Archive | Diary of a Mad Anti-Racist Woman RSS feed for this section

Colonialism is Racism

29 Nov

Canada’s educational system needs to get it together, especially when it comes to discussing colonialism.

Colonialism is an ideology of oppression that requires a hierarchical, dualistic view. When European explorers first “discovered” a world that other humans had long-since known to be there, these colonialists quickly divided humans into categories of “us” and “them,” making colonialism synonymous with racism, sexism, and homophobia.

European colonialism has always thought in binaries: god/devil, heaven/hell, man/woman, white/black, humans/nature…etc., with the former always “above” the latter. It is disappointing to me that from primary school up until post-secondary, us Canadian students are never taught to critique colonialism. Few history professors dare to expose this ideology for the white-heterosexual-male supremism that it represents. Perhaps they are scared. Or perhaps they just don’t know. Some friends of mine have said that our curriculum is Eurocentric; that it only represents the history of one group. I would go even farther and say that it is no one’s history–it is non-history.

My first experience learning non-history was back in seventh grade. Our history class consisted of memorizing a series of names: Samuel de Champlain, John A MacDonald, Christopher Columbus, and a bunch of other dead white dudes. We learned about the battles over Canada between the British and the French; the Native population was non-existent. Or maybe they just didn’t matter enough to be mentioned in our textbooks. When they were mentioned, it was in passing, such as when one of my teachers told us, “there were some Native Canadians around who allied themselves with various white male “discovers,” “explorers,” or “heroes,” if you will, but they died on contact because “they did not have the vaccinations to protect themselves against European illnesses.” Something about that phrase always made me wonder what more went on that remained unsaid in our textbooks. The vaccinations could easily have been shipped along with the thousands of Europeans coming in, but they weren’t. They weren’t because the genocide was intentional, although no teacher would ever say this aloud, in fear of being politically incorrect. Positive Aboriginal role models like Louis Reil are either ignored by the educational system or mentioned with slight contempt. And one of Canada’s cruelest politicians, Duncan Campbell Scott, is having his name purged from our history.

Canadian history is taught as revolving around the British and the French despite that the true founding fathers arrived tens of thousands of years earlier, and we are taught useless tidbits about these two colonial groups, such as who attacked who, what battle strategies they used, the various treaties that were signed and the dates they were signed on (but not what they entailed), and more political jargon. Author Adam Hochschild says “treaties are a euphemism.”

The truth about history is that it is not a dry, apolitical, and impersonal non-history. History shapes the lives of real people, especially those that remain unmentioned in our textbooks.


Orientalism still alive and kicking: UCLA girl, Macleans, and anti-Asian racism beyond The Big Bang Theory

15 May

Unfortunately, it turns out that my recent disappointment with The Big Bang Theory is only one small part of a much larger trend: anti-Asian racism in the West. This racism occurs in all media types, such as in newspapers (with these recent articles in the Canadian publications  The Toronto Star and Macleans magazine), Facebook (for example, this new Australian anti-Asian Facebook group), YouTube (as seen through the ramblings of the infamous “UCLA Girl“), and of course, hit sitcoms and films in America.

This racism is malignant and festering, and the scariest thing about it is that it doesn’t even try to be covert, as much of the discrimination in the West does. The killings of Indian students in Australia over the last year and the recent rape and murder of Asian university students Tosha Thakkar in Sydney, Australia, and Qian Liu in Toronto, Canada, expose how deep-seated this hatred is. And although I wish I could blog otherwise, this intense loathing is not limited to the sentiments of a few parochial rubes–it’s a dominant Western ideology.

The low-brow Facebook “like” titled “Trying to figure out if your [sic] in Asia or Australia when your [sic] in the city” managed to acquire over 12,000 members in a matter of days despite having a wall full of pro-colonial rhetoric and comments such as “we should shoot them on site,” while the counter-racist Facebook group “‘Too Asian’? TALK BACK” dwindles at just over 1,000 members. Meanwhile, little-miss-UCLA’s father revealed that her viral rambling was meant to be only one part of a series of vlogs that clearly neither he nor she saw anything wrong with. This isn’t even the first time that some of the most widely read Canadian publications have made gross generalizations about Asians. And despite the poor reviews for the blatantly Orientalist Sex and the City 2, the fact remains that it was still the highest grossing rom-com in 2010.

Edward Said, who coined the term “Orientalism” in his book of the same name, stresses that it is hardly a new development in Western thought. It dates back to the days of Marco Polo’s [alleged] travels to the exotic-but-inferior “East.” But nowadays, as the economies of China and India continue to expand, recent anti-Asian backlash from white-pride supporters is hitting the West hard. And this time it’s taking a different turn than back in the days of the Head Tax and the Komagata Maru.

As IT and outsourcing become the way of the future, closet white supremacists fear for their jobs, their social benefits, and what they see as their “loss of culture” as they slowly begin to realize, in terror, that due to the phenomenon of the birth dearth, our economies depend on immigrants to stay afloat. These small-minded lunatics resent every sushi restaurant they pass when they deign to make their way downtown. They grimace when they find that their walk-in doctor’s appointment is received by a olive-skinned face. They scowl when they hear fireworks on festival dates that are not known to them.

Anti-Asian racism has existed since the pre-Columbus era, but this particular wave of racism is different in one fundamental way: in these particular cases, Anti-Asian racism is almost exclusively targeting students. But unfortunately for the racists, our governments still need immigrants.

And the Western governments’ immigrants of choice? The professional, educated class.

This time, the wave of racism is tinged with a hint of not only fear of the unknown, but flat-out jealousy. Unlike stereotypes towards other racialized groups, it is the stereotype of the smart, over-achieving, academically-gifted-but-socially-stunted Asian that prevails in current media. So-called “credible” newspapers dish with condescension and mock-concern about the tribulations of the “unassimilated” Asian student while Asian actors struggle to get roles outside of “the smart one” or “the nerdy one.” Positive media representation of Asians is hard to come by, and this is only if Asian actors manage to find roles at all.

Yet even so, note the tone of envy in UCLA girl’s voice, as she rails about her annoyance at the amount of friends Asians have to call; the loud, weekly get-togethers which she’s neither been invited to nor had the privilege of holding herself; and the horrors of the Asian extended family system while she is left to “fend for herself”–something she claims Asians do not know how to do.

I don’t know, UCLA girl, with a professional class of diaspora living around the world, rapidly growing economies, and major world powers despite what you tactlessly dubbed “the tsunami thing,” Asia seems to be doing quite well for itself.

Globalization is unavoidable. Larger-scale interracial dating, Hakka restaurants, and cultural mixing are not only inevitable, but embraceable aspects of the future. Nationalism died with the 20th century. So get over it.

Racist, anti-asian sentiments in CBS’s The Big Bang Theory

28 Apr

I’ve been hearing about The Big Bang Theory for a while now, and it has been recommended to me a few times by associates within my academic circle–by friends with both Asian and non-Asian backgrounds.

Interesting… I thought to myself. A clever comedy? That could be refreshing. And of course, I was also interested to see how they would play out the character of Raj Koothrappali, as East Indians are rarely favourably portrayed (or even included) in American sitcoms.

I’ll have to admit I was less than impressed with the initial episode I watched. What had been sold to me as a “smart sitcom” seemed more like a series of dull, mildly depressing and unintelligent ramblings of grown-up Superbad characters. But it’s alright for light-entertainment before bed, I convinced myself, slightly out of desperation as there are so few quality shows on the air nowadays.

Still, there was something that didn’t quite sit right with me about the show. I even felt mildly uncomfortable watching it. After a few more episodes, I started to admit to myself that I really disliked the show’s attitude toward Raj, but once again, the critic in me acquiesced to the more naive part of myself, and I told myself that I was just being hypersensitive.

Then the racist element really started to get under my skin, and I started documenting the evidence for social observance purposes. That and blog fodder.

The first moment that I probably felt that internal burn that we all feel when we know we are being discriminated against is during the first episode, when Penny (the show’s token “hot girl,” who actually is pretty adorable) addresses Raj, and he doesn’t answer her. Her immediate response is, “I’m sorry, do you speak English?”

This problematic assumption is worsened by the fact that it is sidekick Howard who steps in and speaks for him, explaining that he cannot answer her because he is “a nerd.” Great, I said to myself, so the one time an East Indian is cast in a lead role in an American sitcom, not only is he part of a group with questionable attitudes towards women, a group so pathetic, so painfully nerdy that even I want to give them all wedgies, but he also has to be silenced.

Raj Koothrappali is robbed of his voice: a key feature of colonialism, sexism, slavery, and oppression in general. Is it the tale of Columbus, or of the scores of  humans he slaughtered, that we are taught of with semi-folklore status in our history classes today? Is it the women or the men who are noted as the prime social reformers and philosophers of their time? When we discuss politics, both national and foreign, ancient and modern, who has their say? Certainly not those whom it would be most relevant to hear from. And let’s face it, in American history, it’s the Anglo-saxon version that dominates despite the myth of the melting pot. This is what subjugation is all about.

Is Raj’s inability to speak a comedic aspect of his character, or a symptom of something more insidious in The Big Bang Theory? Why couldn’t it be the socially inept Sheldon, the uncouth and sexually repulsive Wallowitz, or even lame Leonard who is rendered with this ignominy?

Relax! You say to me. You are over-analyzing it! It’s just a show. And anyways, Wallowitz is Jewish. He is also a member of a minority group that has faced extreme discrimination in American society. So what if he spoke for Raj in this instance? He does not have the agency to be racist.

Okay, let’s agree to disagree and say that Raj’s fleeting loss-of-voice isn’t racist. But it isn’t only Wallowitz who speaks for–and even defines–who Raj is. In The Precious Fragmentation, (S3 E17), it is the leading-nerd Sheldon Cooper, a Texan of Anglo-saxon ancestry, who distinguishes Raj as “the foreigner who tries to understand our culture and fails.”

This instance draws parallels to the Hegelian master/slave dialectic, wherein the slave, through systemic oppression, is (at least initially) only able to see himself through the eyes of his oppressor. His oppressor ends up being the one who provides him with his identity.  Moreover, why is Raj’s character forever seen as an outsider incapable of assimilation? He is a smart, functional (aside from his encounters with women) member of society who speaks fluent English and almost seems to abhor anything remotely “Indian.” Yet he is not “one of them.” He is not an American, and in the eyes of Sheldon, who emblematizes not only the dorky Anglo-saxon, but also small-town, white American nerd-dom, he never will be.

The show doesn’t stop there with Sheldon’s sense of entitlement to speak as the wiser, more advanced counterpart to his foreign comrade. In The Gorilla Experiment (S3, E10), after Penny cutely throws and catches food in her mouth, Sheldon makes a condescending remark about how he dislikes when she acts “willy nilly” towards food without concern for its equitable distribution. He then addresses Raj with an uncalled-for and inaccurate attack, stating “Raj, this is essentially why you have famine in India.” This is an instance of the classic “ruler-knows-best” colonial symptom.

It doesn’t take a self-proclaimed genius like Cooper to know that India, a major exporter of the world’s food, hasn’t had a famine since after the British left. Under British rule, millions Indians died of starvation during at least 25 well-documented famines, while the colonists gained inspiration for their later behaviour in Ireland by inducing Indian famines through looting the country’s food and goods and taxing people for everything (see: The Bengal Famine, which killed 1/3 of the population, or 15 million people). Interesting how colonial thought enjoys distorting these basic facts.

In The Jiminy Conjecture (S3 E2), Sheldon even reminds Raj of his ancestral colonial connection during a disagreement where Raj remarks he would be “kicking [Sheldon’s] butt” if this argument was in his Native tongue.

“English is your Native language!” Sheldon quickly and thoughtlessly repudiates, met by the laughter of the audience.

So Sheldon can state that Raj’s Native tongue is English, however Raj is still far from an American, “failing” to comprehend its cultural norms. This attitude is typical of the British Raj, who forever tried to Anglocize India, while never agreeing that India was “Anglo” enough. For example, Sir Babington Macaulay, a hailed reformer of the Indian education system (whose role in the outlawing of all homosexual activity is conveniently ignored) and a fierce proponent of English-medium schools despite his inefficiency in the English language, had this to say about India: “I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit [sic] or Arabic, but […] a single shelf of a good European library are [sic] worth the whole literature of India and Arabia.”* Even after Macaulay had done his damage and outlawed homosexuality, Vicery Elgin still referred to homosexual amour as “special Oriental vices.”** Macaulay’s “reforms” reveal an example of the British colonial view that although India was English-speaking, it’s still not English. Their so-called “backwardness” was basically an inherent “Oriental vice.” Similarly, Raj may speak English, but Sheldon will never see him as on-par with his fellow Americans.

It’s not racist, it’s funny! you protest. Raj knows he is “the foreigner” and he plays upon it, calling his friends out on their racism and coming back with witty remarks whenever he’s faced with it! This show is far from depicting Raj’s role as that of the inferior immigrant.

Not always. Again in The Jiminy Conjecture, when the nerds meet with a cricket expert (who has just been fired) to settle their asinine dispute, he lashes out at them with comical irrationality–at least, until he gets to Raj, where his anger takes on a racist turn.

“What’s your deal?” he says to Raj, as he gives him the cat-eye. “Are they out-sourcing my job to Bangalore?” Again, this question is met with audience laughter. Raj’s retort is simply, “I’m from New Delhi.” Although this response does elicit the sense of incomprehension that educated people when confronted with extreme ignorance, I was disappointed that none of Raj’s friends stood up for him, and I was left with that same uncomfortable feeling in my stomach.

Further, I would argue that Raj’s homeland is seen as subordinate to The Land of Opportunity. In The Pirate Solution (S3 E17) when Raj faces deportation, he whines incessantly about how he doesn’t want to go back. After all, India is “hot, it’s loud, and there are so many people! You have no idea–they’re everywhere!” He rebukes the McDonald’s in Mumbai for not selling beef, degrading his culture while glorifying this ethically questionable MNC by going on and on about the wonders of animal flesh. As an animal rights activist, frankly, I was horrified to watch this episode.

Yes, this is just Raj’s opinion of India I’m discussing here, but none of the other characters even attempt to cheer him up. Rather, Sheldon suggests becoming a pirate as a suitable alternative to living in India, contending that it’s what he would do in Raj’s position. To the Big Bang nerds, India is a strange, uninteresting, faraway land they wouldn’t visit even for one of their closest friends. Howard remarks that India is a very far plane-ride away, and that instead they should “Skype.”

(I could probably find even more instances of racism in a show that is so chock-full of it, but as you can probably tell, I only watched Season 3, and I feel that that is more than enough for a lifetime.)

So overall, this is The Big Bang Theory‘s stance on India: boring, far, hot, and inferior. A place undeserving of even fact-checking before you throw a few reproachful comments its way. In fact, India is so unworthy that even Howard wouldn’t go there for his best friend, with whom he shares a latent but palpable bi-curiousity.

The end.


* Quote from Macaulay’s Minute on Education can be found here. PS–Why Macaulay took an opportunity to diss Arabia when he was supposed to be commenting on education in India will always be beyond me.

** Suparna Bhaskaran. “The Politics of Penetration: Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code,” in Queering India, ed. Ruth Vanita, p. 17. Routledge, 2002.

***Other great posts about The Big Bang Theory here and here.

****Update May 3, 2016: I love that this blog post continues to get visceral reactions from people years later. I am also amazed at all the hypersensitive people who got offended at my being offended all the while missing the irony in that.

reverse racism = non-existent

26 Apr

The recent number of blog posts and comments on news articles or YouTube pages I’ve read about the horrors of “reverse racism” and the “perks” of being a minority are deeply disturbing.* “Racialized” peoples are the ones who get the breaks and should stop whining about the myth of the unequal playing field and accept the fact that affirmative action is, in fact, just another one of our government’s confounded ways to cater to new immigrants and screw over “real Canadians.”

The truth is, that Canada is a white supremacist country. I am not trying to be incendiary. I am not trying to exaggerate; it’s a fact. You do not have to be a minority to know this, but you do have to consider your surroundings critically.

Yes, not all Canadians are racists, and yes, things are slowly but surely improving. But frankly, Canada’s hegemonic ideology towards race can best be described as backwards. This is reflected through immigration policies, hiring practices, and our struggle against police brutality. Racism is about power, and in Canada, the minorities simply do not have it. Therefore, reverse racism cannot exist–especially on an institutional level.

When humans speak out against racism, they are often branded as “reverse racists,” or “suck ups,” or derisively chirped for being too “politically correct.” I am so, so sick of hearing, and reading, and seeing this attitude everywhere I go. Even in academia.

I attend one of the largest, most urbanized, and diverse campuses in all of North America, but the battle is not even close to being won when it comes to racism.

With election time fast approaching, on one recent occasion, I made the mistake of getting into a discussion with one of my faculty admins about politics. (Ironically, the Eurocentrism in my program is so intense that is a wonder people can describe my field as “liberal arts”).** This person favoured a candidate who would close the doors on immigration. I couldn’t help but raise my eyebrows, which apparently sent the admin into some sort of frenzy:

“These immigrants! They come here, to my country, and the government gives them everything. Free houses, benefits…what of Canadian culture? It was one thing when the settlers came here—yes, they were from all over—but they all identified as Canadians.*** These immigrants, they come here, they speak their Hindu—”

“—Hindi,” I interjected on impulse. Mistake number two.

“I don’t care! I shouldn’t have to know that! I am not ignorant! These people are in my country; they should be learning about my culture.”

The admin apparently noticed the now-palpable look of horror on my face, for the admin proceeded to smile and say, “I’m just joking.” And that was it. The admin was done talking  to at me, and back to normal again. The episode was over.

Racism is ubiquitous in Canada, but it’s just below the surface. All you need to do is scratch a little to reveal the cracks. And this admin was certainly cracked.


* This problematic way of thinking is akin to the equally upsetting “of course no one chooses to be gay because no would wish to go hell!” theorization on which I will probably blog another day.

** Eurocentrism in academia: another subject for another day.

*** No, they do not get free houses. And these “benefits” are given much more generously to European immigrants. In fact, one in three homeless people in Toronto are recent immigrants. Moreover, the “settlers from all over [West Europe] were in it for the land grab, not for the “unifying Canadian identity.” I’d like to hear what an Aboriginal Canadian would have to say to this admin person!