Provocative thought... Racism, in large part, is a fabrication of the paranoid.
Disclaimer... I'm not saying it doesn't exist or it's ok to have it. If it's a cause for limiting opportunity based on the color of someone's skin or where they come from then it shouldn't have any place in any sphere of life... but in large part, we make too much of a small thing.
Take the recent uproar in cricket against the monkey chants directed at Andrew Symonds (Australian player) during the Vadodra one-dayer (and again in the Mumbai one-dayer). Now here's some perspective - the average Joe (in Vadodra, he'd be the average Jayant) does not understand that calling someone a monkey is racist at all. Young Jayant feels Symonds looks like a monkey - it could be his size, his hair, his body language.. whatever - and so he called him a monkey. BIG DEAL! We all give people labels based on how they look... she looks "hot", she's got a big nose, he's built like a truck, he's fat! Just like that - he's a monkey. Jayant has nothing against where he comes from, where he's going or the color of his skin. And by no means is Jayant capable of limiting Symonds' opportunity to beat the crap out of the Indian cricket team (which he comprehensively did!).
Separately - a certain part of India prays to monkeys. Heck we have an elephant god and we worship cows as well. Having said that, if Jayant, in the course of exploring the hopping night life in Vadodra calls a woman a cow, he doesn't have too much of a shot at getting into her pants (or sari!), but it's not like he was trying to get into Symonds' pants either. So yep - it's rude, it's mean, but not racist.
Another interesting fact - in Australia, Indians are referred to as "curry munchers" very commonly. Never understood why this was racist. Pakistani's are called Pakis... I only recently discovered this was considered racist... i always thought it was short for Pakistani. SEAsians and the Chinese are called Yellow... for me it's just like calling a tomato a tomato, a car a car, an African American black.... it's just a label. And that's not such a bad thing!
Discriminating against a label is the real issue... not the label itself.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
so now ay, ay, ay bombay is ok too? ;-)
Have to disagree with you Ganj. What makes racism despicable is that it is all about reacting to a person based on the way that they look. Color of skin, curliness of hair, whatever.
You're right that Jayant probably did not think hard about how to insult Symonds. But again, that is the point isn't it? Jayant did what racists do, which is demean others because of their physical appearance.
If Jayant had thought of a genuinely humorous way to make fun of Symonds, I think there would be no fuss.
lei - ay ay ay bumbay was always ok!! :)
Mahog - Fair point. By no means am I saying labelling a person based on physical appearance is ok! It's not. It's pathetic. However, if I could have all the people who're creating a cacophany about this to focus their energies on stamping out racial discrimination first, I'd do that. That, for me, is the bigger issue.
Labels - yes - in a civil society they should be taboo, but for me the first step is stamping out racial discrimination.
Ganj, I think I understand what you mean. But I don't see how you can separate racial labeling from racial discrimination. It seems to me that people who do the one would inevitably also do the other.
Agree. They're more likely to do it. But I guess my point is that the crux of the issue is the discrimination, not the labelling. And yes - the two are completely intertwined... so we might be saying pretty much the same thing.
The blog as an instrument of social change - 1 megabyte at a time!(sorry, couldn't resist)
Seriously, though - am inclined to agree with Mahogany, because I believe using a label itself smacks of insult (or worse) on the offender's part.
example - Hasmukhbhai calls Khodabhai a pig. Notwithstanding choice of insult (in this case, "pig"), Hasmukhbhai is out of line because: /1/ an insult has been intended, and /2/ Hasmukhbhai perceives certain chracteristics in Khodabhai, and, not necessarily thinking long enough, twists them in his mind to single Khodabhai out on their basis, thereby presupposing, and wishing others to presuppose, that having those chracteristics is not desirable.
Intentionally or not, Hasmukhbhai has sngled out all who have this characteristic, an insulted them in one fell swoop. Where does Hasmukhbhai go wrong? "not necessarily thinking long enough", which tantamounts summarily executing considerateness(aka consideration).
Contrast this with Hasmukhbhai and Khodabhai drinking in a pub (outside state limits, of course), amid laughter and many a pint, wherein such a statement is not so out of line.
Dense, what?
:)
who gave you (or me or anyone else) the right to pick what's in good humor and what's not. One man's food is also his shit.... you get the drift....
The subjectivity of context is the reason I'm trying to focus on what's visible, tangible, measurable, concerning.... discrimination.
In fact Mahog has put up a great post about JK's announcement about Albus being gay and the naive conclusion made by the British media. Calling gay people gay is a label (perceived as an insult by some people - wrongly so in my opinion)... but discriminating against them is the real issue!
@shrenik - man you're creative with names :-) - Hasmukhbhai and Khodabhai?
@gaj - tend to agree with mahog and shrenik - labeling and racially discriminating are not exclusive phenomena- to use marketing language, labeling is probably one way to "dimensionalize" discrimination. Of course not all labeling happens with an intent to discriminate, but since intent is something no one except the labeler has visibility on, its not surprising if the person who was labeled assumes the worst.Especially when the same label HAS already been used in an insulting or discriminatory context in the past.
Agree of course, that the actual discrimination is the real issue, but getting rid of labels is one way of getting rid of the discrimination - without a way (in this case a label) of categorizing people as different, it becomes harder to treat them differently as well.
your post reminded me of one of my favorite anecdotes by jerry seinfeld (i apologise in advance for butchering the quote*) from his book sein language:
"i don't get racism. why hate a whole group of people, when there are plenty of good reasons to hate an individual."
*unfortunately, every attempt to google "seinfeld + racism" yielded a lot of back + forth on the kramer incident from a few years ago, which in light of your post, also seemed appropriate.
I like Raman's comment- I dislike the generalizations (e.g.see how most Muslims are terrorists)-judging individuals is arguably valid.
And I dont think we'll ever be able to get rid of labels-that's how we simplify life's variables. So im okay being brown girl who speaks "Hindu"!
Post a Comment