election, but Harper repeatedly downplayed its effects, arguing that “Canada is not the US” and that the “fundamentals are sound” in Canada’s economy. Watching other countries respond to the crisis, the Canadian public came to expect some sort of “stimulus package” that would save jobs and pensions, and thoroughly rejected the Conservatives’ same, old “business-as-usual” approach.

The second lesson is a far more dangerous one. It shows how the Canadian public doesn’t have to wait for an election to get rid of an unpopular government. The widespread anger over the economy made possible the threat of a Coalition government, which came close to toppling Harper. Only the decision by Governor General Michaëlle Jean to allow Harper to prorogue Parliament, effectively shutting it down, prevented the Liberal-NDP Coalition from taking power.

Harper’s Conservatives may have dodged a bullet, but they’re still not out of the woods. The economic crisis hasn’t gone away. In fact, it continues to get worse. On December 5, Statistics Canada reported that the Canadian economy shed a staggering 71,000 jobs, the worst loss in 26 years. Harper could face a dramatically worse Canadian economy by the time his government delivers its budget in late January 2009. If there is no meaningful relief for the Canadian economy, Harper will surely face defeat by the opposition parties. The Coalition could take power, or another federal election will be called. Either way, Harper faces the prospect of being kicked out of office.

But the Conservatives haven’t been the only party affected by the crisis. Still reeling from their historic defeat in the federal election, the Liberals have now ditched the widely unpopular Stéphane Dion—making him the first casualty of the economic crisis in Canadian politics. The Liberal Party is currently in flux, as it grapples with the crisis and attempts to chart a way forward. Michael Ignatieff, the runner-up in the Liberals’ 2006 leadership race, has now been installed as leader, but it remains unclear whether he can unite a demoralized party and lead it to victory in the next election.

Also unclear is the future of the Liberal-NDP Coalition. Shortly after securing the Liberal leadership, Ignatieff stated: “Coalition if necessary, but not necessarily Coalition.” Ignatieff is said to have supported the Coalition only reluctantly, in contrast to his leadership rival Bob Rae, who sprinted across Canada to shore up its support.

A foreign policy hawk and a right-winger among Liberals, Ignatieff is more likely to find common ground with the Conservatives than to align himself with the NDP or the Bloc. Such an alliance would buy him more time to rebuild the Liberal Party and raise his own profile across Canada. It also guarantees that the governing Conservatives would take the blame for a worsening economy, despite what measures they implement in the months ahead.

The NDP still asserts that the Coalition has a future, and is pressuring the Liberals not to abandon the Liberal-NDP Accord now that Ignatieff is leader. Despite the initial euphoria about joining a federal government, and securing six cabinet seats, many rank-and-file NDP members now feel anxiety about what cost they’ll pay for such a move. Before the ink had even dried on the Accord, the NDP had already given up its opposition to $50 billion in tax cuts for the banks and the corporations—a shift that reverses one of its most popular campaign promises. NDP spokespersons also insisted that Liberal support for the war in Afghanistan—despite the NDP’s call to withdraw troops immediately—would not be a deal-breaker.

NDP members have also been anxious about giving support to the Liberals who effectively governed as a coalition with the Conservatives throughout much of the last Parliament. The Liberal record in opposition is one of propping up the Conservatives—on the war in Afghanistan, on the economy, on immigration, on the environment, and so on—despite the party’s rhetoric to the contrary.

Much of the NDP membership is now worried that NDP support for the Coalition will hide the Liberals’ record in office, giving them a progressive hue. In the 1990s, a Liberal majority government then led by Jean Chrétien made the deepest cuts to social programs in Canadian history. The Liberals also supported the war in Afghanistan, deploying Canadian troops to its current counter-insurgency mission in Kandahar.

For its part, the Bloc has taken a much more independent approach to the Coalition, offering its support for only 18 months (instead of the two and-a-half years committed by the NDP), and largely on a case-by-case basis. Harper’s sharp anti-Quebec rhetoric in response to the possibility of a Coalition government with Bloc support has eliminated any hopes of a Conservative break-through in the province, and has given a boost to the sovereigntist movement. The Conservatives could lose all their seats in Quebec at the next election, undermining any hopes of a majority Conservative government.

A lot could happen between now and January 27 when the Conservatives will deliver the next budget. Harper has attempted to strike a more conciliatory tone, offering to meet Ignatieff to discuss the details of an economic stimulus package. Harper’s gesture likely has more to do with his fear of a more confident and capable Liberal leader than it does with seeking common ground with the Liberals.

Harper himself might also face a revolt within his own party, especially among the grassroots who largely condemned his overtly partisan attack on the opposition in Flaherty’s economic update. A number of high-profile Conservative MPs publicly aired their dissatisfaction with Harper over what many commentators described as huge tactical blunders. Harper’s reputation as a brilliant political tactician is in tatters, instead replaced by the image of a pathological and ideological control freak.

Whatever happens, one thing is for sure: the Canadian public got a glimpse of its potential collective power when the government came close to collapse. Activists should try to generalize this lesson as widely as possible, and seek ways now to continue a grass-roots mobilization to defeat Harper—and not simply wait for the Coalition. No matter who forms the next government, only a sustained fight-back of social movements, the labour movement, and ordinary people will be able to deliver the kinds of reforms and policy changes that can deal with the economic crisis, and in a way that doesn’t simply reward the banks and the corporations at the expense of workers who fear losing their jobs and pensions.

The year 2008 will be remembered for the most serious political crisis that Canada has seen in decades. We may not have toppled the government this time around, but 2009 will likely give us another chance.

Next Page »