Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2019

The AIH Transcript for July 19, 2019

Hosts: Robyn Bresnahan and Karen Gordon

Prologue

ROBYN BRESNAHAN: Hello. I'm Robyn Bresnahan, sitting in for Carol Off.

KAREN GORDON: Good evening. I'm Karen Gordon. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

KG: Tonight...

RB: In harm's way. After Canada's military agrees to pay almost a billion dollars to members who've been subjected to sexual misconduct and assaults -- one of the plaintiffs says it still isn't safe for Canadian women to wear their country's uniform.

KG: Without peer. An Indigenous professor says she understands why astronomers want to build a telescope on Hawaii's highest mountain -- but it doesn't belong on her people's most sacred place.

RB: Hard to compute. A Dutch court finds its military 10 percent responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Muslim men and boys in the most notorious massacre of the war in the former Yugoslavia.

KG: Base motives. “Pumpsie” Green was the first black baseball player to play on the last major league team to break the colour line. Tonight, his daughter remembers the reluctant Red Sox revolutionary who just wanted to play ball.

RB: Blank slate. He didn't have a medical degree or any experience in computer science -- but that didn't stop an Edmonton man from developing an award-winning app to improve medical care in his family's home country of Somalia.

KG: And you snooze; you lose. Italian police insist they won't be swayed by protesters promising to take to the trees over the imposition of a 500 dollar fine for setting up a hammock in a park. As It happens. The Friday Edition. Radio with coverage as they swing into action.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Dutch must apologize for turning Muslims away from UN base in Srebrenica: lawyer

Military Settlement

Guest: Amy Graham

KG: It's a hard-fought victory for current and former military members. Yesterday, the federal government agreed to pay 900 million dollars to settle multiple class action suits. The money is to go to anyone who was sexually assaulted, harassed, or discriminated against while they served their country in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defense. Individual claims will be between 5000 and 55.000 dollars -- and may be higher in cases where benefits were denied despite what's being called "exceptional harm." Amy Graham is an Afghan veteran and one of the suits' lead plaintiffs. We reached her in Kingston, Ontario.

RB: Ms. Graham this is something you have been working towards for years. What does the settlement mean to you?

AMY GRAHAM: Yes I've been working on this lawsuit and the settlement for two and a half years. And in one way I'm viewing this as a victory because I think it's going to bring closure to a lot of the victims that did not get to take their cases to trial or even have them investigated. But at the same time I recognize that it's really just the first step in a long process because we know with a recent statistic that was released that the incidence of sexual assault in the military have actually not gone down at all.

RB: As you alluded to, there's more than just money in this settlement. What else does it promise to do?

AG: The money was sort of the secondary part of this settlement for us. We wanted to really focus on bringing the incidents down -- the rate of assaults in the military down. And so there going to be an external review process -- which we wanted to have a third party review it so that it was completely independent of the military making victims perhaps a little bit more comfortable to be forthcoming with information -- that's going to happen at a five year mark to determine whether what we have done and are doing is working, to see if we need to make changes in order really to bring down the rates of sexual assault.

RB: Why did you decide to take part in this lawsuit?

AG: When my own court case was going to trial the man pled guilty but to a lesser charge. And at that time I was exposed to what the typical fines were for sexually assaulting a member of the forces and pleading out and the average fine was 500 dollars. And I could not believe that you could sexually assault someone and pay a 500 dollar fine, walk away with no record. It really blew my mind. So that and dealing with the prosecution was a fight -- knowing that about 90 percent or more of cases never even got to the point of a trial, I really felt like someone had to speak up especially on the behalf of serving members because when you are in the military you don't feel like you can actually voice your concerns. So I wanted to give a voice to the people that couldn't speak for themselves and also make a change and find a deterrent because a 500 dollar fine is not deterring anyone from committing these assaults. And at this point the sexualized nature of the military it's almost indoctrinated that I recognize it is going to take a long time to turn things around. So it's a victory but it's also just a first step.

RB: Ms. Graham I wonder if you wouldn't mind sharing a little bit of your story about what happened to you. I mean you were sexually assaulted in 2010 by a superior while you were returning from a deployment in Afghanistan. What happened?

AG: After spending seven months in Afghanistan on my way home when you should be trying to get excited that you're finally getting back to Canada and you are one of the lucky ones that made it out of there unscathed -- my master warrant officer, overseas, decided to try and sexually assault me and also fought me when I was fighting him off.

RB: And how did the military fail you?

AG: The military failed me in a number of ways because I was sent on an HL P.A. with 100 and some males. And there was only two females -- myself and another female. She was put into a room with her boyfriend. And I was the only single female -- I was sent was no junior ranks of my own trade or my own unit. I was an isolated female in a group of males and the atmosphere was very much drinking partying atmosphere. So I believe I was failed in being put in that vulnerable position to begin with. I was failed when I reported it and nobody took it seriously in my chain of command. The one person that did question me about it and suggested I should press charges -- minutes later made sexualized comments to a colleague of mine. So at that point I decided to release. I felt that the sexualized environment -- it was so widespread that I didn't feel I could do anything as an individual and decided to release.

RB: If a young woman approached you today and said should I join the Canadian Military what would you say?

AG: I would say absolutely not. And it hurts me to say that because I wanted to be a soldier -- from my middle teens -- I wanted to be a soldier. And it hurts me to discourage other people from going down that road because the military does have a lot to offer. But personally I don't think that they have provided a safe enough environment for women to be joining. I know that their goal is to have 25 percent of the military female at this point. I believe it's around 13 percent. I think it is a little bit irresponsible to be setting those goals when the statistics prove they still haven't decreased the rate of sexual assault. I think that it's irresponsible. They should focus on fixing the problem. And with that they will attract more females.

RB: Ms. Graham it was good to talk to you today. Thank you very much for your time.

AG: Thanks. Have a great day.

KG: Amy Graham is an Afghan veteran and was a lead plaintiff in one of the sexual assault and misconduct lawsuits against the Canadian military. We reached Ms. Graham in Kingston.

[Music]

Srebrenica Dutch Ruling

Guest: Simon van der Sluijs

KG: It was the worst massacre on European soil since the Second World War. In July 1995, more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslims were killed in Srebrenica by Bosnian Serb forces, under the command of Ratko Mladic. Among those who died were 350 men and boys who'd been in an UN safe zone. They were prevented from staying in the safe zone by Dutch peacekeepers known as "the Dutchbat." But today, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands ruled that the Dutch state was partially liable for those 350 deaths. Simon van der Sluijs is a lawyer for the Mothers of Srebrenica -- a group of survivors of the siege. We reached him in Amsterdam.

RB: Mr. van der Sluijs you represent survivors of the siege of Srebrenica. What was their reaction to this ruling today? Did they consider it a victory?

SIMON VAN DER SLUIJS: Well they considered it a victory because the Dutch state was held liable by the Supreme Court for what happened in 1995 for expelling 350 men from the UN compound. So this is a victory. I think it's the first time in history that a state is held responsible for a peacekeeping mission. But they were also a bit disappointed because the obligation to compensate the damage is limited to only 10 percent.

RB: And can you explain that a little bit more to us because the court said that the Dutch state was 10 percent liable, but how was that number actually arrived at?

SIMON VAN DER SLUIJS: This somehow puzzles me too because the discussion between the litigating parties was not about percentage -- it was about the Dutchbat know at that time that those men sent off the compound were to be killed -- were to be murdered. Frankly I cannot explain how the Dutch Supreme Court did come to this number of 10 percent.

RB: What do we know about what happened to those 350 boys and men who came to the Dutch looking for refuge that day?

SIMON VAN DER SLUIJS: They were sent off by Dutchbat from the compound that day and they were taken away with buses by the Bosnian Serbs. And in the days following -- approximately between 14 and 17 of July -- those men were kept, were humiliated, they were tortured, and they were killed in mass graves.

RB: The argument from the Dutch soldiers has been that they were completely overwhelmed, that they were very lightly armed, faced with heavily armed Bosnian soldiers intent on pretty much carving out an ethnically pure territory. I understand that some of those Dutch soldiers were in the courtroom today. What did they have to say?

SIMON VAN DER SLUIJS: First about being a lightly armed. If you want to compare arms, the first thing is are you willing to use the arms you have? Because if you're not, there's no need to compare. And the Dutch soldiers were ordered by the Dutch state that their own safety was priority. So in this question I really must give you this comment. Those soldiers they support the mothers and I can understand because when you go into the army as a soldier I think you have higher beliefs. You think that there is something more important than your own safety. And when you were sent on a mission and the result is that 8,000 men and boys are killed -- well this makes you suffer too -- not like the mothers. But I think this is one of the reasons they support the mothers now.

RB: And what did the court say today about what would have happened if those 350 boys and men had not had to leave the safe zone?

SIMON VAN DER SLUIJS: Well the Supreme Court ruled that if those men were not handed over they would have had a 10 percent chance to have survived. I don't agree on this point because the UN compound has always been a safe zone inside a safe area. The Bosnian Serbs have always respected the integrity of this compound. They have never fired a single shot in the direction of this UN compound. So I just don't buy it.

RB: What was the number that you were looking for? Were you looking for another percentage out of those?

SIMON VAN DER SLUIJS: Well the Court of Appeal ruled that there was a 30 percent liability and we have appealed this number. And also the Dutch state has appealed this number and now the Supreme Court has established 10 percent. So yes there is some disappointment on this side.

RB: How much does the compensation matter at this point to the survivors?

SIMON VAN DER SLUIJS: Well it has never been the main issue. The main issue was establishing the liability of the Dutch state. And I think the mothers have succeeded in doing so. So compensation was not the main issue here.

RB: It's been 24 years since the Srebrenica massacre took place. What if anything would help these families you represents move on and heal?

SIMON VAN DER SLUIJS: What would help if the Dutch state would really recognize what has been the role of the state at that time and they should apologize I think for what happened because recognizing what went wrong would really make a difference. You know at first you just know that your husband or your son has been killed and is not there and you don't even have a body. And you tried to find out what happened and what you always know from the first moment on is that Dutchbat was there to protect those people. This was the role of Dutchbat. And the Dutch state has always been hiding behind the U.N. -- they were not responsible, the circumstances were to blame, everybody else's fault but not the Dutch state. And I think this makes a difference here today because the Supreme Court has finally established otherwise. The Dutch state has made mistakes and is liable.

RB: Mr. van der Sluijs thank you very much for taking the time to talk to us. I appreciate it.

SIMON VAN DER SLUIJS: Thank you.

KG: Simon van der Sluijs is a lawyer for the Mothers of Srebrenica -- a group of 6,000 survivors of the siege of Srebrenica. We reached Mr. van der Sluijs in Amsterdam. For more on this story visit our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

"Pumpsie" Green Obit

Guest: Keisha Green

KG: When Elijah "Pumpsie" Green stepped onto the baseball field in Chicago in July of 1959 -- he was making history. It wasn't just his major league debut but it was the first time that a black man had played for the Boston Red Sox. It came more than a decade after Jackie Robinson started playing for the Dodgers. The Red Sox were the last team in the major leagues to break the colour line -- and it took a lot of outside pressure. Elijah "Pumpsie" Green died on Wednesday. He was 85. After that first away game in Chicago Mr. Green made his debut in Boston's Fenway Park. Here he is remembering that first home game as a Red Sox.

SOUNDCLIP

ELIJAH GREEN: So I'm telling myself you know you played this game before so just go ahead and play. So I did. So in the first inning a guy got on first base and a guy hit a ground ball to third base -- Frank Malzone got the ball and threw it to me at second. And it was a low throw. But I just played it naturally. I just went down scooped it, tagged the bag, and just threw it across my body. Perfect throw. And it was out. And I got a great standing ovation for that play. And to tell you the truth, it was worth it. But you know my head started spinning -- especially when I got a big hand running of the field and I am lead-up man and I am going up to bat and I get a standing ovation from the crowd. And I look out in centerfield on my way up to home plate and all the blacks out there just hands up just jumping and yelling. And I'm saying to myself "Boy Pumpsie you can appreciate this standing ovation but kid don't strike out. You would have to walk all the way back to the dugout." But to make a long story short and keep you out of the suspense -- the third pitch, I hit a shot high of the left centerfield fence and I slid into third base will triple. And the whole stands went crazy.

KG: Elijah "Pumpsie" Green speaking to San Francisco's KPIX-TV, back in 2009 about his first home game as a Red Sox player. Keisha Green is his daughter. We reached her in El Cerrito, California.

RB: Ms. Green first of all I am so sorry for your loss.

KEISHA GREEN: Thank you.

RB: What's it like for you to hear that clip of your dad talking about his first game in Boston? Still so much enthusiasm so many years later.

KEISHA GREEN: As I was listening I'm like that's my daddy [chuckles] you know that's his voice. That's his enthusiasm for that moment. Recently our family -- with my dad -- did an interview and he recounted the same incident and his enthusiasm was still the exact same.

RB: How do you understand and what did your dad tell you about why it took so long for the Red Sox to have a black player on their roster?

KEISHA GREEN: I mean ultimately it was just racism. You know that was a time when African-Americans were gaining rights all across the country. And you know there were still areas that were not as progressive as others and Boston seemed to be not as progressive. Well Boston Red Sox were not as progressive. So you know he just felt like that's what it was. And it wasn't necessarily against him personally. You know it was just not having an African-American and really not wanting an African-American no matter who it was.

RB: But other teams -- I mean the Red Sox were the last team to have a black player on the roster -- but other teams you know they were integrating their players and when they went on the road they could stay in hotels with the team. But your dad was treated very differently by the Red Sox during spring training of 1959. What happened?

KEISHA GREEN: Again just you know racism. So there's always going to be a 'last' for something. And the Red Sox seem to be the last to integrate and not because they wanted to more so because you know the outcry from the people around the Red Sox organization. They let my dad on the team, but they still held certain views and with those views came certain actions. Actions was you know he can play but he can't say with the team because we're staying in places for white men or white people only. So you know until they came around -- which they ultimately did -- he had to do what he had to do to play because his only focus was to play.

RB: Was it true that he had to book his own hotels sometimes miles from where the rest of the team were staying?

KEISHA GREEN: Yeah. From what my parents have told me they primarily stayed with other African-American families in the area -- and you know I suspect at hotels as well -- but more so with families so that you know they could be around other African-American people.

RB: How did your dad feel about being Boston's first black player when he did finally get to play mid-season in 1959?

KEISHA GREEN: So he was excited to play and he wasn't focused on 'I'm the first you know African-American.' He was focused on 'I love this game, I have a talent, and a passion, and so this is what I want to do.' And so people called him the reluctant first African-American to play. And I think he wasn't reluctant to hold that title. He just wanted to play. He wasn't looking for the title. He wasn't you know working towards that title. He just wanted to play and he knew and everyone around him knew that he was good enough to make it in the Major Leagues. And so when he got his opportunity he wanted to show people and show himself that he could do it.

RB: The late team owner Tom Yawkey there was a street outside of Fenway Park called Yawkey Way and last year it was renamed because of his legacy of racism. I wonder what your dad thought about that.

KEISHA GREEN: So I talked to my dad about it you know and his thinking was you know if that's what they want to do, that's what they want to do. And this is my thinking along with my dad's -- changing the name of the street isn't going to change the past and the actions and the behaviors. You know so changing the name of the street, that's fine. The hope is that you know these practices have changed and this thinking has changed and the actions have changed.

RB: You know all of the obituaries have been focusing on him as a pioneer, him as a baseball player. But having you on the line, what was he like as a dad?

KEISHA GREEN: He was a great dad. He let me be who I was to be. He encouraged me to do whatever I wanted to do. He listened -- and I'm a talker -- so he [chuckles] listened all the time. I played softball -- and I wasn't you know like my dad -- I mean I was decent. But he would bring his team -- when they had to play our high school -- he would bring the team to watch me and support me. So you know he was extremely supportive to myself and my brother.

RB: What are you going to miss most about him?

KEISHA GREEN: I'm going to miss talking to him. He and my cousin are the only people that call me Kiki. You know whenever I walked in the house or whenever I called on the phone the first thing he would say is "Hey Kiki." And you know we just laughed a lot. So I'm going to miss hearing my dad call me Kiki and I'm going to miss laughing with my dad.

RB: Ms. Green thank you so much for picking up the phone and taking the time to remember your dad and again I'm so sorry for your sadness.

KEISHA GREEN: Thank you very much.

RB: Take care.

KEISHA GREEN: You too.

KG: That was Keisha Green speaking about her dad -- baseball player Elijah "Pumpsie" Green. Mr. Green died Wednesday. He was 85. We reached his daughter in El Cerrito, California. If you'd like to see pictures of the two of them together, go to our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Dateline: Trieste, Italy

KG: Dateline: Trieste, Italy.

[Music]

KG: You don't want to mess with a person in a hammock. That's the lesson the group of activists is hoping to teach the officials of this northern Italian city tomorrow. The group is calling themselves the Free Hammock Collective. They're planning to spend Saturday evening holding a hammock in at a seaside pine forest called the Barcola. The laid-back choice of protest comes in response to an incident earlier this week. It involved an Austrian tourist and the Trieste police. Officers caught the 52-year-old hammock-handed, swinging gently between two of the Barcola trees. They handed him a fine for the equivalent of 500 Canadian dollars. A police spokesperson defended the fine arguing that Trieste has laws against attaching things to trees and if too many tourists went a sway than the Barcola wouldn't be as easy to walk in. But the Free Hammock Collective won't be swayed. They published a manifesto demanding, quote, "the right to nap in Barcola lulled by the rocking of a hammock." And they aren't the only ones mocking the hammock police. Trieste's former mayor Roberto Cosolini has put up a Facebook post that reads, quote, "Fortunately my passion for Mexico and its hammocks led me to assemble a comfortable Yucatan hammock at home so I can relax with a cerveza or daiquiri without taking any risks."

[Music]

Part 2: Hawaii Telescope

Hawaii Telescope

Guest: Noelani Goodyear-Ka’opua

KG: It's been 10 years since Hawaii's dormant Mauna Kea volcano was selected as the site of the Thirty Meter Telescope. If completed the astronomical observatory would be among a small group of so-called Extremely Large Telescopes around the world. But as you've heard on the show before, opposition to its construction is proving to be an extremely large hurdle. Work was supposed to start on Monday but a growing group of Indigenous Hawaiian protesters is doing everything it can to stop that from happening. On Wednesday, police took 33 Hawaiian elders into custody. Today, many of the protesters are back on the mountain. Noelani Goodyear-Ka'opua joined the protests on Mauna Kea throughout the week. Today we reached her in Honolulu.

RB: Professor Goodyear-Ka'opua there have been protests at the base of the volcano for days. What's the latest there today?

NOELANI GOODYEAR-KA'OPUA: At the base of Mauna Kea the camp has been growing. Over the last several days there is an estimated 800 to a 1000 people who are gathered there now. The standoff that was really intense between law enforcement -- and on Wednesday was sort of the height. Then the governor declared a state of emergency a couple of hours later. And since then we've been in a waiting pattern to see how the state is going to use the forces that it's amassed on the island. So it's this real mix of very high emotions of hope and love as well as in some cases scared of what may come.

RB: Why are you and others so opposed to this telescope?

NOELANI GOODYEAR-KA'OPUA: So what we're opposed to is the industrial development on a sacred summit that is also the top of a watershed area and conservation land. The function of that building is not important so much. So we're not against astronomy, we're not against science, we're not against telescopes. We're against the sighting of industrial development on our sacred mountain. This is part of a land division that is called 'ohe which means bamboo that signifies how this is a container for water -- for freshwater -- for the island. It's also been zoned conservation land by the state itself. And so we're there to protect the environment, to protect it for Indigenous people, the Native Hawaiian people -- Kanaka -- and for everyone who lives on and is given life by that mountain.

RB: I understand though that there are 13 existing telescopes on the mountain. So how come it is so important to you that one more not be built?

NOELANI GOODYEAR-KA'OPUA: The final environmental impact statement for the 30 metre telescope acknowledges that substantial cultural, environmental, harm has already been done by all of the construction of telescopes on the mountain and what it argues is that one more would just be incremental harm on top of already existing harm. And we're at that point where we're saying no more harm -- no more harm. Let's let the mountain heal itself. Let's decommission. There are telescopes on the mountain that are not being used. Let's decommission and clean up those. Let's let the mountain heal itself.

RB: You're a professor at the University of Hawaii which supports this project. What do you say to people there and also to some of the other Indigenous Hawaiians who agree that this project brings jobs, brings economic benefits, to Hawaii?

NOELANI GOODYEAR-KA'OPUA: Universities and academic institutions have different kinds of obligations researchers should be held to ethical standards of how our research impacts communities. And so unlike the ways that other commercial industrial projects may or may not consider impacts -- social impacts -- you know we as researchers have an obligation to think about what it means that police, military forces, are brought in to build the infrastructure for research. That goes against everything that I know and everything that I teach my students about how to conduct research and academic enterprise in a responsible manner.

RB: You mentioned the Governor of Hawaii -- David Ige -- signing this emergency proclamation yesterday. What is that going to mean for you and for your fellow protesters?

NOELANI GOODYEAR-KA'OPUA: Now with the state of emergency the governor can actually close down the highway that leads to the access road. It's the main road that allows people to get from one side of the island to the other. And it draws county level powers to him so he can directly command police forces from the different islands -- the different counties that comprise the state of Hawaii as well as military. People exercising their rights to protest, to practice the Indigenous culture, is not a state of emergency -- that's democracy. That's Aloha 'Aina -- what we call "love for the land.".

KG: So what are you going to do?

NOELANI GOODYEAR-KA'OPUA: We are going to continue standing on the mountain. You know there are Canadian institutions that are part of funding this project -- the National Research Council of Canada, Acura the Association for Canadian Universities and Research and Astronomy. So we are just imploring the investors to divest and to prevent what could be major violence against the Indigenous people and other residents of Hawaii.

RB: And when you talk about major violence it almost seems hard to square that with some of the elders -- dozens of elders who were arrested, ticketed, on Wednesday. What was that like to witness that?

NOELANI GOODYEAR-KA'OPUA: It was both incredibly sad and very inspiring. Our elders commanded us to stand down, to stand on the side, to be witness in silence. To see them at this stage of their lives being willing to lay themselves down like that was both incredibly inspiring but also really sad. And I saw many officers -- to be honest with you -- crying as they were either carrying these elders out or witnessing them being carried out. The other side -- the Kapu law teaches us -- is not our enemy, and so we try to treat those who have come to arrest us with respect and compassion even as we stand firm.

RB: Professor Goodyear-Ka'opua thank you very much for taking the time to talk to me today.

NOELANI GOODYEAR-KA'OPUA: Thank you so much for having me Robyn.

KG: We reached the University of Hawaii professor and telescope protester Noelani Goodyear-Ka'opua in Honolulu.

[Music]

Wedding Gift

KG: Alex Livingston is a poker player from Halifax. This week he came in third at the World Series of Poker main event in Las Vegas. That means a 4-million-US-dollar prize. But he's not keeping it all when his friends Rob and Tonya Taylor got married in Shediac, New Brunswick last year -- he offered them an unusual wedding gift. And now the Taylors are getting 40,000 dollars of that prize. Here's Tonya Taylor explaining the gift on Maritime Noon today.

SOUNDCLIP

TONYA TAYLOR: Robert I was at home going through all the cards and I was just reading them and he was sitting there and I opened Alex's and it was like a long message and then at the end it said something like 'I'm not going to give you a lame 100 dollars standard wedding gift. Instead I'm going to give you 1 percent of my main event next year.' I was just reading it casually and Rob was like 'What? That's crazy.' And I was like 'Yeah I guess. Like I don't really know.' I don't know a whole lot about poker. And he was like 'That's crazy!' Like the main event is like the biggest event basically ever. And I was like okay sweet. Well he made a note in the card that said if we want we could redeem it for a hundred dollars so I was like okay well I guess we won't redeem it. We'll just wait and see.

DAVID PATE: Good choice as it turned out.

TONYA TAYLOR: Yeah. It turned out to be a great choice.

DAVID PATE: So Rob -- your husband -- he had some idea that this was a big deal.

TONYA TAYLOR: Yeah. So like Rob plays poker as well and he goes to Vegas usually once a year and plays in tournament but he's only played in the main event a couple times. So obviously he knew how big a deal it was. And Alex played poker for a living and he does very well with that. So he was pretty pumped about the gift.

DAVID PATE: When he got to the final and he won the 4 million dollars, what was your reaction?

TONYA TAYLOR: It was pretty crazy. I was watching it online and Rob was in Vegas and he was kind of updating me and I had basically all my friends, my family, everyone watching it which was really cool. It was crazy! I don't know. It was just crazy.

KG: That was Tonya Taylor speaking with the CBC's David Pate today.

[Music]

Roosevelt Statue

Guest: David Hurst Thomas

KG: The "Equestrian Statue of Theodore Roosevelt" has inspired double takes and even vandalism. It's outside the American Museum of Natural History in New York City and shows the former U.S. president astride a horse with an unnamed Indigenous man and African man down below. That earned the statue a spot on the city's "most controversial monuments" list in 2017. While some controversial monuments in the United States have been torn down, the city has decided to shine a light on the Equestrian Statue of Theodore Roosevelt. This week, almost 80 years after it was installed, the museum opened an exhibit called "Addressing the Statue." David Hurst Thomas has worked at the museum for 47 years. He's a curator of anthropology. We reached him in New York City.

RB: Mr. Thomas what did you think the first time you saw this statue?

DAVID HURST THOMAS: I didn't pay much attention to it like most New Yorkers -- you know it's a big guy on a horse. I didn't think that much about it until people -- Native Americans (and) African-Americans at that point -- said what's up with that. Then it became a problem.

RB: Can you describe the formation that the three men are in?

DAVID HURST THOMAS: You've got a former president on top of this huge wonderful horse and he's dressed up a little bit like a cowboy. He was a bit of a war hero so he's got a pistol. And on his right hand side is a Plains Indian in an eagle war bonnet walking along with a rifle, and on his left is an African with almost no clothes on walking along. He's on top of the horse (and) they are barefoot next to him.

RB: What story about racial hierarchy does that tell?

DAVID HURST THOMAS: Well there are two stories I think. One is what was the sculptor trying to show here? What he's trying to show is here is one of the best presidents we've ever had in this country leading two continents into the 20th century. The racial hierarchy is pretty obvious that the white guy gets to ride on the horse and the Indian and the African maybe they are his gun bearers, maybe they are his guide, but clearly they're inferior as far as the statute goes.

RB: Some people have had such a problem with it that it has been defaced at least twice. What happened?

DAVID HURST THOMAS: During my first couple of years it was totally painted red by a bunch of really irritated American Indians some of whom later became my friend. It's happened recently as well. People are unhappy about it and they're unhappy in part because this is a major institution in New York and we would argue the world: why on our doorstep do we have a statue that suggests at least to some people this kind of racial hierarchy? Well I have had some trouble with that. Roosevelt was our first conservation president and there's a lot to be said and that whole facade says it about the great things he did for this country 100 years ago. The other part of it is there is a colonizing aspect to it. Right after his presidency, he went to Africa almost as a colonizer and you can make the same case with American Indians. We have a world class collection of Native American materials. How do we represent Indian people? Where did our collection come from? It raises all of those questions.

RB: It's an interesting way that your museum has decided to address this controversy of this statue by doing this exhibition called "Addressing the Statue." What will people learn?

DAVID HURST THOMAS: We're going to learn a lot more about this statue that has been a fixture in New York City for a long time. What we're trying to show there are multiple opinions, there are different views in the past, all of those opinions need to be expressed. And instead of an institution -- a great institution -- covering up its history, our job is to contextualize it and let's say as much as we can and listen as much as we can -- let's keep talking about it.

RB: The city may own it but the exhibition doesn't let the museum off the hook. What does it say about the institution's complicity it has had with racism in the past?

DAVID HURST THOMAS: Well I don't know that I would use the term complicity. I think what we would do is look at our history and say it's long and it's complicated. And the museum has taken some positions in the past that we're uncomfortable with today. One of those that comes out of the exhibit is this issue of eugenics. We got on the wrong side of what would now be considered a molecular biological issue -- can we breed better people? Should we breed better people? That was a conversation that was going on in the 20s and 30s. It's now totally discredited science. Looking back at our records we took a pretty difficult position there, that it happened -- let's talk about it. Doesn't look so good today and that statue plays right into this. How do we deal with that? How do we deal with our past? Should we tear it down? Should we leave it where it is? Should we have some new artwork that talks about it? We don't know what that answer is but what we do know is we're going to be talking about this 50 years from now. We don't know where this country is going to be then and our memorials and our monuments and our museums need to be part of that conversation.

RB: Mr. Thomas it was good to talk to you today. Thank you.

DAVID HURST THOMAS: It's a pleasure talking to you.

KG: David Hurst Thomas is the curator of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History. He's in New York City.

[Music]

Somali Medical Records

Guest: Khalid Hashi

KG: When Khalid Hashi went to visit his grandmother in hospital in Somalia he'd never been to the country before. He had no background in medicine and he also had no background in tech. But none of that stopped the Edmonton man from deciding to find a digital solution to a big problem he saw in the Somali medical system. Now his solution is being taken up by doctors in Somalia. And Mr. Hashi has won a major global innovation award that provides funding to expand his project across the country. We reached Khalid Hashi in Edmonton.

RB: Mr. Hashi what problem did you see in the hospital when you were visiting your grandmother?

KHALID HASHI: For the most part you know the hospital was understaffed so that was the first thing that I noticed. The second thing that I've noticed was there is a lack of structure on hospital -- there is no organization. There's really no efficiency. There's no quality of care. So when we came into the hospital, there was no real measures of you know handing in any identification documentation. Actually there's no record keeping at that hospital.

RB: So nobody even asked to your grandmother was?

KH: You know I think they knew. So what typically happens is every village, every city, has you know hospital that patients go to all the time. So there's just a culture of knowing someone by face not so much by a medical record system.

RB: Mr. Hashi do you mind me asking how come your grandmother was in hospital?

KH: Just old age. She was also having an operation on her left eye. She had already lost sight in her right eye. So once I've heard that my grandmother was going into her operation on her left eye I knew that I had to get there as soon as possible.

RB: But when doctors were looking and they were treating your grandmother did they have any way of bringing up her medical history?

KH: No. So it's a very oral society. People typically exchange information just through word of mouth.

RB: What was your reaction to this? It's so different from what you have likely experienced in Edmonton.

KH: Very much so, yes. I knew right off the bat something was not right and I knew there were ways -- better ways -- of doing things. And that's when my mind started racing in the hospital and there was a lot of downtime where I was just reflecting and thinking you know can something be done here.

RB: What concerned you most about this lack of communication, lack of record keeping?

KH: A loss of the translation of what had occurred with previous doctors and you know who was translating that information and you know was my grandmother actually receiving the best quality care that she potentially could have had.

RB: So you decided to start doing some research to try to find some kind of digital solution to bridge this lack of information. However you don't have a background in medicine or in I.T.

KH: [Laughs] That's right.

RB: How come that didn't hold you back?

KH: You know I knew that there were people who could possibly or could probably relate to my story who may have had experiences in hospitals in Somalia. So what I did was when I came back to Edmonton I had just placed a call for action I released a social media campaign it really started gaining momentum. We've had doctors who reached out to us. We had donors who reached out to through our GoFundMe campaign. And I just started building teams and things just started building momentum and before you knew it we were invited to go to the first ever tech summit in Somalia.

RB: So how is your record system being used in Somalia now?

KH: So right now there's two hospitals using this system. It is an online and offline portal. You can access it through a web portal or through a software. And through this challenge we're just going to be refining our solution a little bit more just to tackle immunizations.

RB: So you said two hospitals are using it but you've had much more interest from other hospitals in Somalia?

KH: Yeah. We had about nine hospitals who've contacted us just over the last year. And since we've won the challenge there has been an extra 10 hospitals who have reached out to us through our website.

RB: Did you ever think you were going to be a medical entrepreneur?

KH: Never in a million years. [Laughs] No not at all.

RB: And to top it off you've just won this pretty major global innovation competition. Can you just describe the app that you're making with the funding money that you've received?

KH: Yes. So our app is intended to offer caregivers and practitioners with resources in the Somali language on the importance of vaccines. It will also be used in rural communities where you know agencies on the ground once they're offering immunization services they can record the patient's medical record number of what had occurred at the time.

RB: What is the best compliment you have received from a stranger about what you have decided to do in Somalia?

KH: You know it's been quite overwhelming. We've received a lot of positive feedback both from on the ground and abroad. But for the most part it was just people like myself who you know have never been to Somalia before, really wanted to find ways to help the country as they work towards developments.

RB: In a way your grandmother inspired all of this. What does she think about what you're doing?

KH: Oh she's a very proud grandmother. For sure.

RB: It was nice to talk to you today. Thank you very much for your time.

KH: Thank you so much for your time.

KG: Khalid Hashi is the founder of OGOW E.M.R. -- a digital records system designed for Somali hospitals. He spoke to us from Edmonton.

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

July 19, 2019 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode