Earlier, somebody asked if the incidence of hate crimes in the UK was worse now than in the past. The short answer is yes, immensely so:
In the three days after the bombing, police in London recorded 180 racial incidents. A total of 58 faith-related crimes were recorded, compared with one in the same period last year.Attacks have also been reported on mosques in Tower Hamlets and Merton, both in London, Telford, Leeds, Bristol, Birkenhead and Gloucester, and on a Sikh temple in Kent. [Guardian]
Today’s BBC Worldservice radio broadcast indicated that there have been additional reports of backlash related violence, but gave no further details. Before some of you start frothing at the mouth and comparing this to the violence of the bombings, there is no comparison. I was livid when the bombings occurred. Since then, it has only become more personal – my cousin was one of those lucky enough to dodge the bullet, passing through only 10 minutes before the bombs went off. There is no reason to mix the two issues though. The bombing does not justify anti-brown violence afterwards.
Not that I really disagree with most of what you’ve been saying, ennis, but the counterargument to the point above is that the culture in the United States will adjust to reduce racism (against some, anyway) in order to make sure that it has the the IT specialists it needs. Because the alternative to that is to create large classes of highly intelligent, highly educated, disempowered people, which is not something that ruling classes tend to be interested in doing–at least when they have their wits about them.
also, on further thinking…i think here might not be then. the perceived cultural-racial distance between germans and the WASPs of the 18th century was great, and similarly with italians-WASPs in the early 20th century. i am not sure if past models are the best at this point. i have argued that there is a post-religious secular subculture in the united states that many browns can assimilate too. an open social network is not created by wholesale absorption, but rather by intersections of marriage and friendship. there are other options, like conversion to christianity (aka bobby jindal). secularism and christianity don’t need to be majoritarian movements, just enough so that you have many of the Other in your extended family.
as regards “race” the wildcard for browns is that many seem to produce children with white americans who can “pass” as white ethnics, so the physical differences can be blended away quicker (like east asians, but unfortunately, not black americans, at least according to the current consensus).
I realize how useful/and in their interest it would be for muslims to be at the forefront to reduce radicalism, but I dont understand why it is their responsibility any more than why it is my responsibility as a male to “go medivial” on the sexist becaue they also have a membership in my group of being male .
I dont understand why it is my responsibility to speak for 3 million people (men) or actions of 1 billion indians or that of all americans!
I can understand that I might be more concerened about some causes affecting some groups, but it is not my responsibility any more than it is my responsibility if my brother is a murderer, because we belong to the same group called “family”
Can you explain to me why the onus must be on the tag of muslims rather than on british or on the muslims of pakistani descent, or muslims from Pakistani descent living in London or on people from south asian origin.
I hope you look at the point as a member of the said group, rather than as an outsider (in which case it would be easy for you to lump some people together and think of them as one entity). To most muslims (including the parents of the bombers), the group that carried out the atatcks seems incomprehensible. They see themselves as distinct from the bombers as we do. So, how do we divide people to a hirearcy of groups, and who do we hold most responsible ?
Can you explain to me why the onus must be on the tag of muslims rather than on british or on the muslims of pakistani descent, or muslims from Pakistani descent living in London or on people from south asian origin.
there are always debates about who is a “true christian” or a “true muslim.” the analogy i will use is that of the united states: none of my ancestors were here when the native americans were pushed off their lands, but as a citizen of this country i take the good with the bad, and have to bear some of that responsibility by virtue of the fact that i am a proud american (and shame are pride can go together). it is part of the history of this country.
now, the situation with religion is dicy, because ultimately in most contexts religion is a self-description, and voluntary. there is a common response for religious believers to use formulas to determine the bounds of the faithful. for example, after 9-11 i heard one headscarfed young woman use this logic:
1) osama bin laden is a muslim 2) muslims do not commit terrorism 3) therefore, osama bin laden could not be responsible for 9-11
this was in the week after 9-11, so i assume her skepticism disappeared upon further review. but my point is that people have to give up this excessively formulaic system and acknowledge that religious-identity-groups are dynamic systems that emerge from the bottom up. formulae might be relevant within the group, but they have less utility in relation to those outside your group because those outside do not share your belief axioms. even the catholic church, which is explicitly top-down (unlike islam) has a hard time dictating what “catholics should believe.”
anyway, the muslim terrorists come out of a muslim milieu. they profess a belief in an entity which goes by the same name as the muslims’ entity of worship. there is a good concordance in most of their beliefs and many of their practices with most “muslims.” i think there is a preponderant continuity between muslims-against-terror and muslims-in-favor of terror that does make it difficult to just say “we disown them, our hands are washed.” to use an analogy, it makes as much sense to me for a christian to disown the intolerance of the christian past because “they weren’t real christians, christianity is about love, not forcing pagans to convert for their own good.” names do have a correspondence, roughly, to reality, even if names do not dictate reality.
one final point: i think one problem is that people act as if we live in a world of platonic ideals, sealed off perfect “kinds” that we can mix and match at will. this just isn’t so, the macro world is contiuous, and on the socioloical level not necessarily deterministic or linear. i think both those who would assent to the ideat “this isn’t real islam” and that “the sword-of-islam has always been hanging over our heads” fall into the trap if idealizing the past and present. there is closer correspondence between the platonic kind and the continuous and fuzzy reality when evaluated over a very small space or period of time, but to get the most accurate reality of the world we need to abandon platonism and be willing to put principle in the service of utility.
and a final addendum: there is a difference being brown and being muslim, the former is a fixed identity, more or less, brown is a state of physiognamy, islam is a state of mind, it is a voluntary identity. that makes a difference when you ascribe “blame.”
Satish quotes
In this hysterical attempt to create some kind of concurrence between the West and Nazi Germany everyone seems to have forgotten one thing.
The fascists who are out to get everyone are Islamic Extremists who are bombing people strapping explosives to themselves and killing tens of innocent infidels whilst a bunch of lily livered liberals ignore the spread of this fascist strain and virus in the Muslim communities of the West and get everything arse side up.
Any words about that from Saurav et al, without blaming anyone else?
Get some damn perspective on where the real fascism emanates from. This psychoapths worked as teachers with children. Can we have some words on that please or is everyone too scared of offending people?
I hope the thread hasn’t died down – it is a great comment thread.
Being an Indian living in the US (meaning 1st gen FOB), I don’t like the term South Asian(that’s not surprising). Now most of the supporters of this term have argued that, here I quote,
To give a practical example, any association/group formed with the ‘South-Asian’ moniker will not be able to show support for any Indian cause if it simultaneously opposes any of the other countries – like when India and Pakistan were to go into war as an extreme example.
Now the 1.5/2nd gens could argue that they don’t need to be ‘patriotic’ to India and I agree. The problem is faced by people like me who might want to show support to such a cause but do not find space within a SA organization.
I don’t understand why some of you are outraged that Indian Hindus, Christians, atheists and especially the Sikhs in the west, would feel the need to distance their own culture from the Muslims due to the rise in islamic terrorism.
Non-indian south asians diffrentiate themselves from India whenever it is beneficial for them. Example:
I remember taking a world religions class way back in high school. Given the facile nature of the highschool curriculum, our discussion about hinduism was equally divided between the caste system and the strange gods. Naturally being the most hindu-like guy in a predominantly Jewish school, I got ridiculed for the caste system and the eleven armed gods. I should point out that I was pretty much a confirmed atheist by high school, but professing that would have been a sign of weakness/ lack of pride, so I countered by saying something about how Jewish people make such a big deal of a minor holiday like Haunnaka just cuz it happens to fall around Christmas. (it was pretty close to holiday season)
They also picked on the other hindu-like people in the class, a sikh girl and pakistani guy, both of whom quickly mangaged to distanced themselves from hinduism for obvious reasons. They were spared the taunting, and while I was no more responsible than they were for the caste system, I was essentially guilty by association.
The point of the story is that the whole idea of ‘south asian solidarity’ is a myth. Now if I was in the pakistani guy or the Sikh girl I would have probably done the same thing.
In an ideal world I firmly believe that middle class everyday innocent muslims should not have to face the kind of racial backlash that they do for the terrorist actions of a minority. Then again in an ideal world there would be no terrorism, we would all be bhai-bhai and the rest would be gravy.
But in the real world, ordinary moderate muslims are forced to regularly diffrentiate themselves from the terrorists and fundies by ‘condemning’ the terrorists and fundies do not follow ‘true islam’.
Similarly I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with Indian Americans, or other non-muslim brown folks who wish to diffrentiate themselves from the Arabs, and South Asian muslims in order to avoid the possible reprecussions from Islamic Terrorism ( to which non-muslims tend to be completely unsympathatic).
The previous point about diffrentiation is especially true since everyone on this blog always bitches and moans about cultural ignorace they find in America about desiland, heck its about time the rest of America realized that we desis are a very diverse group of mirchi lovin, cricket playing, bollywood watching (<- ain’t no shame in it), Brown folks with exotic customs and bad hairdos.
There is no such aryan invasion or fantasy.Aryans lived here from the starting,it is a theory propagated by some britishers and followed by historians like bipan chandra and romila thapar,If aryans killed dravidians and drove them south then why is there no evidence of mass murder,why then they both profess hinduism.Arayans were the most educataed people and civilised.These muslims,barbaric and jehadic concept,carried there religion either by killing or converting by the sword.Marathas fought these muslims,Sikh religion was formed out of hindus to protect the kashmiri pandits and i am proud of it.I know least about britain,In dindia every body is free,Gujarat aws there because there muslims regarded themselves as muslims first and indians later and then they burnt 58 karsevaks,so retaliation got to be there,barring that they are not being other incidents.Has any muslim board or ulema has issued any fatwa against Osmaa bin laden. Either muslims have to tell whats written in quran,and we ave to take them in our fold and become inclusive too.But the real thing is when would it all stop in the name of Islam and killing the non beleivers.Its totally bullshit stuff and this part should be discussed and its validity should be debated in todays context
romila thapar
she spends a whole chapter in her most recent book discussing why it wasn’t an invasion. again, i rest safe in the conviction that americans have little to fear from india’s “knowledge” sector.
Epoch said:
It is very revealing the way that you conflate hinduism and India. It’s precisely for that reason that I don’t identify myself as Indian, because too many Indians think that really, at its heart, it’s all about Hinduism.
Satish quotes
Prem quotes
I never meant to compare anybody to Nazi Germany. My apologies if it sounded like that. Perhaps, the poem would have been better served without the context.
The purpose was simple:
People have argued here that distancing yourself from muslims makes you less vulnerable to be cast in negative light (and say as an extension would reduce hate crimes directed against you because you would not be considered a muslim).
My point was that distancing yourself will only have very little impact on how you are percieved, and only a marginal impact on your susceptibility to hate crimes, or whatever concrete manifestations “being shed in negative light” entails. (This was a hypothesis; and I asked if anybody had any evidence how distancing oneself from the “hot seat” group benefitted the distancing group)
And hence, the effort spent in distancing oneself might be better spent on fighting bigotry (like if you were in a discussion where everybody dissing all muslims as one entity, and if you are a hindu, it is not as important to proclaim that you are a hindu, as it is give some prespective – like saying that it is too much of generalization..and here is why etc.) This, will serve everybody better in the long run, I think.
Hence, the statment that “resources are better spent showing solidarity than squabbling about what you need to be called”. And, the peom merely states this point poignantly.
Also, please note that, I am not suggesting that you say that “oh..bombers had nothing to do with Islam; they are just outliers, and it could happen to any religion”. But, I want you to be honest in your prespective: If I as a hindu, start a cult and have a series of beheadings in next 1 year; I dont think you would feel so great about being criticized for what I did, and asked to defend yourself for my actions, or think that it is ok to label all hindus as fanatics. There needs to be a prespective here, and most Muslims are just as responsible for the bombing, as you would be if I went on my crazy spree.
Regardless, I think strategically (not as a ethical principle) distancing yourself will not bring us any marked change in our perception, or our share of hate crimes….
I ask what if we spend the same time and resources dispelling myths of whatever group is presecuted right now (and not being particualrly averse to that tag being applies to us), will we see a better experience for all of us or no? I think, yes.