December 11, 2007
An Afro-Pakistani PoetLiterature
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).
amardeep on December 11, 2007 10:28 AM in Literature · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Amardeep, interesting post. I'm going to check out the rest of your links soon, but I looked at the youtube Mushaira first. He actually starts at 2:12. Not a nitpick - someone else starts exactly at 2:30 in the clip.
I ID'd him from this pic on this site.
Thanks, Chachaji -- I fixed it. (Incidentally, one doesn't necessarily need a pic; he's hard to miss!)
A black Pakistani named Danish. That's a 3-fer of cross-national confusion. Can you imagine the who's on first routine you could build here?
I'm saying why does Lyari have to be like Harlem just because Danish is "black?"
Also, I saw 2 Urdu speaking South Asians at Kabab King in Jackson Heights that had features we associate with "Black" I wonder if they were Baluchi or Siddhis.
Somehow I am not surprised that this Afro Pakistani poet needed to emigrate to the US due to racism. He might have come to the States for economic and career opportunities and to seek a wider audience and so forth.
I have heard (only a few) North Indians speak of South Indians as short, dark, snub nosed, etc. One Desi Aunty type from the Northern region even had the nerve to say (in Hindi) that South Indians only know how to make yogurt rice and nothing else! I have also heard (only one but his view might be representative of more) Pakistani refer to (Asian) Indians in general are inferior in looks and intellect compared to Pakistanis. In my experience, I have heard only one Tamilian Uncle dude say that Northern Indians are "not really Indians" and Telegu people are good at eating gonkura only! (My Mom and I took offense to this since we also speak Telegu).
Again that was only case, but there may be more similar opinions like his in the southern regions of India.
On top of that, a few North and South Indians have expressed ugly views that are not favorable of African Americans and people originally from the African continent in general. I can easily say many Indians tend to poke fun and discriminate against each other and other darker members of the human race.
I think I might be opening a big can of worms here but I just wanted to share my observations.
Just a quick comment about gm's comment...I'm African-American and used to teach high school. I had a couple of Indian parents who basically treated me like a servant. There is this impression in the AA community that Indians and Pakastanis think they're white (i.e. better than us) and as a result, treat us badly. Many of the darker skinned ones don't want to be lumped in the melting pot with AAs. Unfortunately, here in America, people are still judged by skin color no matter where you originate from.
I currently work with a number of Indians who respect me and what I can offer them (I tutor their children). I think we all need to stop judging each other and take the time to get to know one another. When I wished my students a Happy Diwali, they nearly fell off their chairs. I guess as an AA, I'm not supposed to know what Diwali is.
Unfortunately, this article doesn't surprise me at all. Despite our knack for picking up on racism against desis, I've noticed an incredible amount of anti-black sentiment among the Indians and Pakistanis I've known.
To this day I have to refrain from violence when I hear uncles and aunties worry about all the 'kalus' in my neighborhood.
TrevLove, while the rest of your comment is unfortunately true (in spirit) even in this day and age, the surprise for a Diwali greeting is not an AA-specific phenomenon. I'm pretty sure that anyone who didn't look obviously South Asian would have got the same reaction with the same audience.
Gm, as I read that line, I was thinking that I could live on thayir sadam as long as I have gongura, and bang! Three lines later, I read about an attack on gongura. Sigh! Building ethnic slurs out of foods displays the tolerance of a bigot with the sophistication of a kindergarten food fight.
Amardeep, I find that Lyari is described as a "slum...where most people support Bhutto", which suffered a bomb blast recently. Is this the same event described in Vinod's post?
great name. if i didn't know any better i'd asume he's one of frank zappa's kids. wonder if his poems rhyme.
Yes, Lyari is slum. Yes, it is to the Bhutto family what (I think) Amethi is to the Indian Gandhis -- a family stronghold.
They treat their children badly too, when they marry African Americans. It's pathetic.
I'm confused I thought only white people can be racist.
Can't wait to see HMF blame racism against people of afro background in Pakistan by desi's on whitey.
Clueless @ 13:
You are conflating what is sometimes referred to as personal racism with what is often called institutional or systemic racism. If we are talking about systemic racism in America, then yes, only white people can be ultimately responsible for them. If we are talking about individual racism/racial prejudice, then of course anyone can engage in it.
In the case of Pakistan, discrimination based on skin color has been around forever. This kind of prejudice would easily have occurred to anyone of African descent living there with no influence from any white power. That is not, however, to say that British colonization did not add anything to the mix or help legitimize and reinforce that discrimination, meaning there may yet be a way that the dreaded "white man" is involved. :p
akshay:
on this very thread, examples of indian-americans discriminating against blacks have been given. it wouldn't take too much imagination to see how this could become systemic or intstutionalized, like the much-used example of korean grocers following blacks around or lets say vikram pandit not hiring blacks at citigroup (just hypothetical).
so this systemic vs personal stuff strikes me as a distinction without a difference, and this entire "blacks can't be racist" argument-by-definition strikes me as an intentionally racially provocative slogan meant to further some ideological notion of white privilege.
i 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." and i think he was right by the very definition of institutional racism he was putting forth. but if the kkk can't be considered racist, it just goes to show how meaningless this argument is.
Not all of the Africans of the subcontinent are necessarily descended from slaves. Many would have come as free soldiers and traders. With respect to his Baluch identity, it's worth remembering that while the British were consolidating the Raj, much of Baluchistan and Makran, as well as Zanzibar and a large strip of the African coast were all territories of the Sultanate of Oman.
It's odd, I think the (false) idea that European colonization had anything to do with S Asian color prejudice may be the only thing that the Left and the Hindu Right agree about. I am not interested in getting into this debate now, but Indians aspire to fair skin & Iranian looks because that is the phenotype associated with the Vedic cult that gained the greatest currency with the Indian ruling elites. The worker in the field associated the looks of the zamindar and the priest with privilige and social advancement, the Brit ICS officer they may have seen on occassion may as well have been a Martian.
The situation of the Siddhis must have been quite different in the feudal past. There were Siddhi lords and generals and I bet they would have been viewed as a desirable matrimonial match for the daughters of Indian Muslim upper classes. Maybe genetic analysis will show considerable matrilineal South & Central Asian DNA in the Siddhis
As per the charge of "acting white", that accusation generally says more about the people who make it. Even reading on the subway has elicited that accusation against me. I'll accept that desis have racist attitudes that must be examined and eliminated, but I think there are some self defeating attitudes in the African-American community about behaviors that are thought to be "white"
Manju,
you're clearly out of line here. Please to be taking chill pills and calming down. Reason is not welcome in responses. You must coddle and nurture tautological premises like these until they become public policy.
Wasn't the youtube clip itself in the US? Surrounded by fellow Urdu speakers, I certainly didn't see any batteries or rotting vegetables being thrown at Danish.
And when you throw in the long-suffering leg-spinner and sole Hindu on the Pakistani cricket team, it could become an incredibly complex, "Who's at slip? Who's at second slip? What's at long-on? Who's at silly point? Who's at fine leg?"
I was taunted this way by African-American youth
Manju @ 15:
It seems that HMF's definition of systemic racism is a tad different from mine, so I will refrain from further comment on that poster's intent.
It seems much of our difference is semantic. The definition of the term I employ , while intimately connected with personal prejudice (I admit the line is blurry in many places)at times, concerns biases rooted in institutions and structures, and intent is not always relevant to those instances. The Korean grocer and Vikram Pandit examples would not be institutional racism according to my definition because the grocer and Vikram do not have the capacity to enforce their prejudice on a large enough scale, through culture, law, or anything else (here you can see I am employing a sort of gradation/spectrum where I define something only of a certain magnitude as truly institutional racism). The grocery store and that one bank are not be the social institutions I have in mind, as they are too small, though they could represent specific outlets of said structures.
"this entire "blacks can't be racist" argument-by-definition strikes me as an intentionally racially provocative slogan meant to further some ideological notion of white privilege."
You are correct in noting the provocative nature of such declarations. When I use them myself, that is often exactly what I intend; not an offensive assault, but a call/provocation to analysis and discussion. Yes, it is in order to further the notion of white privilege, because after the hundreds of studies which I've compiled, collected, and analyzed together over the years, I cannot see white privilege as anything but a concrete, social reality. Of course, this is another case of very specific definitions. I prefer to use the term individual racism rather than just prejudice or bigotry, because that way I can call the KKK racist without an argument, although, perhaps in contrast to HMF, I do believe they benefit from structural privileges in everyday life.
AG @ 16 and Louiecypher @ 17:
My remark about a possible British influence on racial notions in Pakistan was not intended to propose the tangibility of such a connection; it was relatively lighthearted. I was thinking more that the British ideologies, which were certainly in currency throughout the Raj, could easily have made it to those specific areas even after Pakistan's consolidation, although it would be foolish to assume that these ideas would be critical factors in the Pakistani treatment of African-descended people.
To Murali Mannered: You are correct when you say that the poet N.M. Danish looked like he was well received by the US/Pakistani/Urdu speakers audience. I did mention in my post (even though I don't have any statistics - soley based on my unbiased observations) that most Desis/Pakistanis have racist views towards people of color like African Americans. At Desi gatherings (and many of my own relatives unfortunately) I often hear statements like , "Oh my daughter can marry anyone she wants as long as he is not a Kalu..." or "Kalus are lazy" etc. I feel like telling those idiots to cut the racist crap but I learned that trying to reason with people with irrational thoughts is like throwing stones at a mound of fertilizer. (That last line is borrowed from a Telugu saying, translated: "When you throw stones at a pile of crap, some of it might splatter back on you.)
I don't know how well integrated the Pakistanis of African descent are in Pakistani society. Many times in the US, some Desis (American born and Indian born) do realize we are all human and all people of color are not criminals, etc. or at least they (Desis) won't openly discriminate.
Is it just me or does anyone else cringe at the use of the word "kalu"? Perhaps because as far back as I can remember, I've always heard it in a negative context, preceded and/or followed by negative comments? I don't like it at all.
This institutional stuff goes pretty deep. I've known many desis (my generation - second, that is) who have integrated well with american society and count african-americans as friends, colleagues, etc but at the end of the day would never marry one or approve of their sibling marrying one. complex stuff.
I've met several african-americans in the past few years who have freely offered their observation and understanding of the fact that desis can't come home with a person of africa descent as a potential marriagee partner (this without any prodding or questioning or discussion of desi culture on my part).
This is funny. My brother, also a 1.5 gen, has dated black women, and would be okay with me marrying a black man - but not a Muslim. :) Which is very much an old world prejudice.
I think some of the resistance among 2nd gens doesn't come just from their desi upbringing, but also from American culture at large, especially if they grew up in mostly white middle class/upper middle class neighborhoods and travel in mostly white circles as adults.
It's not unique to desis, unfortunately. It's true of many ethnic minorities in the US--Chinese, Koreans, Armenians, Arabs, etc. I think that for the most part, when people immigrate to the US, they want to achieve the "American Dream", and they soon learn that that is difficult to do if you partner with African-Americans, so they try to distance themselves from them.
Personally speaking, I've had middle aged African-American men hit on me. One technique they oftentimes use is guilt-tripping. They would tell me about how African-Americans are disadvantaged in the US, and then try to gain my sympathy, and end the conversation with asking me out. That always turns me off, because I feel that technique is manipulative. I hate being guilt-tripped. I feel that I ought to be able to reject someone without being labelled a "racist". I also feel sorry that African-American women get slighted in the dating/marriage game (and I therefore feel sympathy for them). I feel that many times African-American men choose white-American women over their own women, and that makes me feel uncomfortable--it seems almost like they are being racist towards their own women.
Those are just my feelings. This is sort of a tough conversation, because somehow I feel like I'm not allowed to express my true feelings on things like this.
This is frickin laughably delusional. Desis are "people of color" too didnt you know?
All I want to know is........Where did ya'll grow!?
up?
Only when it politically suits whoever is throwing the term around. :)
I think that for the most part, when people immigrate to the US, they want to achieve the "American Dream", and they soon learn that that is difficult to do if you partner with African-Americans, so they try to distance themselves from them.
Really? Do people really think that? I know it's hard to be a person of color in a predominantly caucasian country, but I still think there are opportunities for people if they work hard. I believe many of us are living examples of this fact and I can count my father as one such person.
It's hardly the days of segregation or laws that banned intermarriage. The American Dream to me has always been about the underdog making it big - whether that underdog status had to do with race or socioeconomic status.
I think the aversion has to do with the concept of "otherness", not feeling comfortable with that which is not familiar. Add to that our (meaning desi) screwed up views on color and we seem to come up with the compromise that otherness is okay if it's asian or white but certainly not hispanic or black.
As far as the middle class topic (#25) i've found that some of my caucasian friends from this segment of society are perfectly okay with bringing home an educated profressional african american. don't see that happening a lot in desi circles.
Oh, I got sidetracked from the main issue.
I wanted to add that I find it sad that Mr. Danish faced so many problems in Pakistan. I actually did not know that there were African populations in Pakistan until now. I feel that since these populations have existed for a long time (or a considerable amount of time), Pakistanis should be more accepting of these minority Balochis, especially since they are culturally desi/Pakistani.
Uh, what? There are lots of Makranis in Karachi and no one ever thinks it odd that they would speak Urdu.
To #26 you kidding right most African American men marry African Amerian women,so black woman are not getting slighted in the dating game. Well I think the you should wear a sign on you that says I don't date AA's lol. But trust on this I don't think it is racist if you don't date black people I mean I know I would not lose sleep over it.I live here in the DC area and I can't tell I have seen a lot of Desi women with black men, Hell I am dating a Desi.
It looks like this black-desi relations needs A LOT more work in getting better. I hope it does. I had five or six desi roommates in college. I've seen black women date desi men and black men with desi women. What does it take to get these two groups to get along better?
Lets have a mixer
What does it take to get these two groups to get along better?
strange that he would say people get surprised when he speaks urdu. i've barely lived in pakistan yet have known about makranis since i was about 5. (ps. just like african americans, they've had quite an impact on sindhi music / culture)
i don't doubt that they are economically repressed though but that goes for about 95% of of pakistan's population as well
two issues
1) brown prejudice against blacks obviously predates the american exp. as alluded to above, it is pre-british too. the ethno-historical lit. i've seen suggests that many color words originated during the muslim period when the elite turco-persian rulers wanted to distinguish themselves from the "black" indigenous converts. there is probably some natural stratification due to the character of agriculture societies, where the masses tend to be exposed to more sunlight in the fields and so are darker. in any case, this leads to the conventionally darkest race getting crapped on (e.g., in the arab world indians are often the blacks. in nigeria the fulani are less black than the hausa and definitely the yoruba). this can be applied to a within brown context: some work on dalit consciousness suggests that groups in uttar pradesh were not comfortable aligning with south indian dalits, after all, they were aryans and south indian dalits were the lowest of the low (not only were they dalits, they were dravidian south indians!). the punjabis look down on the bengalis for being kala, and the persians look down on the punjabis for being kala, and the europeans look at the persians and see a black. people can always find someone to look down on.
2) the interaction between black americans and other ethnic groups in this country is complex and i don't think anyone does any justice to it by shoehorning it into generalizations. some of the south asian bigotry is surely the racism imbibed from american culture ("blacks are lazy and shiftless"). some of it is pre-american, after all black africans often complain about indian racism (e.g., remember the australian indigenous athlete who was mocked as a monkey? rich). but, there is also the other side of the coin: my father was regularly mocked and taunted in graduate school by young black middle and high schoolers when he first moved to the states between his last bus stop and home. now, and adult man being terrorized by adolescents might seem strange, but he's 5'4 and slight of build and he was new to the country (he hadn't purchased a car yet and the bus didn't drop him off at the front of the apartment). just as the immigrant sneers are the "lazy" and "shiftless" black, so many black youths intimidate and terrorize immigrants because they can, because they're larger, they're more culturally fluent and they're bored, and it's a way to nullify the racism they experience.
To no. 34: Doug, only 30% of adult AA women are married. There is a disparity in the dating game for Black women when it comes to Black men. Why do you think there is an influx of articles and blogs encouraging Black women to seek outside the race since there is a shortage of decent Black men?
I agree with Demon Doll, many Black men have a tendency to discriminate or have a preference for anything other than Black. Go to Minneapolis or LA if you need further confirmation. I wouldn't expect you to notice or care since you stated that you are dating a Desi female.
Back to the original topic: I find this predicament very sad, yet I am not surprised. Black people are looked down upon generally in society.
Back to the original topic: I find this predicament very sad, yet I am not surprised. Black people are looked down upon generally in society.
anyone know of this is inverted in guyana and trinidad? after all, there people of african (or part african) origin have been dominant politically or socially for some periods.
This might be of interest:
Hindu's in Jamaica
Hindu's in Jamica part two
It's a short two-part documentary by OHM.NET a Dutch/Hindu/Surinam/Diaspora tv organisation. In these two episodes the South Asians and people from African descendance are interviewed about Jamaica life and the relations between the two.
Most of it is in English. The Dutch parts are just introductions to the English spoken parts. (just ff the Dutch parts.. unless you speak Dutch ofcourse)
As for Trinidad or Guyana I don't know. As a Surinamese I can say that it is a generation thing. My grandfather did not accept anyone who was from African descendance We were not allowed to play with the African kids in the street or those who were from mixed heritage. Even my cousins who are also of African origin never got to visited our 'ancestral' home.
Nowadays it's far more excepted or kids just don't anymore bother about the pointing fingers of our parents, relatives or community.
Just an extra note: the first part is mostly about the divsion between the 'poorer' contract workers and the new 'rich' Indian immigrants. The second part focusses more on the African-Indian relation.
Speaking of institutional racism, a lot of African Americans hold the belief that the desi owned gas stations, convenience marts, pawn shops and liquor stores in economically depressed Black Areas is an institutional problem as well where the former oppressor (white) has now been replaced by the unscrupulous desi and arab immigrant who purportedly gets 'government funds' to oppress and lure the black youth with lottery tickets and cheap alcohol.
Go to any poor black neighborhood community forum and the haterade unleashed on desis who do business in those areas is disturbing to say the least. The desi business owner of course doesnt give a shit about what the area black folks think as he looks up to the police to give him protection who he usually befriends by giving them free coffee and donuts.
Razib:
Excellent analyses @ 39!
To your question @41:
Anantarupa's post will be useful, but it's important to keep in mind that since in Guyana and Trinidad & Tobago, people of South Asian origin are the majority populations (I'm not sure about government representation, though), the dynamics will be different than in Jamaica, where they are a minority population.
For two months now I have been wondering about a comment an African American man who does the yardwork in our house made. He said something about me being "more friendly and nicer and treat me with respect not like them other Indians families whose houses I work at". (Exactly his words in quotes) Being new to town and not knowing many other Indians where I live, I simply couldn't comprehend what he was trying to tell me. But now I think I get an inkling. Had no idea...That is why I love lurking on Sepia :)
since they represent disenfranchised working class whites
disenfranchised by who???? it ain't non-whites disenfranchising poor working class whites, it's rich elite whites. Hence.. it's not institutional racism that's causing their situation.
but if the kkk can't be considered racist
point me to this thread, and I'll point out yet again another misrepresented, coagulated viewpoint.
I'm surprised you haven't found a way to blame it on Punjabis (especially Jatts) yet. :)
Go to any poor black neighborhood community forum and the haterade unleashed on desis who do business in those areas is disturbing to say the least. The desi business owner of course doesnt give a shit about what the area black folks think as he looks up to the police to give him protection who he usually befriends by giving them free coffee and donuts.
I've heard people say that too, about 'government funds.' & I realize you're being kind of tongue-in-cheek, but some desi business owners do give a shit about what the area black folks think. They're friendly with customers, they make local business contacts, etc. I just don't think desi business owners are as evil and racist as some people would like to make them out to be.
After 9/11, my cousin's regular barber (who is black) told him to get out of his shop and out of the country. I doubt many desi business owners would kick out customers on the basis of race, we're too money-hungry after all.
Makes me glad I don't cut my hair!
Akshay, please stick around!
I think this story is interesting, and it reminded me of my interactions with Kenyans/Ugandans who had gone to India/Pakistan for university and returned to their countries of origin. They said that they often felt isolated, and it took some time before social barriers started to fall away. Even when they spoke fluent Urdu/Hindi/Punjabi, they had a difficult time explaining to people how their experience and presence was possible. The questions they were asked were actually really similar to the questions I've heard people who have never met someone of another ethnic/racial/color background.I actually found that it made them very sympathetic to issues of racism in the U.S. in a much different way than others. I wonder what this says about broader issues of inclusion and kindness in the des(es)?
I've heard people say that too, about 'government funds.' & I realize you're being kind of tongue-in-cheek, but some desi business owners do give a shit about what the area black folks think. They're friendly with customers, they make local business contacts, etc. I just don't think desi business owners are as evil and racist as some people would like to make them out to be.
I agree. I think a lot of the hostility is out of resentment for the 'other'.
I don't think it is hate all,I know I hate it when I walk in a store and get followed around and get treated like crap,that is one of the reasons I don't shop at mom and pop stores. But you know that black people can be business owners also. Most of these store owners talk to black people like they are lower class citizens yet they are getting money from them if they don't like black people so much and think they are being hated on go set up in a white neighborhood. I bet if I opened up a store in a "Brown" neighborhood and treated the customers like crap it would not last long before I would be thrown out. Let me get back on topic I have not really heard about too many people of African descent in Pakistan, I mist do some more digging on that.
Oh dear Lord... I sounded that bad? lol. Should watch my words and quit the '' right. ;)
razib, anyone looking down on the swedes or icelanders for being too kala?
Jellyfish and this gal who made the mistake of falling asleep in a vat of "Fair & Lovely"
who said it was. their members are generally poor, ie economically disenfranchised. by whom? i'd say by themselves and their lack of proper values. others may say the capitalistic superstructure. but no one said institutional racism.
it'll take some googling but if you recall you defined institutional racism around the concept of power. i asked how this works in today's context where the kkk is mostly powerless and shunned by respectable society and asked if they could therefore be considered racist. and i recall you answering no, which i took as an honest attempt at philosophical consistency.
but i notice you're not exactly denying it now, so why don't you just clarify yourself while i pull the quote?
i asked how this works in today's context where the kkk is mostly powerless and shunned by respectable society and asked if they could therefore be considered racist
First of all, thats a caricature of the KKK. the KKK isn't just a bunch of redneck hicks in shooting ranges.
For example, I'd consider david duke a member of the KKK.
Secondly, I don't remember the particulars, but their behavior isn't necessarily institutionally racist, rather just plain ol' traditional, paleo-racism.
And who's to say they are powerless over the people they exert their racist ideologies on. Lets says some small town in Iowa has KKK legacy, they own all the conveneince stores or barns or whatever the hell is down there. Lets say some black people need jobs, the powerless and "shunned by respectable society" KKK has institutional power, relatively speaking. Sure, Oprah can still campaign for obama, but this doesn't preclude the KKK from having some kind of relative institutional power.
but I'll say this is probably a very rare case, that doesn't take away from a deep seated racist ideology (that was at one point rooted in institutional power)
Most of these store owners talk to black people like they are lower class citizens yet they are getting money from them if they don't like black people so much and think they are being hated on go set up in a white neighborhood.
Why should they leave? They have a right to open those businesses. Nobody is stopping Blacks, Whites or anybody else from competing with them. They work hard, save their money and multiply their stores. Thats the American way. You can either emulate their success and work ethics, start saving, build up your credit and open your own store or spend your life hating on them. They are here to stay and not going anywhere.
which i took as an honest attempt at philosophical consistency
I know of no other way. I'm not versed in the art of misrepresentation as well as some others.
but if the kkk can't be considered racist, it just goes to show how meaningless this argument is
No, it just shows how meaningless clinging to a narrow 3rd grade definition of racism as a white pointy hood and absolutely nothing else, is, given wide disparities that transgress the most basic institutions society is built on (job/school/living/etc..) this is to pre-empt any bs reponse of the sort, "well YEA but look at the NBA!"
ergo, my use of the word "mostly"
.exactly. which is why blacks can be racist. everyone has the power to kill another. power and privilege is very dynamic. many racist groups, take the Nazis, represented the disenfranchised only to find themselves in power. al-quada can simultaneously be seen as a group representing those who suffer from western hegemony and colonialism and those who benefit from a powerful religious bigotry and apartheid that rules entire nations.
i agree with this paragraph of yours, which is why i think the institutional/private racism distinction is a distinction w/o a difference.
i have no idea what you're talking about. who defined raisma s "white pointy hood and absolutoely notheing else" ? strawman?
HMF, you tend to get all excited about strawman arguments in your own head that you attribute to others. on this very thread, you argue that institutional racism is not causing the kkk's disenfranchisement when no one said it was. then you complain the KKK is caricatured as poor, or as you state hysterically "redneck hicks in shooting ranges" when no one said they're all poor. finally, you try to discredit the "3rd grade definition of racism as a white pointy hood and absolutely nothing else" when no one defined it as such.
and of course you repeatedly complain about being misrepresented, in this case about saying the kkk are not (insttiutionally) racist but then conceded "their behavior isn't necessarily institutionally racist."
i get what you're saying. you add a qualifier with "necessary" so I'll leave it to others to decide if i misrepresented you, but i don't necessarily disagree with what your saying, especially the part where the kkk sites in fact benefit from structural racism and that they do in fact have power, as we all do, which is why we can all be racist, institutional or otherwise.
@60 You are missing my point I am saying if they are having a hard time with these so called haterade black folks they should shop their wares elsewhere,I don't shop anywhere I am not wanted so they will never see my business, they can be black,white or whatever you treat me wrong in your store I am out. They can make all the money they want not hating that at all and I am sure most blacks are not, I just hate broad generalizations.
Agreed. The US is a country where ANYBODY can make money if they make the effort.
Too many people here, black, white, whatever, are genuinely lazy and do not want to put in the time and energy it requires to build up a career or business. They would rather live off of welfare and do some sort of "hustle" on the downlow. This is the story of all the metropolitian ghettos. There are some neighborhoods in this country where virtually every house has been on welfare for several generations. Several generations people!
then you complain the KKK is caricatured as poor, or as you state hysterically "redneck hicks in shooting ranges"
That was your implication when you said "represent disenfranchised working class whites"
finally, you try to discredit the "3rd grade definition of racism as a white pointy hood and absolutely nothing else" when no one defined it as such.
When you denigrate or attempt to discredit the existence of white privilege today, and downplay institutional racism by asking whether the KKK has access to it (sort of like asking if black midgets are in the NBA, no? therefore black people don't have an advantage in the mba), all thats left is assuming racism is something of the past, represented by the white pointy hood and nothing else (ie the dinesh dsouza bullshit)
as we all do
In the US, we all do, but within a white superiority framework.
exactly. which is why blacks can be racist. everyone has the power to kill another. power and privilege is very dynamic.
blacks cannot be institutionally racist, you pointing out your single examples doesn't amount to "institutional power" it marks the pointed transgressions of the rule, thereby proving the rule correct.
advantage in the mba,
nba, but I'll let you have at it with the freudian slip jokes.
Only desis who were brought to the USA specifically to be a pliable PoC minority group can progress to the middle class. Read the "Karma of Brown Folk", it is the bestest book of the 20th century. Desis play carrom all day and are fed by the munificent Kamadhenu. They did not pull themselves up by their own chappal straps, it was divine intervention. Oh Kamadhenu grant me a boon, my friends all drive Porsches I must make amends
I understand, but isn't it reasonable to assume that, to a certain point, one can't know what jobs are available/feasible unless one applies for it? I'm thinking about someone who's been working 40-plus hour weeks in low-paid, service economy jobs (thus the effort question is mostly answered); what if that individual could acquire a higher-paying job but doesn't do so because they're busy working hard at the lower-paying one? How much of the difference between individuals holding high and low-paying jobs has to do with them not just working hard but also 'smart' (yes i'm taking social capital, education and childhood into account but trying to see how far the brute effort v. smart effort can go in explaining the disparity)? I'm not trying to go all McArdle on this but we're down to 'reasonable assumptions' here so I thought i'd ask.
you got "redneck hicks in shooting ranges" from that? strawman again. in any case, they are mostly working class, though some are not. you're the only person who caricatured them. we actually agree. this seemingly powerless grouyp of outcasts still has tremendous power to hurt. which was my point.
by asking if the kkk is institutionally racist you got by implication that racism is a thing of the past? my positions that the kkk is racist, and their alleged lack of power is irrelevant to the question. strawman again, fighting assertions no one made.
sure, i get it. context and power matters. in this framework, blacks can't be racist, palestinians in israel can't be anti-semitic and hindus can't be islamophobes in malaysia. but American blacks can still discriminate in the business' they own, palestinian suicide bombers can get financing from Iran, and if malaysian Hindus were so inclined, i guess they could get some bombs from the ltte.
power shifts quickly.
Camille @ 52: Thank you for the kind words :) I have lurked for a while, and enjoy your comments!
Work Eat, No Work, No Eat @ 67: "Agreed. The US is a country where ANYBODY can make money if they make the effort."
I'm sorry, but this is completely untrue. This country has never operated that way; just take a look at any time in American history. I personally know impoverished Mexican workers here in NYC who have 3 jobs, no time for anything else, and who have worked like this for over a decade, but haven't and will probably never rise out of their economic bracket. If you'd like to see statistics on why several groups of people of various categories do not have easy access, if any, to this ideal path of success, I'm sure various people here, including myself, would be happy to provide.
"They would rather live off of welfare and do some sort of "hustle" on the downlow. This is the story of all the metropolitian ghettos."
The story of all metropolitan ghettos? Any such generalization is unsubstantiated and unwarranted, and it is simply not the case that laziness is the primary factor. I wonder, how much knowledge and experience do you have of the operations of social and economic power in American history?
Manju @ 63: "blacks can be racist. everyone has the power to kill another. power and privilege is very dynamic. many racist groups, take the Nazis, represented the disenfranchised only to find themselves in power. al-quada can simultaneously be seen as a group representing those who suffer from western hegemony and colonialism and those who benefit from a powerful religious bigotry and apartheid that rules entire nations."
Foreign groups cannot be discussed in terms of the institutional racism we are talking about in America, so those are no evidence for any side in this discussion. While power and privilege are dynamic, no group can contribute to the American social Imaginary and material reality the way white people can, but HMF is explaining this, so I guess I'll try and keep my nose out of this one.
Look, becoming middle class means stealing the White Man's Magic (i.e. math, science). But that means "acting white". So the choice is to remain authentic and poor living off poetry slam winnings or sell out
The biggest troublemaker for a poor person is a do-gooder motivated by altruism.
Well, even though I'm a libertarian myself, just to be fair there's a pretty well-developed argument (on the other side) that people are entitled to live in a system that produces less poverty. See, e.g., Thomas Pogge, ed., Freedom from Poverty as a Human Right: Who Owes What to the Very Poor?
The narrative of "if you work hard you will make money" completely ignores how our economic policies, domestic and international, both enable and perpetuate poverty. When I hear this comment, I honestly wonder how many people who say this a) grew up poor/lower-class, and/or b) grew up in poor neighborhoods. With that I add the caveat that I do not think a slide from a wealthy to poor to wealthy background qualifies as a "poor/lower class" background.
I have known dozens of hard-working, amazing, intelligent people who work several jobs (on the order of 80+ hours/week) to make ends meet, often with no support and no security net. They were not stupid, nor were they "working dumb;" oftentimes external factors -- including health insurance costs, rising costs of living, the high cost of child care, lack of access to credit/equity/property/financial education --, compounded their tenuous hold on a lower middle-class or working class lifestyle, forcing families to choose between basic needs or bankruptcy. There are serious and widespread issues that are both ignored and subsumed under a rhetoric, much like that provided above, that argues that the poor are lazy, indolent, and ignorant. I sincerely feel that people should be able to live in a world where decent, hard-work provides for basic needs and a moderately comfortable standard of living. In many parts of the country the real cost of living has increased substantially while the real minimum wage is now far below its 1972 levels. The bootstraps-myth is a way of ignoring the growing class inequality in this country as well as ignoring the plight of poor, working class (or working class eligible) Americans.
Oh, I also want to add that as a political economist I can't help but point to the fact that there is a theoretical assumption behind the "that is life" comment that poverty is a) natural and b) inevitable. I don't believe that either are true, but significant and equitable change would require both an acknowledgment of the problem at hand and a reconceptualization of what is "natural" to even begin to make appreciable corrections. There are political theories and remedies that assume that poverty is UNNATURAL, and among those philosophers is Adam Smith.
didn't smith believe wealth was unnatural, Camille, ie he learned form locke that poverty was the state of nature and form Hobbes that life was naturally nasty, brutish, and short. so one must never ask, he said, why someone is poor since this is natural, only why someone is rich...since this takes effort.
camille, is this really a problem in the US, at least in comparison to other countries. there has been something of a credit revolution going on for the last few decades in the US and the rise of various financial institutions, like primerica, offering financial services to the working class. not to mention the explosion of mutual-funds, index funds, discount brokerage, and online brokers that offer a cheap way for people to get into the market
this just seems so counter-intuiotve with so many illegals coming across the border. anecdotally, assuming one has strong family support and works hard, getting ahead in America is more than doable. the people who fall thru the cracks look to me like alcoholic loners. it's hard to make it alone, i'd concede that.
No, no--just saying that, in principle, the poor might have some claim to a different system. But, as we see with China over the past 15 years, markets seem like the best drag-people-out-of-poverty system ever invented!!
I hope he didn't get attacked for those cartoons of the prophet.
Manju, access to credit is a huge problem, particularly in poor communities. The presence of online brokers, and other typical credit-lenders, a la payday lenders, is often nothing short of usurious and predatory lending. Oftentimes these credit systems are NOT designed to spread financial access and pull more people into the system, but rather to turn a quick buck at the expense of a group who will likely continue to go unbanked. The current subprime mortgage debacle is a great example of non-well-intentioned, unsustainable, and irresponsible lending (coupled with a general lack of financial familiarity with terminology and processes on the part of borrowers). Additionally, it is often harder to bank poor communities (a la microcredit) than in developing countries because of both infrastructural and protocol/regulatory limitations.
I actually don't think Smith was as bleak as you describe. He did assume that there would be "winners and losers" in a natural state of things, but that gross wealth was both unnatural and immoral. The concept of the "trickle down" economy functions in the context of heavy wealth redistribution.
And to your last point re: "illegals," there are plenty of hardworking undocumented migrants who ALSO do not make it out of poverty. That said, I do think we have to measure domestic vs. migrant poverty in different ways. While not exclusively the case, in the current immigration scheme folks often do have access to some resources (e.g., family or community networks, enough wealth and/or education to come into the U.S.), whereas many working class and below working class poor do not have these same support options. With respect to domestic poverty, I think it's important to examine it in the context of a failing public education system and a hyper-aggressive prison industrial complex as well. These elements work in concert, not against one another.
Is this a sincere reflection, or a misrepresentation of my point? I just don't want to misread the tone. You can call it a close reflection of whatever one likes, but I think it's a pretty close reflection of the American dream, particularly in the context of the mythology we've built around ideas of the Pilgrim's Progress. I personally think it's possible for capitalism to work successfully and effectively WITHOUT creating poverty; however, without any controls (whether through regulation/incentives or through consumer and investor behavior/consciousness) any system can be used to exacerbate suffering.but American blacks can still discriminate in the business' they own
this amounts to a pebble being thrown at an elephant, causing it to move a micron. it's not "power shifting"
by asking if the kkk is institutionally racist you got by implication that racism is a thing of the past? my positions that the kkk is racist, and their alleged lack of power is irrelevant to the question
I agree with you, they are racist, just not institutionally (apart from the small scale). Indeed, it was the KKK's ideology demise that brought about this new turret of institutional racism, as racists needed a more subtle and less visible way to practice their craft.
yet you in the message #15 state that I claim is the KKK is not racist (either ideologically or institutionally)
this seemingly powerless grouyp of outcasts still has tremendous power to hurt. which was my point.
This is common sense.
A half-human half dog, transexual, serbo-croate but chilean born, neo-nazi, blind midget (who clearly represents a small, outcasted tiny fraction of the population - with no institutional power) can walk into a crowded room and mow it down with a machine gun - causing a lot of harm.
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?
Secondly the KKK are outcasts because of beliefs they hold (and therefore deemed unrepresentative of white america at large - hence the coexistence of ideological, KKK racism vs the more common institutional kind).
To Campmuir#23: I also hate the word "k***" and I personally never use it to refer to African Americans. However, I was just quoting other people using it and it is similar to the n word. I won't even spell it out from now on! Sorry if it caused any hurt feelings.
To Post (Melbourne Desi)#24: You pose a good question. Does money trump color?
#27(Desi Munda):
Duh, of course Desis are people of color.
Desis are definitely not white even though some Desis would like to classify themselves as Caucasian. I am not sure which line in any of my posts indicates that South Asians are whites. Perhaps I should have written "Desis discriminate against OTHER people of color" to be more clear. Sometimes when I type in a hurry proper and clear grammar (and spelling) unintentionally get thrown out the window.
gm:
It's not an issue of desis liking to classify themselves as Caucasian. The three race theory is bogus, but it was the White race theorists who devised it who put Indians in that bogus category. Even the Punju uncles I know who can "pass" say, for example, "My daughtger married a Caucasian" which implies that they don't self classify as such. The confusion arose when many surveys in the 70s/80s that asked you to self classify had a checkbox that read something like this "Caucasian (European, North African/Midle Eastern, Indian subcontinent)".
There are things that make me uneasy about how Indians & Asians relate to African-Americans, but some of you seem eager to claim more than our fair share of guilt.
this just seems so counter-intuiotve with so many illegals coming across the border. anecdotally, assuming one has strong family support and works hard, getting ahead in America is more than doable.
Its very doable compared to being in India and other 3rd world nations. However, economic mobility in the US is actually going down and its now easier to move across economic lines in France than in the US. If I remember correctly, the US is at the bottom of the Industrial Nations when it comes to economic mobility.
Manju, access to credit is a huge problem, particularly in poor communities. The presence of online brokers, and other typical credit-lenders, a la payday lenders, is often nothing short of usurious and predatory lending. Oftentimes these credit systems are NOT designed to spread financial access and pull more people into the system, but rather to turn a quick buck at the expense of a group who will likely continue to go unbanked.
Well put. Also the majority of poor people get their monies from Pay Advance, Cash Advance which provide interest rates sometimes in excess of 100%. Its not exactly credit anyway, its mostly short term loans with double digit interest monthly interest rates.
The confusion arose when many surveys in the 70s/80s that asked you to self classify had a checkbox that read something like this "Caucasian (European, North African/Midle Eastern, Indian subcontinent)".
Most federal classifications still include Arabs as white.
institutional racism according to my definition because the grocer and Vikram do not have the capacity to enforce their prejudice on a large enough scale, through culture, law, or anything else
I agree with this def'n. Not only that, even if a high ranking CEO of color wanted to practice "reverse institutional" discrimination, they couldn't pull it off (assuming the company is in the US) because they'd be held accountable by the other members of the company who'd need to be complicit (hence providing the base of the 'institution')
To 96: Al_*******_for_debauchery,
I'm curious what made you chose that handle ? That word (Ch***ya) is an extremely offensive word, and I just recoil in disgust every time I see it. I realise I have no right to comment on your choice of name and I apologise for doing so, I just wonder whether you might possibly not know exactly what it means ?
Once again, I do not intend to offend you by this comment. Just voicing something I've been wanting to ask for a very long time now. :-)
regards!
pj
I'm curious what made you chose that handle ? That word (Ch***ya) is an extremely offensive word, and I just recoil in disgust every time I see it. I realise I have no right to comment on your choice of name and I apologise for doing so, I just wonder whether you might possibly not know exactly what it means ?
Once again, I do not intend to offend you by this comment. Just voicing something I've been wanting to ask for a very long time now. :-)
regards!
I just like the sound of it and its versatility of use. I dont think its that offensive. I am sorry if offended you as that was not the intention.
Its getting old though and I am thinking of replacing it with either harami or pajama.
one vote for "harami"!