Over at Pass the Roti, a very interesting discussion has been taking place. But it really got me thinking (thanks DesiItaliana) about 'conservative' South Asians. And though it seems an oxy-moron to many progressive friends that I know - I mean it's something that happens all the time. Anyways - DesiItaliana writes:
And there seems to be a running thread in conservatives, or hypocritical liberals- whether they are white, Indian, black, etc: their socio-economic status is relatively high. I think that we often overlook the impact and power of class, yet the tendency is to place the overwhelming emphasis on race. Look at Condi and Powell–clearly, their lives is not similar to African Americans living in Watts, or Compton. Yes, they are black, but not only. They are also of a certain class. Race, class, and gender all intersect (such as the recent “feminization of poverty” whereby the the overwhelming number of the global poor is female and of color), which must be obviously looked at. Yet in many ethnic based coalitions, the only factor taken into consideration is race. Even when there are ethnic organizations of a community that is largely wealthy- such as the Indian American one, for example- the few times that class is discussed, it’s often placed within the narrative of the majority, which is upper middle class, upper class.
Something 'bothers' me about what DesiItaliana has written... but I can't put my finger on it... so this was my response to her comments above. Anyone else?:
Yes, that is totally a huge, huge problem - and I’ve seen that with some conservative Canadians too. And it’s really, really funny how such people go to great lengths (even in this day and age) to dissociate themselves from the ‘lesser’ people of our ‘race’. Those are the ‘bad desis’ and we are the ‘good desis’. A total denial that poverty is systemic and not because ‘bad desis’ are ‘lazy and mooching off the system’. It’s all about buying into neoliberal notions of meritocracy. But even then, though I totally can’t stand such people (and I know a fair number of them - not friends by any means) I really do feel sorry for them. I mean these people are the very people who are the first to insult me and my life choices… why would I care to ‘defend’ them. I’ve written a bit about this here.
Simply because whether they like it or not, they’re conservative views are a kind of ‘protectionism’ against racism, because the very reason they ‘identify’ themselves as ‘the gold standard’ of ____ race is a defense mechanism against all racist stereotypes, I often wonder if these morons were the ones who faced the highest systemic discrimination that any of us ever faced but ended up discounting it - because it wasn’t overt. I.e. “If I’m the perfect paki well how could any other negative paki things be applied to me? You can’t make fun of my accent, you can’t make fun of my clothes, my smell, my hair, my job, my income, my education - because I’m the IDEAL and everyone else is just lazy”.
That’s why I feel really sorry for them. I don’t know how they hold it altogether without breaking to pieces, really. I know this is not the ‘right’ way to look at it and of course - I really loathe such ‘perfect people’ in my interactions with them - but at the same time, I just can’t help but really pity them.
The funniest & grossest thing is when these ppl are attacked by other non-progressive ppl in group conversation. They ‘acknowledge’ the insult right but then they are all tongue tied scrambling for an answer to combat the ignorance that this ‘dominant’ person has just spewed forth. They run for the denial excuse - “no that’s not how they do it in our culture. It’s done this way because in the vedic text they did it this way and that’s what it really means. Caste is not part of the way REAL Hinduism is practised - it’s just the way people practise it and that’s why I fund my dollars to the VHP.” Or “No India’s a really modern place, you have it all wrong - we don’t use water to clean our shit, that’s for poor people only. Most places are modern so we use toilet paper”. “Pizza, of course we eat pizza in India - we even have fedex!”.
So, it’s this ‘protectionism’ that ends up being their ultimate destruction - the agony they go to ‘justify’ to explain their entire existence just moves me to TEARS I tell you.
I also find my response on that thread 'problematic' too - but I can't put my finger on it either... I need a discussion. No one comments on my blog, but I need one. Comments are open here and at Pass the Roti... feel free to discuss at either place.
Edited to add: I don't think all 'conservatives' are 'self-haters' - the two should be read as SEPARATE but related questions...
Anyways as always - enjoy some GGM lovin (I think this kinda summarizes my take but words are failing me):
Images from: http://www. dineshdsouza. com/more/about. html
http://www. state. gov/ secretary/
23 comments:
Definitely, class is a factor in poc complacency...I still have always had trouble understanding how other upper middle-class South Asian American young people my age could maintain this level of cluelessness - though my parents fit the "model minority" stereotype in terms of class/educational backgrounds, I have always been
raised to have no illusions about the level of double standards that await me in the workplace, the presence of the glass ceiling, and about how untrustworthy police are.
I guess most our generation (S. Asian American young adults) doesn't have to deal with people pretending to not understand our accents. They may or may not get a reality check along the way. It's interesting to consider, the process of how people buy into being colluding tokens.
~S
well, there's not exactly a huge population of well off mexican/chican@s in the u.s., although from what I hear, there is a *huge* divide between well off mexicans and poor indigenous living in mexico. I think it speaks a lot that almost every mexican-american i can think of that has "made it" is some how in bed with far right ideologies--villagrosa in cali seems to be the major exception, but even he hasn't been worth of much for the working class poor mexicans/chican@s of his own community--he was the one who basically ok'd the forced removal of the south central farmers. And of the comments that I've gotten in regards to blogging about oaxaca (poor indigenous fighting for rights against rich upper class mesizos) I've gotten some really really intense comments about how those dirty natives have destroyed a beautiful city. no mention of the irony of dirty spaniards destroying a beautiful city way back when they first set foot in mexico.
I think that in the end--upper class people distance themselves from lower class people by deriding Native peoples--we're more spanish than indian, we're ranchers not sustenance farmers, our skin stays pale in the sun, etc. a lot of people I know know all about their euro heritage and almost nothing of their native heritage.
Anyway, I think that this is where creative alliances become necessary--there can be absolutely NO assumptions about who you can and can't ally with--for example, the zapatistas have really allied more with white radical anarchists across the world than they have upper class mexicans. and I know a lot of native peoples ally with conservative mostly white churches simply because they have nobody else to ally with. I think that this is where identity politics becomes very useful because you can then organize outside of "traditional" understandings of who you should organize with, but at the same time, you can absolutely draw the line where it needs to be drawn--I might ally with the local planned parenthood, for example, if I needed to get supplies for my community, but then I can end that alliance the minute PP decides they want to get into the community themselves and talk about sterilization--
Oh, and i think that's why alberto gonzalez hypes up his texan accent sometimes and not other times--prove he's purely assimilated mexican-american, you know?
~bfp
Well, I have a I guess sort of parallel "what are they THINKING?" when it comes to conservative lgb (rarely "t" that i'm aware of, frankly not so much with the lb either) folk. particularly Log Cabin Republicans. they do my head in.
It's class, of course, but I have to believe that it's got to be something else as well in those instances--lord knows an otherwise-mainstream welathy white man has plenty of opportunity to enjoy all the privilege he can eat as a conservative Democrat, or a libertarian, or whatnot; it's not as though -anyone's- going to be cutting into his pocket anytime soon. Why actively join the party that explicitly doesn't want to recognize you as a full human being? -shrug- All I can think of is Groucho Marx quipping, "I wouldn't want to be a member of a club that would have me as a member."
femi: yes, I remember being really aware of that divide when I went to Mexico City, for example.
I'm going to look over at the PtR thread in a moment, but I am wondering whether specifically wrt S. Asian-derived folk, well depending from where and when and so on obviously, but whether there isn't still a Brit colonial hangover in effect. Obviously colonialism factors no matter who you're talking about, but I mean: the salt marches are probably within some living peoples' memories still, you know?
also, I know you ID as agnostic/atheist Hindu--do you have any thoughts about how the old caste divisions do or don't dovetail with (post?)modern class divisions? i mean in or out of the diaspora.
Yes, class factors into it - but many upper-class POC also face racism (sometimes unrecognized), I think many of them fundamentally believe by being 'good models' they can 'lose their cultural baggage'... I don't know. I'm still debating all this.
BD - Yes, the entire colonial project as described Macaulay (in his 'minutes') was to make a class of 'men who were white by behaviour and education and brown in skin'... Many south asians globally were 'exported as administrators' to the rest of the colonies like the west indies, africa, fiji etc... It was the mandate of divide and rule - and that is why in all these places to this day there is tension between 'blacks' and 'indians'.
Also regarding your question - don't take this personally - I'm just not cool with answering 'generic questions pertaining to south asians' unless it's specific to the topic at hand, in this case I guess it is. Definitely, upper castes get more education/the right opportunities etc.. so when most south asians migrate to europe/north am - they are 'upper-caste' (not necessarily upper-upper caste but still). So yes, caste divisions and class divisions are intricately connected.
Understood. Thanks for your answer. I'll do more reading.
"But it really got me thinking (thanks DesiItaliana) about 'conservative' South Asians. And though it seems an oxy-moron to many progressive friends that I know - I mean it's something that happens all the time."
I'm a bit perplexed as to why you find conservative "POCs"- suprising, unless you think that "POC" are inherently and essentially "progressive" and if they are not, they are somehow deviant- meaning, "sell not". It seems to me that you place an undue emphasis on race, as if that is the all defining factor. Surely you know that variances in "POC" exist, and that there are plenty of "POC" that have for ages fucked over their own nations and peoples? It's not always about "whitey"- after all, there are always some "POC" that willfully collaborate with the powers to be, which in this day and age (and for a while about now) have been Westerners- overwhelmingly white and with a good amount of "POC" mixed into it as well.
I don't believe that issues such as oppression, subjugation, inequality, and so on can be easily simplified to race. It is definately more complex than that.
And this is why I have a problem with the liberal usage of "POC" peppered everywhere. You're constructing a group (and in effect, marking boundaries- ie white and POC), and assuming that they all have something in common, and that their issues are the same as everyone else's. You are, in essence, constructing a group and its politics and idealogy. This is where people who do not agree with you will protest that you really don't represent them and speak of their issues.
If one is to strive for cross border solidarity which goes across- well, the border, which means beyond North America-, I really think it is completely inaccurate and ineffective to title entire peoples- under the umbrella of race. I know that I have already pointed out that there are plenty of people who are not "POC" but are oppressed, exploited, treated like shit, and so on.
"Yes, class factors into it - but many upper-class POC also face racism (sometimes unrecognized), I think many of them fundamentally believe by being 'good models' they can 'lose their cultural baggage'... I don't know. I'm still debating all this."
Again, why is it difficult for you to understand the role of class? I totally agree that for some, no matter how "educated" you are, you will face a glass ceiling, etc. And this does happen- and this must be pointed out. But you do know that often, being "good models" is manifesting white MIDDLE class ideals? If race was totally determinant- as you paint it out to be- then where does the term "white trash" come from? Does that not refer to whites of a lower socio-economic status?
And another misperception here is that by being "good models" they can "lose their cultural baggagge." Again, you're simplifying the issue into either this camp or that. Do you know who the biggest funders of the Hindutva movement abroad are? Affluent Hindus. They are very well to do, conservative, and fit the "model minority" cast easily. They also do NOT want to lose their "cultural baggagge." And this desire to not lose that "cultural baggagge" takes on the form of dishing out what they have most- fundamentalism. They are "pro Hindu" and "proud Hindu" nationalists. Hindu nationalism is cultural nationalism.
www.passtheroti.com
Desiitaliana,
I agree with you about class. And in terms of 'hindutva' funders - I agree with you about that too (I can't remember where I made this comment). But even then - I have to wonder how colonialism has factored into the creation of rigid views of 'hindutva' (not to say that hindutva didn't exist before or that upper class differences didn't exist before). The logic behind it seems to be that you can reproduce a very 'sanitized' version of a 'traditional culture' to wear it as a badge. I think I need to think through that more. This is what I mean to say - the idea of 'culture' as PURE/static/HISTORICAL is also borne out of colonial ideas. I.e. that is why some 'civilizations' were more 'advanced' than others. So when we latch onto ideas of static culture in the "WEST" as DIASPORA - it's to counter the idea that we are not 'uncultured'. Obviously not the case in South asian countries.
And I agree not all POC are the same, glossing over differences is problematic - entirely. I.e. many indians in the 60's-70's came as middle class people into the country, vs. blacks who've been historically disadvantaged. I believe that is why many south asians in northe america today can literally "AFFORD" to be anti-black.
However, what I think you 'miss' is that even in the smallest labour union movements you have a lot of racists and sexists - and that is WHY many labour movements today have 'racial sensitivity training' etc... Likewise, a point that you have mentioned as well - what happens when feminization of poverty does indeed effect poorer women of colour? One campaign I can think of that took into account that 70% of labourers in both LA and Toronto were all poor WOC (from different communities) was the Hotel Worker's Rising Campaign. So basically - poverty is ALSO GENDERED AND RACIALIZED. AS is the UPPER CLASS.
So what I seem to be missing is class - but what you seem to be glossing over (from what little I have observed) is that even in 'class based' movements (and you can find this amongst upper class and lower class movements i.e. labour organizing to political party dinners) that race and gender are often ignored. Just recently attending a stupid 'progressive organization's' dinner party one white woman commented how "i must be studying camel studies - was that how I expected to make a difference?"... I was one of the 20 POC there out of 300 ppl. Obviously, I have to consider what it means to be there. Obviously, the comment was made from my percieved class status as a student, race (i.e. I do not study camels - yet she called it camel studies) and gender (would she have made the same comment to a brown man? to a white woman? to a white or brown person with a phd in camel studies?) No - i was a good target for all these reasons.
Any grouping becomes problematic - the feminist movement (i.e. where WOC are handed the shorter hand of the stick - used for their token status, worse so for poorer WOC where they really end up getting 'differential' treatment and policy decisions handed to them - ex. "birthcontrol" programs etc..). I don't believe 'race' to be the prime derivative to organizing. I do believe in the INTERCONNECTEDNESS of the three. But like you I do believe that it's a starting point - not the best way to organize - but a STARTING point.
And I'm sure both you are and I know that brown men, like any other men can be just as sexist.
I realize ALL categories are essentially meaningless. And ultimately I believe people have more in common with each other when they have common 'politics' but if they haven't adopted an understanding of the INTERCONNECTIONS of oppression - then it's virtually meaningless for them to be there.
I will respond to you on PTR too - as you've raised different points there.
PS, desiitaliana - if you look at my most recent post you get a thinking blogger award! :P
PS not a starting point - i.e. from a 'class based POC' perspective ala - the south asian networking and business organizations that I mentioned the other day at PTR (indo-canadian chamber of commerce, sapna etc...), but more so from a progressive angle (like youth solidarity summer) - which in the long run would of course only work when you have connections with other activists as well, i.e. labour movements, feminist organizations etc...
Send me an email if you can there might be some more personal examples I can offer to you.
Ack, I was being US-centric in my post, I apologize.
~ S
"However, what I think you 'miss' is that even in the smallest labour union movements you have a lot of racists and sexists"
Of course, I never dismissed that. No one is discounting that fact. I myself have pointed out that there is a feminization of poverty, and those women are often non Westerners.
What I don't agree with is this "POC" terminology which is bandied around far too much, and in effect it does solely focus on race. It doesn't take into account the very factors that you keep highlighting yourself: gender, class, and so on. I keep repeating myself that it is not only class; class, ethnicitiy, gender, and a whole slew of other factors figure into the equation of oppression, power dynamics, etc. I may have something in common with black middle class male in the sense that we are both not white. But I also know that if he was raised in a middle class neighborhood, went to the finest public schools or private schools, and so on, his privilege and experience is different from mine. This is NOT to say that class subsumes or dissipates the effects of race; in some quarters, no matter how much money he may have, no matter how many degrees he may have, he'll still be primarily identified with his race. And this is a very real dynamic.
But he and I may be in different locations. When I was in college, it was during the time of affirmative action in California public schools. Most of the affirmative action folks I met were middle class blacks who came from pretty solid backgrounds. The ones who didn't- say, those who grew up in the inner cities and so on- you would hardly see those. This is why I was a critic of affirmative action because it didn't hit the inequality where it hurts: socio-economic status. It focused only on race, as if the fact that you are black means you are poor (BTW, the majority of blacks are middle class, but the majority of the poor in the US of minorities- blacks, Latino immigrants. And the majority of women on welfare are white and live in the suburbs).
So basically, what I am saying is that it's not only race.
"So what I seem to be missing is class - but what you seem to be glossing over (from what little I have observed) is that even in 'class based' movements (and you can find this amongst upper class and lower class movements i.e. labour organizing to political party dinners) that race and gender are often ignored."
No, I never said that. I'm just taking issue with how you depict everything based on race, and hence your post about how conservative POC's seem like an oxymoron.
If class based organizations gloss over gender and race, then should we go into the racial camp, which ignores class and gender? No- there has to be a more encompassing ground for people to come together and discuss issues.
"The logic behind it seems to be that you can reproduce a very 'sanitized' version of a 'traditional culture' to wear it as a badge. I think I need to think through that more. This is what I mean to say - the idea of 'culture' as PURE/static/HISTORICAL is also borne out of colonial ideas. I.e. that is why some 'civilizations' were more 'advanced' than others. So when we latch onto ideas of static culture in the "WEST" as DIASPORA - it's to counter the idea that we are not 'uncultured'. Obviously not the case in South asian countries."
I agree. And while most of what we witness today are repercussions of colonialism, I definately don't believe-- if you look at historical accounts from another era-- that idealogies like Hindutva, and a desire for an "authentic" culture are there because of colonialism. If Hindutva was a response to colonialism, what is the Hindu idea of caste a response to?
*****
Also, if you don't get offended, may I say something? I've noticed that whenever labels like "feminist," "radical," "POC" and so on get thrown around as indicators of identity and political affiliations, those labels will only give people a reason to A) not listen to me and B)color everything that I have to say as such, and thus not really listen to me. It also doesn't help build viable bridges that can bring on real, internal change because the very use of labels plays into the dominant framework. Meaning, your politics get defined by the powers that you are counteracting.
So in same sense that you say how Hindutva, as an ideal and definition has been diametrically born out of a colonial binary (ie west= civilization, modernity, rationality, superior and east= traditional, spiritual; in other words, our definition of ourselves is based on our colonial masters' definition of themselves and us) then are we not doing the same thing when we say "POC" and uncritically engage in identitarian politics?
"PS, desiitaliana - if you look at my most recent post you get a thinking blogger award! :P "
Thanks! :)
Desiitaliana,
I never said "I think of it as an oxymoron" - I said pretty clearly that "many progressives I know think of it as one" - hence the problem with viable movements.
I agree with you, identities become counter-productive at some point. I.e. an organization that is identity based is only viable as a starting point, but ends up re-affirming the same 'distinctions' if it doesn't branch out into other communities and network with other ppls/groups.
I.e. for example take the list of south asian orgs on both PTR and My blog, there exists no such category as "south asian" - yet we create these orgs for 1)political organization 2)due to multi-cultural funding and govt programs 3) to get ppl in certain regions with certain lang/experiences to band together for a common goal.
BUT - the overall purpose of said orgs is to COUNTER racist categorization (at least that's my take - having worked with at least 4 different south asian groups), so if you want to counter 'race-based' distinctions - how do you plan to do that when you reaffirm said category? You can't - until you start connecting with other groups who have things in common with you.
The purpose of this post was simply to get other POC perspectives on the table - to raise a discussion, it's just a post, but I think the bulk of my stuff kinda reads for itself. If you agree, and I agree that I've been using an interrconnected model, then what's your point really - cause at this point, I'm not getting what you're trying to say really.
And the oxymoron bit, was really because many progressive 'POC' do see it as an oxymoron - 'like why would you vote republican/Cdn conservative when they hate you?" etc....
As for my personal story about POC it wasn't propoganda - but more so about 'solidarity' beyond just 'south asians' and extending it to other groups, and understanding the interconnectedness - and common forms of oppression.
But if that's all you seem to think about my writing - that's fine by me, I think you are pulling out a straw-POC here *wink*. And no, I'm not taking it 'personally' - it's hard for me to convey 'matter-of-factness' on the net! So sorry if I sound more hostile than I mean to - I just don't know how else to say what I want to say....
As for 'wearing labels' - most ppl don't wear them for worrying about what other's think about them - but more so as a political identity. on the net - it's easier for other ppl to find 'us' to connect with 'us' at the moment. When there isn't a need for said labels - maybe we can discard them.
And another point, PTR wears a label if it's said or unsaid - and it's a good thing, cause it helps ppl find them - and it's a good launching point for 'progressive' south asian ideas. But it doesn't discount that a label is being worn regardless.
"As for 'wearing labels' - most ppl don't wear them for worrying about what other's think about them"
You've got that wrong: far too many people throw their labels around, especially people whose political ideas have not matured yet.
Some of those who try to steer clear of wearing labels, it's not because they're worried about what others think, it's because they don't want their ideas and thoughts reduced to boxes labeled with...labels. And setting up political camps really glosses over the fact that even in politics, there are criss crosses of political beliefs, and thoughts.
"And another point, PTR wears a label if it's said or unsaid - and it's a good thing, cause it helps ppl find them - and it's a good launching point for 'progressive' south asian ideas"
You refer over and over again to the fact that I write for a "Progressive" South Asian Blog, and frankly, it seems like a straw man come back (*wink*).
To prove my point about labels boxing people in: since the blog is "progressive" and my ideas lean to the left, I'm supposed to agree with everything on the blog? Wouldn't "progressive" mean that it permits even challenges from time to time about itself?
DesiItaliana
Commenting on the fact that you write for PTR is not my point about not changing it - I'm glad you do so cause you bring a strong voice to the table - and i look forward to putting my best foot forward there more often (i think my writing is not as clear enough for PTR, so I'd prefer to write my better pieces there vs. just 'shooting the shit').
My point was that even if you 'dont wear a label' you get boxed into one anyways. I.e take for example that fellow at PTR who made the comment about youth Solidarity and said they were all marxists...
I know a few women who in casual convo will mention their pro-choice stance and get called 'rabid feminists' and these women by far arent feminists nor want to be associated with it (which is fine - because there need not to be hardlines around 'labels' anyways). the most activist type women who have made changes haven't been 'academics' or even 'activists' - just determined women who made a change.
So my point is, 'mainstream' ppl aren't morons who don't have a general idea what's going on, so you oughtn't wear/not wear a label based on what ppl expect of you, cause regardless of how you identify - you'll get boxed in. Additionally, I do find it a tad ironic that you keep mentioning the need to move out of the POC label when you operate out of a POC blog. And I'm not saying that you can't bring changes to said blog - or agree/disagree with ppl of said blog. I'm saying that having POC labels (overtly implied or intrinsically embedded) are beneficial to launch activism from, and by you posting there (as I hope to post there more, so don't kick me to the curb yet!!!) you've made that acknowledgement that it IS INDEED BENEFICIAL TO PARTICIPATE IN SAID POC LABEL and whether what you plan to do/not do with said participation COMES AFTER you've already made that acknowledgement... That's all. I.e your agreement to POC labelling comes before you've decided to 'change' things with said label...I've worked with enough south asian and mainstream orgs to know this. It's beneficial and you just do the best you can and make the connections you can - but if things become dogmatic you need to get out or branch out.
And I agree a lot of ppl wear a label without thinking it through - and that in itself becomes dogmatic. holism is always necessary...
Who knows, maybe I am not making sense - and I might come through changing my views again.
"Additionally, I do find it a tad ironic that you keep mentioning the need to move out of the POC label when you operate out of a POC blog."
Why oh why are you so fixated on this fact? I was invited to blog there, and I do. I've voiced more than often there-- if you've read the blog from the beginning- that I do find it a bit restrictive, in that I am also interested in issues that do not fall under the rubric of "South Asia". I have another venue, under my real name, that I go to so as to speak about other issues I deeply care about that do not relate to South Asia. I am a person of South Asian descent who has the view that we should be able to relate to others. I'm not taking a "POC" position. Do you instantly code PTR as a "POC" blog just because there are South Asians who write on it? If so, then unfortunately, it is obivous that you are so fixated on the term POC that you are unable to see anything beyond or outside of that.
Furthermore, the blog is not a "POC"- that term that is frankly, a bit irritating since it totally colors and peppers your entire conversation without really saying that much- it focuses on South Asians and South Asian descendents.
In any case, just bear in mind that your labels are entirely relative. Judging from this blog and your guest posts on PTR, I get the sense that your political views, ideas, and the labels you accord them are still very much A) tied into your geographic location (which is not your fault, if you have been born and raised there) and B) very much in formation. None of these things are wrong, but perhaps you may want to take a step back when you bandy around words like "leftist," "radical," "feminists," and "POC". Because what "leftist," "radical," "feminist," and "POC" mean to you have very different meanings for others, whether in North America or outside of it. "Leftists," "radicals," "feminists," and "POCs" in, say, Syria, are not always the same as in the US. Communism in Italy and the rest of Europe, for example, don't have the same connotations as they do in the US. What's considered "radical" in the US is not "radical" in Italy. Do "feminists" and "radicals" in India have the same exact views and beliefs as those in America?
If you are working for solidarity with people in Canada and the US, then your type of thinking (again, judging from your posts, since I don't know you personally) is fine. If you're mindful of international solidarity, then it is something you might take into consideration.
Anyway, take care.
I'm sorry, upon reflection, my last comment seems rude and patronizing. So rather than get impatient, let me explain what I ought to have come right out and said:
"POC" is an ideology that governs specific nations, such as the US, Canada, and to a lesser extent, the UK and other countries. But "POC" is not universally recognized or even concieved of in the expression of politics, inequalities, and so in on in other parts of the world. Furthermore, the term "POC" clouds real injustices, or it causes you to not noticed them.
Take for example the situation of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. For years, they have been treated like dirt for the most part. Many of those who fled in 1948 from Palestine still languish in refugee camps. There are two generations that have been born and raised in refugee camps in Lebanon.
There is no "color" conflict. Both Lebanese and Palestinians speak the same language, even dialect. Yet there is immense oppression, inequalities, and injustice. How would you relate to a situation like this if it is not under the rubric of "POC"? Or how about the Kurds? The Chechens under the rule and oppression of Russia?
The US is immensely biopolorized by the language of color. I've been struck over and over again when I compare my time in other countries about how much the US' society, politics, history, and so on has been on a bipolar racial axis- black/white. But this is contextual and relative to the US (and other countries, such as South Africa). Meanwhile, racism in southern Europe is not so much about color but "culture". There are Albanian refugees, who to American eyes are "white," but to Italians are a subhuman race because they are Albanian; they're "different" from "our culture." If you say "POC" to people there, they look at you blankly. Because it is not based on race (not saying that it isn't based on race at all, but it's not in the sense of the US). The issue of equality is spoken in terms of socio-economic justice, religious equality, and so on. This ties in with nationalities, as in Moroccan immigrants who are Muslim; but at times, you cannot physically distinguish Moroccans from Italians or Spaniards. It has more to do with language, socio-economic status, religious confrontations that are constructed and facilitated by the current idealogy of the "war on terror".
And when we talk about "POC" even in North America, are you including people with fair skin and colored eyes who ARE, in fact, of Arab descent but may not seem "POC" to you initially? How about Latinos who are blonde haired and blue eyed? Franz Fanon wrote that when African American organizations in the late 1800's all the way through the mid 1950's had created a transnational political alliance with Africans who were at the time fighting for independence from colonial powers, both sides of the Atlantic learned and admitted that the agenda of African Americans was not the same as that of Africans in Africa. Both groups continued to support with one another in their aspirations, but were mindful of the differences (in order to be effective).
In the end what I am saying is that the "POC" mentality and identitarian politics just don't cut it across borders. And it doesn't fundamentally change things at home, either. Isn't the point to undermine a political and socio-economic culture that defines every political, social, and economic right in the language of race? I see it as counterproductive that we use the same language and structure to demand equal distribution and rights that debilitate and stem true equality in the first place.
At this point, I think you really are going on about nothing. But that's fine.
I think it's fairly OBVIOUS that the context is North American (let's see condi and dinesh..umm yeah, and the whole slew of organizations I referred to in the links that clearly state "NORTH AMERICA"), I don't know where the heck I've stated otherwise, additionally I did clearly state on the beginning of this POST that ETHNIC MINORITIES included (i.e. white ethnic minorities - and I would say that includes greek/italian/croation/serbian etc...never-ending list really). "Belledame" a respondent here - a Jewish American, got the obviousness of 'ethnic minority' when she responded to this thread, so again - straw-'poc/ethnic minority'. maybe that is a term that you are unfamiliar with? maybe it's used differently in the US, that's what we use here to refer to skin white - but 'religiously/european' peoples.
I'm not fixated on your blogging with PTR, and I'm sorry if that's the way it seems - I just don't think that you get that whether as much as you'd like to criticize racially based identity groups (like desiclubs), there is substance and often a necessity to them and that's obvious with the necessity of PTR.
I am under the impression that you're really 'arguing for the sake of it' for what I had hoped would be a 'discussion amongst many' (similar discussions are taking place at Sylvia's). I do feel that I have adequately (often before your criticisms) addressed the very points you've accused me of 'not understanding'. I admit, I don't have a long/formal education in the humanities/social sciences - and actually came to reading/learning more via activism (in both racially identified orgs/feminist orgs/other issue-related nonprofits) first and then grad school after. So my experiences with 'organizing' come differently than most 'grad students'. Additionally, this makes me doubly cautious of how academics often wrongly frame 'the needs of organizations' when many community workers/activists are really working differently.
PS - the same criticisms were made when black feminists in the States went off about FGM practises in Africa, but failed to ally with local activist agencies - therefore recreating a kind of 'imperialist/western-centred' imposition of the 'problems' in Africa. I am aware of the often 'elitist interpretations' and 'western-centredness' of north americans when they engage in conversation about 'other countries'. I don't think I've made that claim here - most things I write about are diasporic based. And i think in this thread in particular that's fairly obvious and I don't think it was even remotely suggested differently.
Anyways, take care.
DI, upon re-reflection - if I've said anything wrong/or you would like to continue the convo - pls feel free to email me. I'm feeling kinda awkward about our convo.
Dear Aradhana,
I was just reading some of my comments to you on this post, and I can't believe I was so heavy handed with you and my tone was so harsh!
I'd like to sincerely apologize. I didn't entirely read everything you wrote, and when I agreed with you, I failed to point that out. In the end, it seemed like I was harping on what you had written. And in fact, that was what I was doing because I was only addressing what jumped out the most when I quickly skimmed what you had written.
So once again, apologies!
Hi DI,
Geez, that's very kind of you, but unnecessary. I had actually been seriously thinking about the class-factor that you mentioned. And I believe that's critical to assessing the situation of conservative "POC". And yes, I re-read some of your entries about middle-class south asians, and it makes sense.
So, though you were harsh - I'm definitely taking class-status into consideration - especially with Indo-Americans/upper class Indians.
Cheers
AD
Post a Comment