04-20-2008, 08:33 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Racism in Black & White
<img src='http://newstodaynet.com/images/stories/columns/pb.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
The white man of the West (you may include those Down Under too) has always played smart. <b>While historically his has been the hand that has consistently pinched the child and then rocked the cradle, he does them with astute adeptness.
He is the one who colonised the entire world, yet he is the champion of freedom; his imperial escapades have killed and maimed millions, still he is the loudest proponent of human rights. All his prosperity has been at the expense of the environment, yet, after having had his fill, he is now the chief gardener of a green earth.
</b>
And worst, after destroying scores of indigenous cultures and civilisations, he parades as the harbinger of democracy in those places. And through all this he has had the temerity to claim that it was his divine right, A White Manâs Burden, to civilise the world. And racism stands out as another sterling legacy of his âcivilisingâ zeal.
Being not just a pioneer but also an ardent practioner the white man tends to see any slight on him only in the light of racism. And true to his track record of inflicting wounds and then selling the balm, he is also the most vocal in the business of âredressingâ racism.
Quite altruistic of him indeed to be making amends, but only that his motives and methods are most suspect. Like the UNs, Amnesty Intels and Greenpeaces which are totally powerless when the West violates, the white manâs concerns about his own racism is also just whitewash: his prescriptions are only for others.
The scores of definitions, debates and discussions that he has spawned in the name of addressing racism actually betray an even greater racist bent of mind than real-time racism itself. And even this guilt comes with condescending undertones with the western whites trying their best to retain their prerogative as the bestower.
But, with âinferiorâ races now ruling the roost, from economic power to sports, the white manâs pain at seeing his âburdenâ slipping away is all too evident. The Aussie playersâ angst at Harbajanâs alleged racial slur only reflects the poor grace with which the whites react to such ârace reversalsâ.
So is reverse racism, then, justified? But is it there in the first place? The âmonkey businessâ is probably the first episode in which Indians are being accused of racism. And it is a comic irony that Bhajji, whose community of Sardars has always been the butt of not so flattering jokes, and which has always taken such innuendos quite sportingly, should himself be accused of racism.
That apart, in India we routinely chide fellow citizens, friends and even our own children as monkeys. Monkey-god Hanuman is easily the most popular in our pantheon. In such a country which not only refers but also revers monkeys so spontaneously, how can they be deemed derogatory or racist?
Again, if we are to accept Aussie bowler Hoggâs argument that the B-word is culturally commonplace in Australia, uttering the monkey-nama too is culturally compatible for an Indian. In any case, it is a far more decent way to address an adversary compared to Hoggâs âculturalâ standards, assuming Bhajji had indeed done that.
But we will rest the monkey case with that. Racism is at best a footnote in the larger issue of assumed supremacy that most of mankind is guilty of. By definition, racism is the act of discriminating against someone or a group based on their descent and/or physical features such as colour.
But to put a racist tag on an insult intended to hurt is to belittle its magnitude and divert its import. Much of Aussie sledging on field constitutes greater assaults on Indiansâ self-respect and character, nay, our nation itself. To dub these as merely racist is to let the offender off lightly.
Again, does a slur become serious only if it is racist? So, is trading of vulgar abuse tolerable if it is within a race? Is a racist slight the ultimate in slander? For instance, what about jihad and evangelism which are based on notions of a superior God? Really, racism pales before such âdivineâ discrimination!
...
...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<img src='http://newstodaynet.com/images/stories/columns/pb.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
The white man of the West (you may include those Down Under too) has always played smart. <b>While historically his has been the hand that has consistently pinched the child and then rocked the cradle, he does them with astute adeptness.
He is the one who colonised the entire world, yet he is the champion of freedom; his imperial escapades have killed and maimed millions, still he is the loudest proponent of human rights. All his prosperity has been at the expense of the environment, yet, after having had his fill, he is now the chief gardener of a green earth.
</b>
And worst, after destroying scores of indigenous cultures and civilisations, he parades as the harbinger of democracy in those places. And through all this he has had the temerity to claim that it was his divine right, A White Manâs Burden, to civilise the world. And racism stands out as another sterling legacy of his âcivilisingâ zeal.
Being not just a pioneer but also an ardent practioner the white man tends to see any slight on him only in the light of racism. And true to his track record of inflicting wounds and then selling the balm, he is also the most vocal in the business of âredressingâ racism.
Quite altruistic of him indeed to be making amends, but only that his motives and methods are most suspect. Like the UNs, Amnesty Intels and Greenpeaces which are totally powerless when the West violates, the white manâs concerns about his own racism is also just whitewash: his prescriptions are only for others.
The scores of definitions, debates and discussions that he has spawned in the name of addressing racism actually betray an even greater racist bent of mind than real-time racism itself. And even this guilt comes with condescending undertones with the western whites trying their best to retain their prerogative as the bestower.
But, with âinferiorâ races now ruling the roost, from economic power to sports, the white manâs pain at seeing his âburdenâ slipping away is all too evident. The Aussie playersâ angst at Harbajanâs alleged racial slur only reflects the poor grace with which the whites react to such ârace reversalsâ.
So is reverse racism, then, justified? But is it there in the first place? The âmonkey businessâ is probably the first episode in which Indians are being accused of racism. And it is a comic irony that Bhajji, whose community of Sardars has always been the butt of not so flattering jokes, and which has always taken such innuendos quite sportingly, should himself be accused of racism.
That apart, in India we routinely chide fellow citizens, friends and even our own children as monkeys. Monkey-god Hanuman is easily the most popular in our pantheon. In such a country which not only refers but also revers monkeys so spontaneously, how can they be deemed derogatory or racist?
Again, if we are to accept Aussie bowler Hoggâs argument that the B-word is culturally commonplace in Australia, uttering the monkey-nama too is culturally compatible for an Indian. In any case, it is a far more decent way to address an adversary compared to Hoggâs âculturalâ standards, assuming Bhajji had indeed done that.
But we will rest the monkey case with that. Racism is at best a footnote in the larger issue of assumed supremacy that most of mankind is guilty of. By definition, racism is the act of discriminating against someone or a group based on their descent and/or physical features such as colour.
But to put a racist tag on an insult intended to hurt is to belittle its magnitude and divert its import. Much of Aussie sledging on field constitutes greater assaults on Indiansâ self-respect and character, nay, our nation itself. To dub these as merely racist is to let the offender off lightly.
Again, does a slur become serious only if it is racist? So, is trading of vulgar abuse tolerable if it is within a race? Is a racist slight the ultimate in slander? For instance, what about jihad and evangelism which are based on notions of a superior God? Really, racism pales before such âdivineâ discrimination!
...
...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->