Via 3 Quarks Daily, I read a profile of Noon Meem Danish, an Urdu-speaking poet from Karachi who is of African descent. The author of the piece, Asif Farrukhi, makes reference initially to some places I hadn’t heard of:
Whether you think of Lyari as Karachi’s Harlem or Harlem as a Lyari in New York, for Noon Meem Danish places provide a context but not a definition. ‘I am what I am’; he explains his signature with a characteristic mixture of pride and humility. Off-beat and defiant, he was a familiar figure in the literary landscape of the ’70s and ’80s. His poems expressing solidarity with the Negritude and the plight of blacks all over the world were referred to in Dr Firoze Ahmed’s social topography of the African-descent inhabitants of Pakistan. Karachi’s poet Noon Meem Danish now makes his home in the New York state of mind, and feels that he is very much in his element there. (link)
Lyari, one learns, is a town in/near Karachi where many of Karachi’s Africans (an estimated 500,000 of them) live. Their ancestors came to Balochistan as slaves via Arab traders (Noon Meem Danish defines himself ethnically as “Baloch,” which was confusing to me until I made the connection).
The Afro-Pakistani community, perhaps not surprisingly, hasn’t been treated particularly well, according to this essay in SAMAR magazine (skip down towards the end for some disturbing references to the extra-judicial killing of African youths). It’s not surprising that Noon Meem Danish, given his penchant for poetry, would consider leaving.
Danish is pretty forthright about the difference in how he is perceived in Karachi vs. New York:
More than home, Karachi was for him the city of the torment of recognition. ‘I was black and in Karachi it was always a shocking experience when people would ask me where I came from. They would ask how come you are speaking saaf Urdu. I had to explain myself each time.’
Karachi University wouldn’t hire him, but NYU did, and now he teaches at the University of Maryland (in the foreign language department — teaching Urdu, I presume). It’s interesting to think of someone of African descent emigrating to the U.S. because it’s less racist than the place where he grew up, but there you have it.
You can see Noon Meem Danish reciting at a Mushaira on YouTube (he’s at about 2:30 2:10).
Al “Rakshabandwallah” for Holding Hands While Eating Cotton Candy
Anna, “harami” is Urdu for “Illegitmate child”. (atleast now I’m posting something somewhat relevant to the thread!)
You got that from 15? Well, here’s the quote, i’ll let other decide:
What does “chutiya” mean, then? (I honestly haven’t heard it before)
pj, we know what the words mean…they probably would shock the sensibilities of some more conservative DBDs…but I think they’re pretty cool in the context Al_Chutiya is using them.
Camille, I believe it means (pardon me here) ‘fucker’.
It means, dumb-@ss, more or less.
Camille: This should help.
I have no idea what half the words people on this forum use! I guess I’m not so well-versed in Indian slang, whether Hindi and apparently I can’t understand english written malayalam – I’m very much an ABD in that regards – so that’s what chutiya means…
Of course to the untrained ear (or the calloused one), chutiya sounds harmless enough. Less so than the english counterpart (cker). Could be the strong -CKKKK- sound that gives the english word an infinitely more expressive impact. Hence behenchod sounds much less arresting than its english sibling (sisterckkkker). A non-hindi speaking innocent bystander to conversations from our college days of yore might have suspected chutiya, behenchod, maaatharchod etc had legitimate and irreplacable functions in hindi or in our hindi-english non-sequiturs.
One vote for “Sharpton.”
I recommend “Al-word for debauchery”. I hear that’s how uncles say ‘L’.
My bad, not yours. 😉 My transliteration skillz are teh suck.
How would you see ‘fair capitalism’ working in real life ? To an earlier point you made – how would you define ‘reasonable standard of living’. I think that this would end up being a bigger mess.e.g. India that chose a mixed economy.
yes – does certain shades of money trump colour. Any ABDs who know desi parents who have railed against their parents marrying Af-Am neurosurgeons? Could it be the lack of success that they are whinging about rather than the race ? DBD parents would be against their daughters marrying a Ice-T or a Puff Daddy but would they be against marrying the erstwhile Prince of Citi or Obama (if they were single)
AlCfD, thanks 🙂
Sadly, yes.
Literally, Camille? There are only a handful of black neurosurgeons in the country (ok this is not meant to be trollish or anything, a friend actually looked into the numbers on this once and is involved with ‘diversity recruitment’ type stuff), I’d actually be curious to hear about this.
The same thought occurred to me….
oops I meant children. not grandparents of ABDs 😉
If they have – idiots.
My bad, not yours. 😉 My transliteration skillz are teh suck.
Well, I think they are better than mine 🙂
Yes, I did make that connection. I engage in that crazy, wild underground activity… called ‘reading’:
what you said:
recall asking HMF many threads ago if the KKK, since they represent disenfranchised working class whites–could really be racist by this new definition. and he, quite honestly, answered “no.”
what I said you said:
yet you in the message #15 state that I claim is the KKK is not racist (either ideologically or institutionally)
In the English language:
No – used as a function word to express the negative of an alternative choice or possibility
Not – used as a function word to make negative a group of words or a word
Would you look at that, it appears that the word I used (not) and the word you used (he answered ‘no’) bear some uncanny similarity, in that both indicate the negative of something.
You should work for CBS News. I now understand why you’re constantly accusing others of taking you out of context and misreprentaions. Projection.
Now I don’t know what your weird pedantic definition of “no” and “not” have to do with this disagreement, but clearly I repressnted your “no” as referring to instiutional racism only, not other forms of racism as you assert here:
nala, somewhat literally yes. Not a neurosurgeon, but a surgeon, nonetheless.
Camille- that’s bizarre. Did it work out in the end?
I know of African-American & Hispanic parents who objected to potential Hindu desi spouses based on religion. The discrimination goes both ways.
but clearly I repressnted your “no” as referring to instiutional racism only, not other forms of racism as you assert here:
but if thats the case then why follow up with “but if the kkk can’t be considered racist, it just goes to show how meaningless this argument is.” you didn’t qualify that with ‘institutionally racist’, which you are now claiming you intended. So lets go with that. You’re claiming because the KKK cannot be considered institutionally racist, the argument for it’s existence and effect is moot and ill-placed?
You slip right back into the pit of defining that the only “meaningful” type of racism is that which is exhibited by the KKK, which of course is what I stated here, as to your impetus for asking the question in the first place:
“This still doesn’t negate the existence of institutional racism, and white privilege. Which I can only imagine is your ultimate point, but perhaps not?”
which you didnt’ contest or answer. but all it really proves is, you have a narrow 3rd grade definition of ‘meaningful racism’, as something only the KKK is capable of exhibiting. which was and has been my point all along.
HMF:
Any definition of racism that manages to exclude the KKK is, in my view, problematic; just as any definition of obesity that manages to exclude Marlon Brando makes no sense. After all, how fat does one then have to be to make the cut?
Any definition of racism that manages to exclude the KKK is, in my view, problematic;
Obesity is something visually defined with an objective metric (weight on a scale), much less complex than something like racism is, someone who had more than a 3rd grade understanding of the term would comprehend that. Your comparison is completely ridiculous but indicative of your general statements on the topic. so no surprise.
A better example is something like ‘peculiarity’ – a socially defined term with complexity attributed to it.
for example, something could be strangely peculiar (a UFO landing in the middle of yankee stadium) or funnily peculiar (you actually attempting to make a cogent argument regd’ing racism/civil rights movement in the USA)
But both are peculiar. the existence of one doesn’t preclude the other.
The only reason institutional racism excludes groups like the KKK is because ideological racism (Dinesh Dsouza bullshit definition) shrank from the public sphere., when it was no big deal for a KKK member to hold public office (and publicly state that) there was no reason to coin a term like “institutional racism” because overt, biologically based racism WAS replete within institutions. Pity you couldnt have been born a white person during these times.
HMF:
We’re getting bogged down in an argument-by-defintion. One of my earlier points was that the much ballyhooed “blacks can’t be racist” argument, which at first seems like a radical psychological insight, is merely an argument-by-definition, ie a simple redefining of the word to exclude blacks. but such exclusion, since it relies on relations of power, would arguably exclude the KKK, as you more-or-less agree, though Akshay has different thoughts.
So its important not to get too hysterical over definitions, as is your tendency. Just because Askhay or I define racism using a different paradigm than you doesn’t mean the only racism we acknowledge is the KKK’s, as is obvious from the fact that i identified some Korean storeowners, among others, as racist on this very thread. Nor did anyone argue that institutional racism is causing the kkk’s disenfranchisement, caricature the KKK as “redneck hicks in shooting ranges” or claim the only racism that exists is “3rd grade definition of racism as a white pointy hood and absolutely nothing else” or claim that you said the KKK are not ideologically racist.
either you can’t seem to figure out when people are in agreement with you, as i’ think you’ve admitted before, or you’re accustomed to only fighting strawmen.
One of my earlier points was that the much ballyhooed “blacks can’t be racist” argument, which at first seems like a radical psychological insight, is merely an argument-by-definition, ie a simple redefining of the word to exclude blacks.
it’s not redefining of the word. racism has always included an element of power within it (and blacks were victims of that institutional power), it’s only when ideology separated from institution that the two needed to be identified as such. up until recently racism has been both ideological and institutional, they are one and the same. now, because groups like the KKK still exist, a distinction in terminology must be made.
claim the only racism that exists is “3rd grade definition of racism as a white pointy hood and absolutely nothing else”
that is your claim when you state that any definition of racism that doesn’t cover what the KKK does is meaningless or ‘problematic’ instead of posting your nonsense and saying ‘lets let other people decide” how about you actually think about what you’re writing.
” racism has always included an element of power within it “
And even the KKK are reaching back to the historical institutional power they’ve had in the past as fuel for their ideological hatred, look at their language “we’re losing the country”, “white christians built this country, we must defend it”, etc… ‘the n8ggers are taking over everything” etc.. even though they might not have direct acces into those institutions anymore, the hatred is being catalyzed by the state when they did. Racism without institutional power behind it can only do so much (and when itt does, it’s to much fanfare, like the violent acts you cheerily bring up as to ‘prove’ that blacks can be racist)
to assume b/c someones definition of racism includes the KKK means that it is restricted to the kkk (“white pointy hood and absolutely nothing else”) is a leap of logic into strawman land. You clearly don’t want to deal with the argument at hand, just your strawman contruction of it.
and every individual has power. and blacks themselves have power and can institute it. in fact, this very thread deals with non-white, presumably insitituinal, racism (especially since he was denyed a university job). often the instituional/ideological distinction is a distinction withput a differnce, since power is not a static concept.
i agree. i wasn’t claiming the kkk was not institutionally racist, i was just going by your reasoning, which you’ve now conceded, after a lot of bluster, was not a misrepresentation of your thinking. so see, i know you now even better than you know yourself.
“to assume b/c someones definition of racism includes the KKK means that it is restricted to the kkk “
what does this have to do with what YOU STATED as “a definition of racism not including the KKK as problematic” absolutely nothing. its not a straw man, its manjuman. Im saying a definition of racism can exclude the KKK and still be pretty fucking problematic if not more so.
“and every individual has power. and blacks themselves have power and can institute it.”
you’re stupid if you think an individual power can compete with institutional power.
“i agree. i wasn’t claiming the kkk was not institutionally racist,”
this is a double negative. speak english.
well i was responding to this:
and the claim you were reponding to is:
ergo, i was exposing your strawman leap of logic, that b/c my definition of racism includes the KKK, that it is restricted to the kkk
another strawman. no one made that claim
the kkk is intitutionally racist.
ਇੱਦਾਂ ਦੀ ਰਾਤ ਮੇਰੀ ਜਿੰਦਗੀ ‘ਚ ਅੱਜ ਤਕ ਕਦੀਂ ਨਹੀਂ ਆਈ, ਅਤੇ ਇੱਦਾਂ ਦੀ ਰਾਤ ਇਸ ਤੋਂ ਬਾਅਦ ਕਦੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਆਊਗੀ| ਜਦ ਉਪਰ ਵੇਖਾਂ ਨੀਲੌ ਨੂਰ ਚਮਕੇ ਇੱਕ ਹੀਰੇ ਜਿਹੇ ਤੋਂ ਚੰਦਕਿਰਨਾਂ ਮੇਰੇ ਮà©à©±à¨–ੜੇ ਤੇ ਨੱਚੀਆਂ| as good it gets
On a positive note, I am thrilled to see that the experiences of Afro-South Asians, much less their very existance in and outside of the sub-continent, are being discussed by the South Asian community.