Road to racism and more : Part 2

Now, in continuation of my( if you did not read it, you should read it first) Part 1 of this controversial and undoubtedly delicate topic, I assume the post from where I left the previous one. I embedded a link in the blog so that you could see what the Americans really think of the N-word. So I thought over the issue, but you know if you try and tackle the issue in one go you are sure to end messed up, dazzled, tired and surely still confused. I read this article in the newspapers some months back as how the Africans who now seem to be everywhere in Mumbai complained of being subjects of racism. I wonder though, what exactly is it that defines a racist act? I mean, as I said before calling someone a monkey, whether the person actually looks like one or not, is not (to my mind) an act of racism. But then we had the whole deal of the Australian media taking digs at Harbhajan, accusing him of being a racist and what not. That was a bit too much. I mean, no one made a hue over when Hogg called some Indian players as basta**ds.

I cannot seem to understand as to how a country can actually accept the usage of a word as derogatory as basta**d--- a word that questions the relationship between someones parents; ridicules it, tarnishes it and insults the oldest institution by slam-dunking it--- yet fret, cry foul and condemn a person for calling one of their own a monkey! Now, did the Australians find Harbajan at fault because he was not one of their own? I guess only an Aussie can answer that one. But, in all honesty, this incident and then the kinda reactions the two incidents drew does make me feel that, in my quest towards racism, i should not give much importance to the reactions that these incidents drew. I mean after-all, it does seem a little skewed in the favour of one of their own. But I shall take one thing from this episode though. Thats the cultural perception.


The cultural take & identification

That one thing, which has been common in all racism accusations, calling some a black (at times the N-word), calling the guy a monkey, or addressing a customer as a jew by a waiter at the diner. That one thing is identification. This to me is a very crucial element of this whole saga of being a racist, and one small act by a man, one huge act by mankind towards racism. Surely the use of the N-word, the F-word, the C-word, well they are all considered bad, but then, one has got to understand that the way racism is looked at in different parts of the world is different. I mean, its hip to use the F-word these days, I did that on this blog, but then with time the usage of words once considered as very offensive does tend to not be offensive as before anymore. That has been the general trend. The youth today uses the F-word to denote a sign of frustration, something that was used to actually derogate somebody years back. This tells you that the way in which we use our words are surely but a matter and should always be viewed in context to the situation. So, when Harbhajan called Symonds a monkey, what should have first been seen was the baggage attached to word in the culture of the person who spoke it. In this case, Harbhajan. I mean, in India calling someone a monkey is surely not racist. May be down there it is. But the Australian media did its best to make Harbhajan look like a serial racist. That was bad. How they almost forgot about the words used by Hogg, words that are derogatory anywhere on this planet, and thought that they were less derogatory than a "monkey", a word that is not racist all over the world! For someone in the media and the Australian media as a whole it just showed exactly what they were wanting to achieve. You cannot adjudge a person as a racist just because he said something which is racist in your community, your culture. To be racist, the person has got to be aware of the fact that the word he used is racist and also necessary is that the use of such word is frowned upon in his cultural, even though the word might not be racist in his culture. Monkey is not racist in India, not even frowned upon, and for someone to take cover and shelter of that word and accuse a person as racist is surely in much worse taste because it undermines the real issues of racism and dilutes racist acts elsewhere.

As I started this "cultural take", with the whole issue of identification, I mean, with all this hue and cry over the identification of race one really wonders whether all that is required to be a racist is to be an identifier? What if you were walking down the road and spotted a black man and called him black? There, right there at that very time on that very spot did you become a racist? To my mind, HELL NO! When someone identifies some person as a black, or a jew or some other race, no racism is being initiated. Even the Oxford Dictionary defines racism as belief in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this; antagonism towards other races. Then how exactly does identification of race mean racism? It does not, it surely does not. Its arguably without a shred of doubt the first step in the schema of things that could be considered racist, but the act of identification on a standalone basis does not amount to racism and thus labeling someone a racist just because he distinguished between two people based on their origins and physical appearance is premature and ill-thought. Also for those who say that identification a racial difference amounts to racism, a question, a thought worries me. If someone says that calling a black man black amounts to racism, then I wanna know, how? Now, if a black man is called black whats the harm in that? How else would you describe his physical appearance. Besides, whoever believes that identification of race is racism, does that mean, that all but the white race are bad?

I mean, does that mean that you belong to a race that is so bad, that you would not even want to be identified with it? Now, Im not talking about the use of N-word, Im talking about the use of black, or calling someone a jew at the diner. Really, just because the waiter was able to identify your race and wrote it down on your bill (for reasons best known to him) he became racist? Is being a jew so bad, or any other race for that matter, that the very instance of people acknowledging your links with that race make you feel pathetic about yourself and give you a sense of injustice? If you feel so, then are you not actually saying something like,

"hey! look fellas, Im a jew (black, or whatever) and I would not like to be even reminded of where I come from and I don't even care whether you gonna be bad to me after knowing that fact. I am an equal, just like you, God created me, just that he placed me in a race that has been subject of injustice (or something that actually amounts to racism) and Im really fed up of this. All my life Ive tried to work as hard as I can to get to a point where I can be considered as an equal or one among the very limited tenants of the accepted race, and so if you identify my race of origin (doesnt really matter what you do to me after itand also something that I could not have controlled), the very instance of identifying me as a different race person Im gonna label you a racist! Whew! So, dare you call me a jew (black, or whatever). AND OH YES! I take pride in being a jew(black, or whatever)."


(will be continued in Part 3.

Drop your comments. I need to know what you people think.)