Chick Pea mentioned recently that there is a new film opening on Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, who is infamous amongst desis for summarily ejecting Uganda’s 50,000 Asians in 1972. Most of the Ugandan desis got out, and many came to thrive in places like England and Canada. We saw this discussed in Mississippi Masala, and it’s referenced in the writings of M.G. Vassanji. Unfortunately, the 300,000 Africans (most of them fellow Ugandans) who died as a result of Idi Amin’s various military campaigns and programs of internal ethnic cleansing did not have the same second chance. This is a man who caused untold suffering, and who led his country down a truly catastrophic path.
A new film on Amin, called The Last King of Scotland (in reference to one of Amin’s more fanciful titles for himself), starring Forrest Whitaker, recently premiered at the Toronto Film Festival, and seems to be generating a fair amount of buzz. The Washington Post reviews the film, and while it’s too early to really get the film’s slant, it’s a little bit worrisome to me that the director is quoted in the article saying how he really wanted to show Idi Amin as a “complex” character, and his actions as partly justifiable:
“A lot of the things he tried to do were very popular,” said Macdonald, highlighting even the expulsion of the Asian business leaders as something that had resonated with Ugandans who became shopkeepers and business owners for the first time.
The Asians, expelled in 1972, had formed the backbone of the Ugandan economy before Amin came to power.
“Amin made Ugandans feel proud to be African, and proud to be Ugandan. He was someone who tried to get rid of the colonial inferiority complex,” Macdonald said. (link)
That last sentence should be a reminder to people that it’s just as easy to commit injustices in the name of fighting colonialism as it is to do so the other way around. I should also note that it’s distressing to hear the director of the film speaking so appreciatively of a truly brutal dictator. (On the other hand, perhaps he’s simply trying to make the film sound non-depressing for the media.) Meanwhile, in London, the English National Opera is hosting the Asian Dub Foundation’s musical play about Moammar Gadhafi. As with the Idi Amin film, the project seems to be a biographical sketch of Gadhafi that aims to includes the “good” (or at least the “complex”) along with the bad. From the Guardian:
Chandrasonic has been intrigued by Gadafy since reading a book about him when he was a teenager, and sees the opera “not as a factual biography” but as a way of exploring the “modern myth and counter-myth” surrounding a man “who was considered a mad dog and desert scum” by the west, but has ended up rehabilitated and shaking hands with Tony Blair.
In the course of the opera, Chandrasonic hopes to tackle everything from the politics of oil to Gadafy’s attempts to “update the Koran with democratic, radical proposals”. Lockerbie and the Yvonne Fletcher killing “will be dealt with – we’re working out how”, and so, presumably, will Gadafy’s funding of terrorist groups and his more recent change of allegiance from the Arab to the African world.
Alex Poots, ENO’s director of contemporary arts, who commissioned the work, hopes it will go even further, to “explore the bigger picture – the lack of understanding between the Middle East and the west”.(link)
The bigger picture? Maybe there’s a bigger picture worth debating regarding the Middle East and the West, but I’m not sure Gadhafi is the best man for the job. Hm. CNN also has some worrisome quotes:
“It is not exactly opera but it makes the perfect PC (Politically Correct) musical,” The Independent newspaper said.
But composer Steve Chandra Savale of the electro-rap band Asian Dub Foundation said the opera was definitely not intended as a piece of political propaganda.
“It is more about the myth of Gadhafi. It is about the invention of a cult personality and how it fits into the international framework,” he told Reuters before opening night.
“It is about politics as ritual, politics as performance, politics as charisma. This is something that musical theatre can do.” (link)
I’m skeptical. Gadhafi is perhaps a more complex figure than Idi Amin, especially since Gadhafi seems to have “reformed” himself somewhat since the mid-1990s. But I don’t think there is really a “bigger” picture that needs to be looked at, not after Pan Am 103 and Gadhafi’s many years of supporting terrorism around the world (including the IRA, back in the day). And not after Gadhafi’s actions led to international sanctions and unprecedented suffering for the people of Libya.
It’s always dangerous to condemn art you haven’t seen, and I don’t wish to do that here — though one can respond to what an artist says about his or her subject in the media, and make an educated decision about whether it’s worth one’s time. I will definitely go see the Idi Amin film to see what they do with it, but somehow the descriptions of the ADF hip-hopera on Moammar Gadhafi don’t pique my curiosity; I’d rather go see, I don’t know, Talladega Nights. Still, it is perhaps worth discussing the fact that this is being put together by Brit-Asians (as opposed to people of Arab descent), and the actor playing Gadhafi, Ramon Tikaram, appears from his name to be South Asian as well.
kali_b (it’s like looking in a mirror) – there’s a difference between “instances” and systemic, endemic “suppression”.
Since you feel the ugandan uprising was justified by the indic suppression of the first peoples (i’m searching for a more suitable descriptor than ‘africans’) – can you provide the historical context? in a situation where the government and public institutions are run by the first peoples, i can not see how the indian-africans achieved economic success through reasons other than business acumen, hard work.
Has anyone else actually read the book, “The Last King of Scotland?” If not, I’d heartily recommend you do so before jumping on the “hate it!” bandwagon
Salil,
Actually I have read my favorite critic’s review and Joel Morgenstern says it’s a fine movie with a superb performance by Forest Whitaker. So I’ll go see it. I am not hating on the book or the movie. I am just puzzled by some commenters who are trying to subtly justify the anti-Indian violence here. And since when does trying to understand atrocity have anything to do with race?
My point for example is that whenever there is any large scale non-White ( in this case Black African ) discrimination against or outright violence upon Indians, an attempt is made to see it in any light other than racial hatred. However even an isolated case of White upon Indian violence or bias will be seen as just an example of the pervasive White racism.
hair d,
The best example I can find is:
A Theory of Middleman Minorities Edna Bonacich American Sociological Review, Vol. 38, No. 5 (Oct., 1973), pp. 583-594
This applies to Indians in Uganda before and after Idi Amin and independence.
I want to give credit where credit is due. Many African-Indians did become successful based on their hard work, but please recognize that a colonial climate or social hierarchy was created that allowed for certain ‘acceptable’ ethnic groups to attain economic success.
I will plan to read The King of Scotland. The expulsion of Asians by Idi Amin was wrong. I have empathy for all that they lost.
these have all been interesting comments and i’m upset i that i didn’t get into the discussion earlier. kenyandesis, msichana, and sriram – this would have been an excellent topic for the dc meetup. my father was one of the jinja asians made to leave uganda. my feelings on the film are complex. i saw a documentary called “idi amin dada” (i think?) last year, and do not feel it sufficiently took on the asian expulsion – rather, it glossed over it. the criticisms describing the lackluster efforts by which asians did or did not assimiliate into the ugandan culture are interesting, but not a valid discussion and/or justification of amin’s actions. so many thoughts, so little time. i have a long day ahead of me tomorrow. take care.
Dear Kali_B, thank you for digging out that article.
Judging by the title I would gauge the article argues that post-colonial society in africa was dominated by indians that the britishers brought to africa to be their arms and legs. Through their knowledge of governance and operational capability, they were in a position of power when the colonizers left – and took control of major financial institutions without being the overt oppressor. (I am just extrapolating from the title and ffrom my knowledge of East African history. So please bear with me if I’m hopelessly out of sync)
In any case, there is truth to the above. The first indians in East Africa were brought over as coolies to build the East African railways. The next wave were the shopkeepers and tradesmen. over time, they accumulated wealth and … to make it short. it was quite like the novel, animal farm. to a large extent, these indian-africans lived distinct lives – in appearance – distinct from the first peoples until (so i’ve heard) there was the terrorist attack in nairobi. this is the nineties I believe. so a lot has passed under the bridge till this time.
but effective governance should and can address these inadequacies in society. the flaw lies with the governments of the african states that they were unable to rise to the challenge of independence. the flaw lies, to some extent with the systems of governance left in place – which were unable to afro-fy the governments as per traditional governance – this last comment is a hypothesis, but to me, it is beyond my understanding why and how the ancient societies like the yoruba which were civilized and prosperous beyond belief, descended to anarchy post western civilization.
if you dont mind me asking, are you canadian?
kali_billi,
The arguments that you use – Indians were “exploiting” Africans has been used in other contexts too. Such arguments were used in Myanmar (Burma) against the Indians there too. The Chinese were (are) the targets of just such arguments in places like Malaysia, Indonesia etc. The Jews (“evil Jewish moneylender”) have been the targets of such arguments. The fact that an economically successful minority has been the target of “retaliation” is nothing new but to hear the same stupid arguments touted as justification is depressing.
The Indians used whatever opportunities were afforded them, but to call them “exploiters” is idiotic. Were the Indians “perfect”? No – but then which group – including “Africans” – can claim that? In your eagerness to run down the Indians and to “justify” Idi Amin, you do not even address the point that the main target of Idi Amin’s brutality where his fellow Africans. I think you do need to brush up on history and economics.
As to what should have been done – well, sensible economic policies instead of playing upon ethnic jealousies would have helped, surely. But I guess playing upon ethnic stereotypes – witness the “macaca” episode – is more easily done.
This was totally uncalled for. Kali_billi did not call you a macaca so don’t take it out on him/her. Besides, he/she has already apologized(#53) for the remarks made earlier.
Persecution of minorities is a reality, but situations such as the one Kali_billi describes are common too. For example, many lower castes could not take advantage of the opportunities provided by the British empire in India. Politicians such as Laloo took advantage of the resentment created by this, with the result that ultimately the educated upper castes left Bihar, and today the state is in tatters and hardly better than Uganda. Of course such events need to be condemned, but more importantly they need to be understood so that they may not be repeated.
sakshi,
This is getting bizarre. Where did I imply that kali_billi called me a macaca? Jeez…please read what I’ve written slowly and then explain how you came to your conclusion.
Yes, colonialism created conditions that some groups used to their own advantage. And the Indians who went as indentured labour certainly used those opportunities – not only in Kenya and Uganda but also Fiji, Trinidad, Mauritius etc. I do object, however, to their being labelled “exploiters.”
One can understand why the Indian economic success in East Africa, Fiji etc. would create resentment in other groups which did not enjoy the same success. However, it does not follow from this that their success was due to “exploitation.”
I did not imply that with my statement. I meant that the macaca issue was gratuitous and had no relevance here. And it was a particularly poor example in this discussion as the slur macaca is generally used against the blacks in Africa.
Firstly, kali_billi offered an academic paper as proof of his assertion that there was exploitation by Indians. No one here has gone through this paper or provided counter-arguments(though Hairy_d produced a nice synopsis). So simply declaring there was no exploitation does not prove anything.
Secondly, Kali_Billi never said that the Indians exploited the Africans, which is a much more serious charge, and is different from saying that they exploited a situation. My interpretation of his/her words is the latter(yours may be different).
You admit that:
Isn’t that another way of saying the Indians exploited the conditions created by colonialism?
sakshi,
You express yourself poorly, that’s all I can say. You make a serious charge – “Kali_Billi did not call you a macaca..” – and then when countered resort to the age old “I didn’t mean that.” Of course.
As for Bonacich’s article referred to by Kali_Billi, here’s the abstract:
“Starting with the concept of “middleman minorities” developed by Blalock (1967: 79-84),encompassing such groups as the Chinese in Southeast Asia, Jews in Europe and Indians in East Africa, this paper presents a model which tries to explain the development and persistence of this form. A key variable is the orientation of immigrants towards their place of residence, with sojourning at first, and later a “stranger” orientation affecting the solidarity and economic activity of the ethnic group. These in turn arouse the hostility of the host society, which perpetuates a reluctance to assimilate completely, or “stranger” status.”
No mention of “exploitation” here. The article appears to be a serious attempt to understand – among other things – the source of the hostility between such “middleman minority” groups and the host society but it appears to be a fairly complex explanation and not one which can be reduced to “exploitation.” The article itself is 33 years old which in academic terms means that this article has most likely been overtaken by further research. I am not a sociologist and so can’t say more in this regard.
Finally, if you concede that Indians merely exploited the conditions created by colonialism, then what is the argument about? Everyone does the same – what makes you think that the “Africans” did not do the same? Presumably, in your view, the Indians should feel “guilty” for having done so more successfully. Is that it?
I suspect there isn’t much point arguing with you so I’ll shut up and leave you to have the last word in this exchange.
I love magnanimous people :).
Sorry to barge in and spoil the party yaar but take it from someone who lived through this nightmare , most of the analysis put forth here has absolutely nothing to do with Indians discriminating Africans or Amin attempting to better his own kind. In a nutshell, it boils down to being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time……. Amin had an agenda , rest is history and if you think you can analyse this after 30 years and support him or refute him, then you may as well join Khader Khans’s sunday night discussions.. Oddly, I cannot recall going more the a couple of days without thinking about the whipping that I received at high noon on the steps of the Nile Hotel or being strip searched at Entebbe whilst my 96 year mom is in perfect balance about the events and rarely recalls life in the ” good days” …alas time conquers all….
Chickpea, I guess everyone has different experiences. I went back in both 1999 and 2001, and felt no such imminent danger. In 1999 I went with my 2 American (one desi, one Ukranian) college roomates, and there is NO WAY I (or my parents) would have taken on that kind of responsibility if we felt that walking the streets of Nairobi was a dangerous undertaking.
Both trips, I walked (alone) freely everywhere, that is, during the day. Granted, we took precautions – I didn’t wear a watch, jewellery that looked “real” (not that i owned any anyway), I wasn’t flashy, I acted like I belonged, I was friendly to people in the streets, I didn’t act afraid, I rode public transportation (matatus!!!) etc. Going out at night meant we came home not at 2/3am, but at 8am, after breakfast (no wonder Kenyans are known to “paatay like no atha”).
I wouldn’t walk most of the streets of Baltimore alone, day or night alone…surprisingly, I know more people personally here (in Bmore) who have been mugged than I know in Nairobi. But maybe it’s the people I hang with.
Also, it’s not a race thing. We tend to hear about the Asian roberries because they happen in our community, and we know how intense the desi grapevine is. It’s a socieconomic thing. Wealthy indigenous Africans get robbed too, have bars on their windows, security guards, etc. In a country where so many EDUCATED people are starving, gratuitous displays of wealth are going to get you attention…some of the negative kind….
Interesting story. One day my mom, brother and I were driving in downtown Nbi, and suddenly our car was surrounded by a ton of boys/men who started banging on all sides of the car. We were startled, and in that moment they grabbed in the front window and pinched my mom’s purse. we were so shocked, and we were travelling (by train) to mombasa that day, and our tickets and all were in the purse…oohhh the drama. The police gave us a report, and luckily the station master was a former student of my mom’s and let us on the train. When we got back from our vacation, my mm went back to work, and was puzzled when she found that some one had mailed something to her at the school. it was her purse. Inside was a note that basically appologized to “mwalimu” (‘teacher’, highly revered position in Kenyan culture) for stealing her purse. Inside, was everything except the money. the explained they were just soooo hungry they didn’t know what else to do…
My mother, who taught at a government school for 25 years, NEVER changed a tire in her life. When she got a puncture, (and believe me, if you live in Kenya, this is not a rare occurance, hence I can change a tire with the best of them!), she would pull over and in a matter of a minute or two, there would be one, two, several of her previous students there, telling her she couldn’t be late for school, so they would drop her off, get the tire fixed and deliver it back to her school. My mom is as Muhindi (desi/Asian) as they come, and has worn either sari’s or punjabi-suits to work all her life.
A lot of the people who do get mugged etc are attacked by insiders, their house help, their own security people etc. and Althought it’s not always the case, it has a lot to do with how desis treat these people. Some of the most rasisit people I know are Kenyan desis.
this is in the Kenyan context
jilted: Sorry about the late response.
Can the same argument not be turned around? We accept claims of white privilege. Then why can we not examine allegations of ‘brown privilege’ in some situations? I am not saying that it existed in Uganda. But what does it say for the maturity of a community if it cannot dispassionately evaluate complaints brought against it?
Kenyadesi, I have never been there, but my parents are currently in Kenya, and they say they have never dealt with more decent and well-behaved people.