Japanese Racism

OK, i was sent these through a friend who is in Japan - take a look and have a laugh at the following 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Most of these seem to be triggered by the recent whaling by the Japanese in Australian waters. That will be an interesting test case before the world courts and I think that the disputed island of Pedra Branca / Pulau Batu Puteh case will provide a great precedence for any legal action taken by the Australians.

Australia has maintained a presence on Antarctica for many, many years, has tried people for criminal actions committed there - all solid proof of sovereignty. So it will be interesting to see what happens when Australia does take the case to the international courts and wins (if it does). What then? will Japan cease whaling in Australian waters? If they don't will Australia use it's military to enforce the whale sanctuary? We live in interesting times.

This all started (the videos) from a lovely 10min+ video produced by a Japanese youtube user (the video has since been removed) but a copy can be found HERE. Basically the author of the video compares whaling to the slaughter of Dingoes (a native species of wolf in Australia i think) and accused Australia of being racist against the Japanese. One of several good responses to the original video is posted HERE.

This is just more proof of the most frustrating part of dealing with racism in Japan (and elsewhere in Asia): the typical response to lampoon the country the person commenting on it comes from. Whilst it is true that no country is perfect, this doesnot preclude other countries from providing criticism of other countries on racism issues.

A good example of this can be found here. For more background information on racism in Japan you can also go here. You can also find an article on racism in Japan against visiting academics here. Another good video on Japan is here and another good article can be found here.

Finally, i have cut one of the articles above to post here in case the URL disappears, so sit back, have read (it's a long one, but worth it) and think about the issues raised. Thanks for reading and being part of the on-going struggle against racism around the world, no matter who it is perpetuated by.

Peace out
AsianRacism

ABC Radio National - Background Briefing: 11 July 1999 - Are Asians Racist?

[This is the print version of story http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s36894.htm]

Program Transcript

Kirsten Garrett: The question posed on Background Briefing today is provocative: Are Asians Racist? The program is based on a forum set up in the Mitchell Library by the Asia-Australia Institute last month, in a packed hall on a very rainy night in Sydney.

I'm Kirsten Garrett. Hello, and today you'll hear some of that forum. The Human Rights Commissioner, Chris Sidoti, opened the evening.

APPLAUSE

Chris Sidoti: The question, Are Asians Racist? is perhaps a challenge to us to address in response to those who seek to excuse racism in Australia by saying 'What's the Problem? Asians are racist, indeed even more racist than we are'.

Now of course, that kind of response is of itself a nonsense. Is it any excuse for racism in Australia to say that somebody else is racist? It's a bit like adultery: when the adulterer comes home to explain to the betrayed spouse that there was really no problem because after all, everybody else is doing it, I don't think it really provides very much comfort to the innocent victim. And it's a bit like war crimes: there is no excuse before The Hague Tribunal for the person who gets up and says, 'Well really yes, it was a war crime, but after all, everybody is doing it, even the President of Yugoslavs.'

But arguing on the basis of logic, and indeed arguing on the basis of moral righteousness, as correct as it may be, fails to address the fundamental issue that we are confronted with, by those who seek to excuse our racism by levelling accusations at others. And I think it's typical of the Asia-Australia Institute that tonight it's asking us to go beyond logic, to go beyond moral righteousness in replying by seeking to address the fundamental issue that is put up to us as a challenge to our own commitment to anti-racist policies.

We have tonight Cavan Hogue. Cavan is a retired Australian diplomat who has served in Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. His current positions are as senior adviser to the ASEAN Focus Group, adjunct professor and Deputy Chair for the Advisory Board of the International Studies Institute at the University of Technology, Sydney, Director of the National Thai Study Centre at the ANU, and consulting, lecturing and writing on a variety of international business and cross-cultural topics. He is a graduate of the University of Sydney, he's been a Fellow at the Centre for International Affairs at Harvard, and has just completed an MA in Applied Linguistics at Macquarie University.

He joined the Department of External Affairs, later the Department of Foreign Affairs, and later still, Foreign Affairs and Trade, in 1960, and he's served in Rome, Seoul, Mexico, Santiago de Chile. From 1973-75 he was Counsellor and Deputy Head of Mission in Manilla, later Minister and Deputy Head of Mission in Jakarta, later Ambassador to Mexico and Central American Republics. In '85-'86 Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York, during the period when Australia was on the Security Council. From 1987-90, High Commissioner to Malaysia and from 1991-94, Ambassador first to the USSR if you remember what that was, later to the Russian Republic and subsequently to the twelve new States of the former USSR in Europe and Central Asia.

Cavan, we invite you to speak and lead the discussion this evening.

APPLAUSE

Cavan Hogue: Thank you very much. I should say at the outset that I guess my philosophical approach is the same as Chris'. When I was a small boy, my mother used to always say when I said 'But other people are doing that', she said, 'Well yes, if someone put his head under a railway train, would you feel obliged to go and put your head on the track too?' And since my mother is still alive, I show proper filial respect.

Racism and race are a lexicographer's nightmare, because they have that Alice in Wonderland ability to mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean. Also what exactly constitutes Asia is a very moveable feast. It originally of course was part of the Roman Empire. But while I'm not quite sure what race means, and I'm not quite sure what countries are part of Asia, I am quite sure there's nothing unique or special about racism in Asia. And that of course is the kind of opening you would all expect from someone of Irish descent, even if opinions differ on whether or not the Irish are a race.

So let's start with some formal definitions and see if we get any clues from that. The Macquarie Dictionary defines racism as: 1. the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate others; 2. offensive, aggressive behaviour to members of another race stemming from such a belief; and 3. a policy or system of government based on it.

So then of course, what is race? Well, that is 1. a group of persons connected by common descent, blood or heredity; 2. a population so connected; 3. the ethnological definition of a sub-division of a stock, characterised by physical traits were transmitted in descent and then 4. a group of tribes or peoples forming ethnic stock. So you can see that there is something called race and racism which is not exactly the same as a whole lot of other communitarian differences, and this is a theme I want to develop.

For the sake of simplicity here I'll define Asia as the Indian subcontinent eastward to the Philippines, north to China and south to Indonesia. This is a totally arbitrary definition which leaves out all the countries that originally made up Asia and includes countries that were never part of the original Asia, but it's probably what most Australians have in mind when they speak of it.

To dispose of race and racism so easily is just not possible. Whatever you think should be left in or out, race is clearly a sub-set of a wider grouping of ethnic or communal groupings, and some people that argue we should completely forget about race and just talk about groups. Groups can be based on physical characteristics, which is race in the narrow definition, religion, language, dress, culture, geography, history, nationality or anything which the members perceive themselves to have in common, that sets themselves off from other people who don't have that in common.

Now sometimes you can move from one group to another and sometimes not. For example, I met a man in Guatemala some years ago, who when asked whether he was an Indio, which is a native, or a Ladino, a Latin, said well he used to be an Indio but now he was a Ladino. Now what he meant was that he was born into a traditional Maya speaking culture but he'd subsequently learned Spanish, gone to live in a city and now wore western clothes. And this was a perfectly sensible statement in this context, and on that basis he was accepted by others as having become a Ladino, which is what he wanted, and they accepted. However, it would not I imagine, have been possible for a Jew to tell the SS that he'd decided to become an Aryan or for a black to tell the Ku Klux Klan 'Well lay off fellows, I've really decided I'm going to become a white.' So some things are rooted in sort of physical characteristics that you can't change, and others you can change. And an important factor here too, is what people accept.

Much effort has been put into defining, classifying race. A hundred years ago scientists took their callipers around the world measuring skulls and waxing eloquent about dolichocephalic and brachycephalic skulls and races. Today of course, DNA and Y-chromosomes are much more fashionable, we've come a long way. Just what all these classifications really mean, if anything, is not entirely clear. And as I suggested, rather than measuring the size of heads and noses, maybe racial groups are those which are perceived to be racial groups. But the problem with this is that it excludes a whole host of groups who don't have different physical characteristics.

Now in the second half of the last century a philosophical underpinning to racism appeared in Europe, which went beyond the universal 'them and us' approach that you get everywhere. A number of European philosophers developed an intellectual framework which showed scientifically that the white race was superior to the lesser breeds without the law, and learned professors wrote learned tomes proving this beyond any possible doubt, and all rational people believed it. This was of course combined with social, or based very often on social Darwinism, buttressed by economic and military power. It was the mainstream view in Europe and its offshoots, North America or the Americas, and Australasia. It was used to justify conquests, colonialism, slavery and racially exclusive immigration policies like the White Australia Policy.

The more extreme manifestations of this philosophy were found in the Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and the South African Apartheid architects. While slightly less violent versions were to be found in the European colonial regimes. While the Third Reich and the British Empire had different solutions and very different methods, both accepted the same underlying philosophy, the same racial hierarchy. The British of course were pragmatic and thought it much more practical to exploit their subjects for the economic benefit of the British, rather than exterminating them as impure. Other colonists, like the French, the Dutch, Americans, Australians, tended to follow the British pattern in their colonies.

But whatever view you take on this detail, there can be no doubt there was this specific European philosophy of racism in its narrowest sense, which was more than just communal prejudice. It was more than just 'My mob's better than your mob because I like my mob and I don't care for your mob.' There was an intellectual framework.

So finally we get to Asia. Can we find similar theoretical approaches in Asia, or is it more accurate really to speak of communal differences? I think we can identify cases which might reasonably be called racism, cases of communal discrimination which are not really racist, and others where there's an element of doubt. The clearest cases of racist attitudes are probably going to be found in Northern Asia: China, Japan, Korea, which incidentally tend to be rather homogenous societies. The Japanese in some ways go closest to the Europeans because they do have foundation myths about the superiority of the Japanese race. Their behaviour towards foreigners has often been racist, their treatment of their colonies and conquered peoples show the same kind of arrogance as their European models. The Japanese have a well established sense of hierarchy, which they apply to races. You can see this in the treatment of minorities within Japan.

Having said that, I do suspect things are changing, and that younger people, younger Japanese are gradually shaking off these attitudes, particularly the ones who travel abroad as indeed has happened in Europe. Interestingly, the Japanese are a bit ambivalent about identifying themselves as Asian or as a world power, and they've sometimes been criticised by other Asians for this, although perhaps in that case, it's the critics who are being racist, not the Japanese. And this ambivalence goes back a long way and has been shared by Europeans. Rudyard Kipling admitted that the Japanese created something of a problem. While they were clearly not really natives, they weren't quite Sahibs either.

For centuries the Chinese have considered themselves to be a race apart and to be superior to the Barbarians around them. Chinese students going abroad were warned not to come back married to a red haired devil, a Chinese expression of course, conveying the implication that these creatures were not really 100% human. Those of you who have daughters will of course realise that very often they bring home hairy devils which are not quite human anyway, whatever their race!

But some of this could well have been cultural, and it is true that the Chinese did absorb Mongol and Manchu invaders and that there are minorities in China and it's maybe not quite as simple and open as some people would believe. But I suspect that traditionally anyway, the Chinese believed that it was very hard for the Barbarians to become like them. But again I notice changes taking place, particularly amongst overseas Chinese. Intermarriage in places like Hong Kong and South East Asia is very much on the increase, and Chinese immigrants in Australia tend to marry out more than many other immigrant groups. So again, we're seeing this same kind of evolution.

The Koreans also retain a strong sense of racial identity and have perhaps absorbed some of these Japanese ideas. It may be extreme xenophobia but it's instructive to note that the Koreans topped the poll in a recent survey by The Far Eastern Economic Review in which people were asked whether their child could marry a foreigner with their blessing. Only 30% of Koreans agreed, compared with 95% of Australians and 84% of Filipinos. As in Japan, mixed-race children were looked down on, and foreigners who married Koreans were given a pretty rough time. And Koreans don't like enclaves, and the Chinese minority in Korea has been treated every bit as badly as the Korean minority in Japan, and each of course waxes eloquent about the other.

Now I could quote many other examples from North Asia but the above does seem to me the closest you're going to find in Asia to the kind of racism which was characteristic of the European colonialists. I don't think it was exactly the same, but it's the closest. It's based on the belief they're racially unique with some suggestion they're also superior and it is waning amongst the young, as it is in Europe. But older Japanese parliamentarians remind us at regular intervals that it's far from dead. I see one character recently said the reason the United States was falling apart was because they had too many blacks and Hispanics who were diluting the purity of the race. I mean these kind of comments would not be out of place in Europe 50 years ago.

In South East Asia I think things are more complicated. While communal strife and ethnic prejudice are common, it's not based on the same kind of philosophical framework. There is a general prejudice against local minorities like the hill tribes in Thailand, the orang asli in Malaysia, the Papuans in Indonesia, the Mountain people in the Philippines, and the paternalistic attitudes there are very reminiscent of the now-unfashionable Australian view that the Aborigines should be assimilated and made 'just like us'. The difference of course is that most of these groups are physically similar to the mainstream groups. So it's a moot point how much of this is really racial in the narrow sense of the term, and how much is social or cultural. It might be relevant here to observe that Asians are not at all interested in the fate of Australian Aborigines whom they basically see as our hill tribes. They get worked up about racial prejudice which is directed against themselves, but not others. In that, they're very human.

This was brought home to me when I was in Bangkok when the Pauline Hanson racism frenzy was at its height. There was much concern about whether Australians were turning their collective back on Asia and going back to their racist groups, i.e. the White Australia Policy, but Aboriginal issues were mentioned only in passing, if at all.

Racist attitudes towards Chinese immigrants certainly exist, but they're not the same as the northern attitudes. For a start, the Chinese are often seen to be superior, and Dr Mahatir's book 'The Malay Dilemma' makes it very clear that Malays need special treatment to enable them to catch up to the immigrants. The special claims of the Bhumiputera, the Malay, are based on prior occupancy rather than on racial characteristics. There may nevertheless be some racist element here. Many poor Malays console themselves with the thought that the infidel rich Chinese will burn in hell and the Chinese are not really encouraged to convert to Islam. This is quite contrary to the letter and the spirit of Islam, which advocates conversion and a very good record on opposing racism.

In contrast to the generally good record of Islam on racial tolerance, we could perhaps compare the Malay attitude with that of the colonial British, whose Christian religion also preached a racial tolerance which they seldom practised. There's the famous story of the wife of a colonial Bishop in Africa whose younger sister proposed to marry an African Christian. When the elder sister was reminded the man might be black, but he was Christian, she replied, 'He may be our brother in Christ, but he shall not be our brother-in-law.'

Now all this assumes that Malays and Chinese are to be seen as separate races, which is the expression used in Malaysia, and not just separate communities. And I recall on arriving in Sabah once having to fill in a Malaysian immigration form which could be filled in either in English or Malay. In English, it required the incoming passengers to state their race, but in Malay, they were to state their suku which really means a sort of ethnic group or tribal group. I think the Malay version was a much more accurate indication of the information the authorities were seeking, that is, were you a Chinese, a Malay, Kadazan, Kelabit or whatever. Malaysians talk about their communities as racist but the term's not being used in our dictionary sense. They talk, for example of Indians as a race, which includes Tamils and Sikhs, who are totally different races. Malays and Chinese are described as different races, even though physically they're a lot closer than the Indians.

So in Malaysia, the communities are divided not just by physical characteristics, but by religion, language, length of occupation, native versus immigrant, wealth (a very important factor), time of arrival in Malaysia, a whole host of factors. And intermarriage however, is minimal and there can be no doubt that the communities there don't show much sign of becoming one. Comparisons with Ireland or Yugoslavia may perhaps be more accurate in the case of Malaysia.

It may not be possible to drop your chewing gum in Singapore, but it does have a pretty good record on racial harmony. I hate chewing gum anyway. Their underlying tensions and intermarriage is far from random, but such separation as there is tends to be more communal than strictly racial, and I think by world standards it's pretty good.

Thailand and the Philippines are also good, but by no means perfect. A friend of mine whose father was a Tamil told me how tough it was growing up in Bangkok school playgrounds. It was because there was a prejudice against people of Indian origin. It did no good to point out that the Lord Buddha was a kheek, an Indian. Any more I suppose than it profited European Jews to point out that Jesus Christ was a Jew.

There used to be prejudice against immigrant Chinese in the '20s and '30s, quite strong. They had their equivalent of 'reffo mugs' and all those epithets. There are few restrictions on foreigners, but Thailand I think by world standards, has to be counted as a very tolerant country. The Philippines? Chinese have been massacred at regular intervals through the centuries and some prejudice based on their economic success still exists. There's prejudice against the Moros in the south, which is based purely on religion or again religion and sort of social historical factors, because they're the same race. And there's also prejudice in favour of looking white. My first encounter with Asia was as a student at Sydney University in 1955 when the early Colombo Plan students began to arrive. I could never work out why my Filipino friends thought that one girl in the group was prettier than all the others. To me, she wasn't that hot. After a while of course, the penny dropped: she was fair and she had a straight nose, and to this day I don't think the Filipinos have ever quite worked out why I didn't court the fair one but ended up marrying one of the group who was darker and had a flat nose. A decision, my love, which I have never regretted, let me hasten to add!

I suppose this can really be compared with all those advertisements in Indian newspapers seeking fair skinned spouses. In the Philippines it clearly has its origins in colonial racism, but I think these days it's more of a fashion statement than a racial one. That said, of course, you have a much better chance of getting a job as a model or film star if you have that mestizo look.

Contemporary events in Indonesia also seem to me to reflect communal tensions rather than strictly racial ones. The Western press tends to report ethnic conflicts as between Moslems and Christians, but it makes more sense to talk about different ethnic groups like Bulgars, Javanese and Ambonese, or even natives and immigrants. The people of Aceh are no different racially from other Indonesians, but they have a strong separatist movement. We may compare these reports with those in the Balkans where people are described in racial or national terms as Serbs, Albanians and so on, whereas religion is much more of a factor in the Balkans than it is in Indonesia. The basing of the groups is not race but religion: Orthodox Christian Serbs fought the invading Moslem Turks, and the Western Christian Croats fought everybody; the Albanians were converted to Islam, while the Bulgars became Christians. But racially they're all the same.

Dr Mahatir, in his inimitable manner, recently observed that the Western media doesn't play up the religious factor there because it's the Moslems who are the good guys, and the Christians are the bad guys. Had the religions been the other way round, we would have been inundated by screaming headlines about Moslem fundamentalists massacring poor innocent Christians. He probably has a point actually, I don't often agree with him but on this one I think I do. In neither case is race the real factor. Even the Indonesian massacres of Chinese are communal rather than strictly racist. The Chinese are seen as the rich immigrants, everybody hates successful people. The cliche about the overseas Chinese as the Jews of Asia does in fact have some validity, hackneyed as it may be.

If there's one universal prejudice throughout Asia, it's against black Africans and probably by extension, black Americans. I have neither the time nor indeed the knowledge to trace the origin of this prejudice. I suspect it probably came in via the Europeans. While it tends to be rather gentler in South East Asia, it does exist. It's now possible for example, in many cases for young people to bring home a hairy white librarian as a husband and get away with it. But try bringing home a black man and see how far you get.

The perception in Asia that Australia is a racist country goes back to the White Australia Policy. In those days Australia was a racist country in every sense of the term. Those of us who used to administer the White Australia Policy were left in no doubt about what it was designed to do and what it did. Today I think Australia has changed quite fundamentally. Although I'd not be so naive as to suggest racism is dead in Australia, I believe Australia is one of the more tolerant countries of this world. Perhaps we just make a lot more noise about it and debate openly things which many other people keep quiet about. Maybe they're right, and we should shut up a bit more, but racist attitudes which used to be mainstream views in Australia, and this is an important point, in the 1950s what is now fringe views, you know, and in many cases things which are illegal and certainly not very popular views, they were mainstream views in the 1950s.

And so I see in Asia racism in the narrow sense as being on the decline, as indeed in Australia, but I do feel that communal or ethnic prejudices, often dressed up in racial terms, is still far too prevalent in Asia as in other parts of the world. So I distinguish racism in the narrow sense from communalism, because racism tends to be something to be dealt with by psychiatrists, while communalism has to be dealt with by politicians. There's usually some kind of rational basis to communalism, even though it may sometimes be buried in the past and no longer rational. No doubt in the 1300s at the Battle of Kosovo, it really mattered and a couple of hundred years ago in Ireland it really mattered. But today? To eliminate it, you've got to attack the causes on a group basis and so while racism often has much in common with what I'm calling communalism, it's perhaps closer to mental illness and may need a different approach.

Finally, I note that groups are an essential part of human society. We're all members of some group, even if it's only the Boy Scouts, or a pub group. What matters is probably how you approach that membership, rather than what it is. It can be argued indeed that the Nation State is simply one form of ethnic or communal group, and that patriotism is just a form of group solidarity. Patriotism can be a quiet pride in the achievements of your nation, or it can be screaming xenophobic jingoism. Religion can be a quiet and sustaining faith, of the self-sacrifice of Mother Theresa and the Lord Buddha, but it can also be a mindless mob burning heretics, or the ethnic cleansing of people of another faith.

With a few exceptions, I think religion in Asia has not played the destructive role that it has in Europe, but communal differences certainly do exist. The greater diversity of South East Asia may explain why it tends to be more multicultural and perhaps less racist in the narrow definition of the term. But plagued by communal problems. These are questions to be considered.

Well in the time available, I've only touched the surface, but I guess I would end where Chris Sidoti began, which is that for every example of racist or communal prejudice in Asia you can find a parallel in other parts of the world. Human behaviour is human behaviour. We're dealing with the behaviour of the human race, and on the whole Asians are no better and no worse than other members of that race.

Thank you.

APPLAUSE

Kirsten Garrett: That was diplomat and academic Cavan Hogue. Among many other posts, Mr Hogue has been an ambassador overseas, and he's been with the Department of Foreign Affairs in Rome, Seoul, Chile, Manilla, and he's been High Commissioner to Malaysia and held other posts in Asia.

Not included in today's program is a speech by Vietnamese born Dr Nih Van Tran. She is a Professor of International Studies at Adelaide University, and she's a writer and a member of many boards and groups.

After the Forum, Dr Ghassan Hage from Sydney University talked through some of the main points of his speech in an interview. Dr Hage is author of the book 'White National: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural Society.'

During his speech Dr Hage had talked of the very subtle racism hidden in a too great admiration of people of another culture or race. He had made the point that there is a tendency to make the victims of racism into the embodiment of unreal virtues and expectations, as victims they are more noble or must have better behaviour than their oppressors. Ghassan Hage says that any simplistic view of another people becomes racism.

Gassan Haj: What I was concerned with here was the idea that when people have too much of an absolute view of other people, such as 'They're great', or 'They're lovely', whichever.

Kirsten Garrett: Graceful, or have rhythm.

Gassan Haj: Yes. Because from my disciplinary perspective in anthropology, most of my work is field work, where I'm meeting people and trying to see how they think in everyday life. I notice very well that in everyday life people don't have such absolute views if they are truly interacting with other people. So I do hear people saying 'I love the way Asians are', or Asians saying, 'Oh I like the way English people do this.' But at the same time they say, 'Oh, I hate the bloody English the way they do that'. So what we often perceive as racism is a moment in a conversation; someone might say, 'Oh I hate those bloody Lebanese, they do this', and a second after they say, 'I love the Lebanese for that.' Their views are constantly shifting and sometimes they're racist and not racist at the very same time. Statements are never so clear cut.

And so what I was trying to say was that usually people who have very definite views, such as, 'I think Lebanese are this', or 'I think English people are that', are usually people who don't interact with other people. Whether their view is about how incredibly wonderful these other people are, or because if you interact with other people, it's hard work, interacting with people from other cultures. Not everyone has got a PhD in cultural diversity, and it's hard work. Certain things you don't know, it's hard work meeting your new neighbour, whether they're of a different ethnicity or not, they also have a different culture. And you start having views about them 'This I like, that I don't like ' etc which you develop in interaction.

Kirsten Garrett: I think the point you're making is that at that level of interaction in a community or in a family or as visitors to another country, the racism and the not-racism and the casual comment is all part of a complex mix. It's when you get into a position of power or where there is no interaction, where a person is speaking from ignorance or lack of closeness, that it starts to carry a little bit more weight.

Ghassan Hage: I think it's not just a question of speaking from a position of ignorance, but rather speaking from a position where your purpose is political. So you might not necessarily be ignorant, but you have a purpose and you're directing your supposed views, not because you really did get them from interaction, but because you want them to serve your purpose, your political purposes, whether it is to support multiculturalism and it's like saying, 'Oh I love Asians' etc., or 'I love whoever', or whether you are engaged in racist politics and want to know the negative view of other people.

Kirsten Garrett: But you can also find quite profound and nasty racism in ordinary people who have no political power, or overt political purpose anyway.

Ghassan Hage: Yes, well this is precisely why it's really so difficult to use the concept racism in any decent social scientific status. It can mean all sorts of things; even in a conversational sense it's becoming just too hard to use it. Even though we'll never stop using it. But yes, people can be nasty. The thing is, we have to know whether we're talking about racism as a non-virtuous, ugly mode of behaviour, as we're seeing it from a moralistic perspective. People who think of other people as being inferior or nasty or what-have-you. And that was one of the points I tried to make in the conference, that if we are talking in moral terms, then the question that the conference organisers had put about Are Asians Racist? is very good, even though it's clearly meant to tickle, to be provocative, and not taken too seriously. But at the same time it's welcome because we do have a tendency to assume that the victims of racism in Australia are the repositories of virtue. So if Aboriginal people or Asian people cop it too much as far as white racism is concerned, then we tend to think in moralistic terms and assume that therefore in Australia, whites are immoral and Asians or Aboriginal people 'Oh, aren't they wonderful, they're fantastic, they're great.' We know logically that it doesn't make sense. You know, I mean just because you've been the victim of racism it doesn't make you any better a person at all. There's no reason whatever, logically or historically.

Kirsten Garrett: I think Mr Hogue brought that out very well, that in the end everybody is just a human being, Aboriginals and Asian people are just as capable of bad behaviour.

Ghassan Hage: Exactly, as far as we are dealing with this racism as a mode of behaviour, as a way of thinking about other people in everyday life. But of course that's not really the crucial point about wanting to analyse racism, because what is most important is not just whether you think of people badly, but who has the power to act on their thinking to discriminate and stop other people from doing what they want to do. The point is not that the white person in Northern Queensland is morally bankrupt as opposed to the Aboriginal people who is a wonderful person, but the point is that somehow this white person has acquired the power to stop this Aboriginal person from going into the pub. Just that small act, which means stopping someone from going into a pub is an act in which you have the power to act on your racism to discriminate, to consider people as if they are objects that you can move in what you perceive as your space.

Kirsten Garrett: Just getting back to that idea of investing too much goodness in any other race, that's the sort of 'noble savage' idea too, isn't it, that the other, particularly the other who is less developed embodies some kind of great nobility in relation to -

Ghassan Hage: That's the more common racist way of not being racist in terms of 'noble savage' ideas. But it exists also when you are essentialising people.

Kirsten Garrett: Essentialising, can you just tell me how you use that word, as an anthropologist?

Ghassan Hage: Essentialism is when you consider people's identity as an essence, and considered as an essence means to consider it as if it is the source of one's character and one's behaviour. So why is this person doing this? Well because they're Lebanese. So to think that you don't need more than knowing that a person is Lebanese to know that they've done this, means that you think that them being Lebanese explains everything that they've ever done, and so you essentialise their Lebanese-ness. Locking people into whatever too much into what they are. They are this because. So not only underdeveloped people who are categorised as underdeveloped, but even Asian people who are now perceived as part of the cycle of capitalist development, you can essentialise them by starting and one of the points I'm making is that some Asians essentialise themselves too, when you start attributing your level of development to your character, or to what kind of people we are, or to our values, is the whole idea of what I call developmental racism. It's precisely this racism which emerged with capitalism, and which started to see whether one region was developed or not on the basis of explaining it in terms of the character of the people who are there. So British people have got developed society because of the British character. And so this has emerged in Asia in terms of Asian people starting to run around with the idea that it's Asian values, or the Asian character which explains why Asia has developed while Africa has remained underdeveloped. And so we see this developmental racism which was first only European.

Kirsten Garrett: That's a kind of self-racism, where they hide their human rights abuses for example, behind the notion of Asian values.

Ghassan Hage: Yes but even so, I'm very careful when I say 'they', who do we mean by 'they'? That's sort of like 'they', immediately we're locking too many people when we start using the concept 'they'. I don't know, whoever uses that is doing that, but I'd rather not use 'they'.

Kirsten Garrett: OK, no, fair enough.

Ghassan Hague: But this kind of like what you're calling self racialisation, again it seems to me that's extending a bit the concept of racism, but you're right, there is an element of racialisation and racism in this. We see it not only in Asians in Asia, but we see it in Asians in Australia; and not only Asians, all sorts of ethnic groupings in which there's a leadership which calls for a very ossified concept of an ethnic culture to maintain certain forms of powers. So this is stopping people from being whatever they want to be in the name of some mythical, eternal, cultural form.

Kirsten Garrett: Dr Ghassan Hage, who was interviewed after speaking at a forum addressing the question 'Are Asians Racist?' last month.

In his concept of 'developmental racism', in which people link social and technological development to a particular characteristic, Dr Hage raised the term 'Asian values'. I put it to him that this term has been used by political leaders in parts of Asia themselves, as a kind of smokescreen behind which to hide human rights abuses, the idea that somehow Asian people inherently do not have the same values, rights and needs as others. Is this again, self-directed racism?

Ghassan Hage: Well it can be and it's not necessarily. That's what's so difficult about that issue. To start saying that to talk about value is racist, well we talk about Australian values. It's how you put this concept to usage, how do people use it? Now if you say Australian values are about respecting the Queen, someone might like to say this. Clearly they are using the concept of value here to exclude certain people.

Kirsten Garrett: Who don't respect the Queen.

Ghassan Hage: Yes. The same way with the concept of Asian values, but at the same time using the concept of Australian values like respect for democracy etc. you use it to try to foment a certain ethical climate that people should aspire for. And in this sense it's good, even though it's not intellectually correct. But it's useful politically and has a good function in society. So we don't need necessarily to judge things as to whether they are intellectually correct of not. Asian values are simplistic, like Australian values as a concept. There isn't really such a thing. One can immediately dissect it, and it shows that there's a lot of bulldust in it. But at the same time it conveys a certain respect of hard work, which can be valuable, but it conveys also anti-union modalities, it conveys the extreme exploitative practices which are not so good. It's a question of how it is put to usage really, which determines its degree of racism or not racism. So it's hard to use racism like this.

Kirsten Garrett: You used another word during your talk at the forum: aesthetisisation, and I found that fascinating, but a little difficult again.

Ghassan Hage: Well aesthetisisation is when you make an image in your mind of your people, aesthetically nice, pleasing. Racism, especially developmental racism that I was talking about, does that a lot, which in the sense that let's say you are a European racist, and you think that Aboriginal people are lowly types. Now let's go in a microscopic way if you like, into the way your mind works here. What do you do? You say, 'I belong to the race of superior people. The Aboriginal people belong to the race of inferior people.' Now what do I do when I make the statement, when I say I belong to the race of superior people, who do I imagine in my mind as my people? If I'm white, I'm saying that the wise people are superior people. Obviously the wise people in my mind are not a drunken white guy sleeping on the bench overnight in the park. I immediately think of beautiful people. My people are the middle class people, the spunky people, the people who groove, who move well etc. So racism operates first by the person who is assuming superiority, picks up images off those groups of people among the race that they are constructing, who are wonderful and who they consider are really fantastic, and excludes, and represses images that undermine his concept of 'My people are superior people'. Now that person does exactly the opposite way as far as the other people. So when say the Aboriginal people are a race of inferior people, now usually the racist does not start thinking immediately of Ernie Dingo, but starts thinking of wretched people, precisely, people sleeping on a bench in the park. So asthetisisation means precisely when you start portraying your people as aesthetically beautiful and the other people as aesthetically non-beautiful. And your concept of beautiful is always a class-based concept in these processes.

Kirsten Garrett: And as you say, groovy, spunky, handsome, gorgeous, and we would have seen an apogee of this in Nazi Germany with those magnificent blond men.

Ghassan Hage: Exactly. We've got elements of that very much in Nazi Germany. That's precisely where aesthetisisation become institutionalised.

What I was trying to say is that we are starting to witness a next-step Europeanisation of the Asian in Australia. Because if you look at the Asian population, the Asian migrant population in Australia, it's not made out only of those spunky, groovy, people you see in ads, but there's a lot of working class Asians, people who are doing piece work and being exploited in Australia. And my problem is precisely that there is a tendency of us starting to think in terms of 'We Europeanised Asians' are groovy. And in that process, sort of like creating a beautiful image that you can see in ads, airline ads, all sorts of ads, of beautiful Asian people and beautiful European people, and in the process, the image of the working class Asian in Australia is being repressed increasingly.

Kirsten Garrett: It seems to me the point that you're making is that what's going on is as much a class issue as in fact a race issue, that we can incorporate people into our world view, our acceptance, if we accept that they are aesthetically equal or superior or magnificent, but we will never accept or deal properly with the people who are for whatever reason, working class, drunk, poor, ugly.

Ghassan Hage: Yes, these images of who we conceive as ugly and who we conceive is beautiful, are themselves class images, to begin with. We use these class images in constructing our racial stereotypes.

Kirsten Garrett: Ghassan Hage, I find that absolutely fascinating. Thank you very much.

THEME

Kirsten Garrett: Dr Ghassan Hage of Sydney University. Today's program has been based on a recent forum arranged by the Asia Australia Institute which had as its title, 'Are Asians Racist?'

Background Briefing's Co-ordinating Producer is Linda McGinness; Technical Production, Craig Preston; Research, Jim Mellor.

I'm Kirsten Garrett.

THEME

Further information

Asia-Australia Institute at UNSW
Sponsors of the 1999 Australia in Asia lecture series.
http://www.unsw.edu.au/aai/visitor/index.htm

National Thai Studies Centre at ANU
Cavan Hogue is the Centre's Director.
http://www.anu.edu.au/ThaiOnline/

Institute for International Studies at UTS
For the study of comparative social change and cultural diversity.
http://www.uts.edu.au/fac/iis/

ASEAN Focus Group
http://www.aseanfocus.com/

Publications

White National: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural Society
Author: Dr. Ghassan Hage
Publisher: Pluto Press, Sydney 1998

Quick update

OK, only time for a quick update. I found this interesting site with links to numerous articles highlighting asian racism (focused on China, Korea and Japan) here.

There is also an interesting article here and here

Digging up Facts of Singapore

One of the more annoying double standards that i have encountered in Asia is that of the Singaporean mindset towards migration. Now, i need to clearly articulate that i mean chinese Singaporean. You see, many chiense Singaporeans are rightly very critical of Australia's former 'white australia' migration policy. It was a racist piece of garbage that belongs on the scrap heap of history. By and large, Australia has moved on from the days of only allowing 'whites' who could speak english to their shores.

But fast forward to the 21st century and we have in Singapore a blatantly pro-chinese migration policy still in place. Indeed, it was set up in the led up to Hong Kong returning to Chinese rule.

Basically the policy is this:

Hong Kong citizens can migrate to Singapore. They are given assistance. No education requirements. At the time the then Prime-Minister of Singapore refereed to the need to keep Singapore predominately chinese to ensure it's economic success (read in between the lines what you will.

The proof of this policy is still out there at the following places here here and here

To be balanced although the migration policy has been publicly linked to keeping the proportion of Singapore's population that is Chinese above a certain percentage, nothing explicitaly states you MUST be chinese, it is very clear that the policy is aimed at recruiting Chinese hong-kong citizens and as this is the only ethnic group that is being targeted in such a way it then lends itself to the question: if the white Australia policy was so racist and so evil, how is this any different or better? The answer to that (IMHO) is none.

Sure, defenders of it will say that Singapore has a non-discriminatory migration policy. They will also say as long as you have the skills you can migrate to Singapore. True to an extent, but if a non-asian country were to introduce such a scheme to keep a certain ethnic mix stable, to proactively recruit a specific ethnic group (which is already the majority) it would rightly be labeled as discriminatory and racist. Why then do many chinese singaporeans feel the need to defend such a policy whilst rightly condemning former very similar schemese hatched by neighboring countries? The double standard is alive and well.

Death to racism.

Wherever it is found.

New Resources and Links

It's been a while since i've posted on my blog. I've recently moved country. Now that i have, i can be a little more open in my posts as i don't have to worry too much about being silenced for 'dissent' by the government of the country i was previously living in. So now that is out of the way, i've uncovered some really good resources i'd like to share with my all readers.

First off is the outstanding website Galdu which is a website dedicated to examining the issues surrounding the rights of indigenous peoples around the world. It's a sad fact of life that many indigenous peoples have seen their land stolen, way of life destroyed by various colonial and migrant powers - both european, american, and asian. The website has a great series of articles on Malaysia (which is of particular interest to myself) looking at the plight if the Temuan and Semai amongst others.

It's really worth a look to see how some asian countries that loudly decry the (very poor) treatment of indigenous peoples by other western nations (i.e Canada, USA, Australia) and hold it as an example of the innate racism of those countries have the same issues to deal with with their own indigenous peoples. As i've stated all along, the goal of this site is to highlight racial discrimination that occurs in Asia, white racism is well documented and well addressed by a large number of sites (including the folks at Fight'Dem Back) my goal is to simply collect articles that relate to the same issues in Asia.

On topics related to Malaysia another wonderful article on it's racial assimilation policies can be found here

I've also added Galu to the links in the side bar. I hope it helps all of us gain a perspective on the horrors of colonialism and forced assimilation in the 21st century.

updates coming

Some more updates will be coming soon. It's also been a sad week with the death of the former Pakistan prime minister. She will be missed.

Racism in Cricket

It's been interesting watching the growing controversy over the racism row in cricket. Now cricket isn't a game i follow for any other reason than my wife - she loves it. It's not really played in my home nation. Anyway, basically what has happened is some sections of the crowd in India have used racial abuse against an Australian player.

When it was first reported the Indian cricket authorities initially denied it happened, or suggested it had been a mis-understanding. When proof was produced, they finally did something about it.

What is interesting is the amount of "what is the fuss, Australia is racist too" type of comments floating about the internet, a prime example being here:

http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?s=a18d9d9a902475c983f32d18474283af&showtopic=137629

Other examples also here and here:

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/229276.html
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/229349.html

Again the same old tired defenses about whites being racist, Australians being racist to "us" (in this case Indians) makes it OK to be racist to 'them'.

What is also interesting is that some writer referred to an Australian government report on Racism in sport, citing it as proof that Australia is indeed racist. However, having taken the time to read the report I was, i must admit, a little surprised. The report can be found here: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discrimination/whats_the_score/index.html

What i found surprising is that by reading the report you find out:

1. That the majority of professional sporting codes are actively pursuing programs to engage minority groups and aboriginal peoples (albiet room for improvement)
2. All major sports have implemented member protection policies and programs
3. Racism has been identified as a problem and action is being taken, monitored, evaluated and fine tuned.

Now, how is this a racist country? I would think that a country that actively takes steps to reduce racism, foster involvement across racial groups and backgrounds is one that is a positive country rather than one that sticks it's head in the sand and pretends that racism only happens to it and it's people!

It's denials like the ones made by India that fuel xenophobic nazi-style morons in western countries. It's people taking the attitude that "all Australians are racist" that lead to those same people seeing every potential issue they have with people of that background as 'racist'

It's like visiting France. Now, i learned French in high school. Don't remember allot of it, but enough to travel. I love France and the French people, but almost EVERY person i know who has expressed fear and hesitation about going to France because of the 'rude people' has generally come back and spoken about how rude people are. If you LOOK for "it" (racism, rude people, bad food, whatever) you will invariably find it.

So how does this related to the racism row in cricket? well for one, I'm sure that various loony 'white power' groups on the net are going to use this as a chance to encourage people to 'stand up for themselves' and other nonsense. I'm sure that some dumb-ass rednecks in Australia will take it upon themselves to 'give it back' to the Indian team. I'm also sure that any negative cheering etc by Australian crowds will be deemed by the Indian media as being racist. Simply negative energy and thoughts feeding off each other. So what to do? Well, i for one will be attending my wifes family re-union at the time Sri Lanka are touring Australia. We will be watching a 'test' - i think they are the things before the main tournaments? anyway, take a stand - EVERYONE. If some red-neck Aussie hassles the Sri Lankans, I'll tell them to stop. If some Indian cricket fan tries to tell me (again) that the behavior is appropriate I'll, again, correct them and advise them to take the higher ground.

Point being: Asian Racism has again been exposed, the denials again (initially) loud and the same old justifications trotted out. How is racism in the west going to be beaten once and for all if westerners are treated this way? it only adds to the negative perceptions and fuels suspicion and mis-understanding. Only by admitting the problem exists and taking firm positive action to educate and correct peoples thinkings can we rid the world of racism, in all it's shapes and forms.

Rid the world of Racism. Admit that it exists. Confront it. Educate and Emancipate people from narrow perspectives!

Asian Racism in Malaysia: Apostasy

Although not strictly racism, the story surrounding this womens plight is turly amazing... religious re-education camps? what is this, Nazi Germany? Enjoy

Apostasy

I DO not intend to renounce my religion—in so doing, I have in fact chosen the religion I now have. But I am deeply saddened by the news of someone forbidden to practice the religion of her choice. I am saddened by the story of Revathi Massosai.

Revathi, a Malaysian woman married with one child, is the daughter of Hindu parents but she converted to Islam. It was they who gave her a Muslim name but it was her grandmother, a Hindu, who raised her and Revathi decided to adopt her grandmother’s religion. In Malaysia, this is a problem. There, people whose fathers are Muslim must be Muslim. And as a Muslim, Revathi is forbidden from renouncing her religion or from marrying someone of a different faith. Apostasy is forbidden.

But in 2004 Revathi married a Hindu man and the couple had a daughter.

Last January she went to court for official acknowledgment of her status as a Hindu. Not only did she fail, she was detained by the officials. She was sent to a “faith rehabilitation center” and held for six months. The officials in charge of the implementation of Shari’a law wanted to ensure that she would stay “on the right path”—which of course means the “right path” according to those holding religious authority in Malaysia.

During the whole six months of her captivity, she had to wear the veil and perform Muslim prayers, amongst other things. When she got out she told of how she had also been served beef which Hindus are forbidden to eat.

Her stories triggered an angry response from Hindus in Malaysia, and the defense lawyers for the Shari’a officials in the state of Malacca hurriedly explained that Revathi’s stories were untrue. The BBC quoted them as saying they were sure that Revathi could still be persuaded not to give up her Muslim faith.

Revathi disagreed.

I don’t know what those Shari’a officials in Malacca hope to really achieve: save a Muslim soul from the fires of hell; ensure there is no decline in the number of Muslims; or make someone merely pretend to believe in Allah yet in her heart is unwilling and suffering.

I don’t know how those in charge in the Shari’a courts interpret the accepted wisdom of the Qur’an that “there is no coercion in religion”.

I am also not certain whether the efforts to prevent an adult from choosing his or her own religion are part of the politics of suspicion afflicting Malaysia—which makes the matter of one’s identity as a “Muslim” bound to one’s identity as a “Malay” so that religious conviction is no longer a matter of awareness, but a matter of genetics.

I am Indonesian and I am proud to say that in this country Islam is not automatically linked to race. Faith is not something automatic. Religion is reason, the Prophet said. Reason implies freedom to think and to choose.

Still, I have to say that I am a Muslim because of my parents. But I am free not to follow that path—just as the Arabs of times past were free not to follow the beliefs of their ancestors and could decide to follow the Prophet, even at the risk of being ostracized by their own families and societies.

Still, I have to say that I have chosen to keep my current religion not because I consider it to be the best. I am not converting to another religion simply because I know that in my religion there is good and there is bad, just as there is good and bad in other religions. The history of religions is always full of the most repressive and cruel chapters, but it also has passages that are the most noble and hope inspiring. Religions offer a ray of awareness to human life, no matter how impossible it is that justice will ever come. This, and all Allah’s attributes, still inspire. That is the essence of faith.

And so in the end what is important is not which religion Revathi or I choose, but rather how someone can uphold the essence of that faith—how he or she lives and acts.

The essence of faith does not question God. Not even an apostate can question this—just as the character of Lazaro, the apostate, who cannot help but feel close to Don Manuel, the priest in a small Spanish town in Migel de Unamuno’s novel, Saint Manuel Bueno, Martyr.

Lazaro comes to my mind because Don Manuel is a patient man who helps people, and—according to the storyteller—likes to give precedence to “the most unfortunate, and especially those who rebel.” But he is also a priest with sad eyes. His face clouds when he tells a child that one has to believe in Hell.

Even Lazaro, who abandoned his Christian faith, respects him and becomes his assistant. The two of them heal the sick, befriend the lonely, feed the hungry, and cheer those who grieve.

The priest does not ask Lazaro to remain a Christian. He only asks him to “feign belief”, even if he does not have any faith, so as not to shock the townspeople. Don Manuel does not demand truth, for truth, as he tells Lazaro, is “perhaps so unbearable, so terrible, and so deadly that simple people could not live with it”.

He himself probably does not believe in Hell; he is sad when God takes revenge. But he does not want to renounce his religion, even as he allows Lazaro to do so. At the same time, everything he does in life shows that hope can happen—hope as the reflection of God who is present in every act of kindness and sincerity towards the wounded and neglected.
By Goenawan Mohamad, translated from the Indonesian by N.S.
Asiaviews, August-September 2007

A paper on Racism in Malaysia

Another article examining the tense relationships between Malays (migrants to the land now know as Malaysia) and other ethnic groups, with religion as another fault line dividing the population

Malaysia: Overcoming ethnic fears

If ethnic controversies have become more pronounced in Malaysia, it is partly because ethnic consciousness has been increasing among all communities since the early seventies. Within the Malay community, the New Economic Policy (NEP) was partly responsible for this. So was Islamic resurgence which in a sense was linked to the NEP since rapid Malay urbanization in those decades reinforced the community's attachment to certain religious forms, symbols and practices that set it apart from the non-Muslim communities in the country. By and large, they tend to be exclusive and ethnic-centered in their outlook and approach, now strengthened by the global environment. The subjugation and oppression of Muslims in various parts of the world, often accompanied by their stigmatization and demonization, are much starker today than ever before, creating a situation where Muslims are convinced that they are under siege.

Among the non-Malays and non-Muslims, negative reactions to both the NEP and Islamic resurgence have resulted in an upsurge of commitment to their own ethnic identities and interests. There are quite a few non-Malays in various sectors of society who partly because of their own experiences with the NEP in particular bear deep communal grudges which are not conducive towards social harmony. It is resentment whose significance cannot be underestimated since a huge portion of the Chinese and Indian populace is already third or fourth generation Malaysian and therefore more conscious of the promise of equality embodied in the nation's Constitution.

These attitudes have been further aggravated by the situation in the school system. With the switch from English to Malay as the main medium of instruction in national schools in the early seventies, the vast majority of Chinese in the 7 to 12 age group now attend state run Chinese primary schools, thus depriving themselves of the opportunity to mix with Malay and Indian Malaysians at a critical stage of their lives.

As with the Malays, there are also global forces impacting upon the non-Malay mind. Islamic and Muslim demonization is often accepted as the truth by many non-Muslims and non-Malays in the country. They refuse to see demonization as a tool, employed by the powerful to not only denigrate their adversaries but also to camouflage their own hegemonic designs over the land and resources of the demonized.

It is important to emphasize that there are also some perennial forces at work which tend to keep the ethnic temperature high. The political manipulation of ethnic sentiments is one such force. It has been shown that in most multi-ethnic societies politicians on both sides of the government-opposition divide just cannot resist the temptation of exploiting ethnic issues in order to enhance their electoral standing, sometimes to conceal and camouflage widening income disparities and social iniquities within a particular community.

The fears

The fundamental fears of the Malays are linked, directly or indirectly, to their position in what was historically a Malay polity. They are afraid that in spite of all the constitutional provisions and public policies, they could one day lose control over their own land because of their perceived inability to compete with the economically more robust Chinese. If that happens, not only will the Malays cease to be politically preeminent but some of the principal Malay characteristics of the Malaysian nation would also be jeopardized. This fear has acquired an added dimension in recent times due to the rapid economic globalization and Malaysia's own position as an open economy in this increasingly borderless world. The pressures upon the Malay community to compete in both the domestic and international arenas have multiplied.

Sections of the non-Malay communities also have their own particular fears. They have for a long while complained about discrimination against them and they regard the NEP and the constitutional provisions that underlie the policy as inimical to the interests of the non-Malays. They are equally concerned about what they perceive as their lack of political clout. UMNO, they feel, dominates the ruling Barisan Nasional. Some non-Malays are also of the view that their languages, cultures and religions are not accorded the prominence they deserve.

A significant segment of the non-Malay populace has concluded from all this that Chinese, Indians and other non-indigenous Malaysians are 'second-class citizens'.

Assuaging the fears

To assuage these fears within the community which are largely unfounded, Malay leaders should show the community through honest and rational analysis that the Malays have made tremendous economic and social progress in the last 49 years. In almost every profession today, Malay participation is significant, compared to the situation 30 years ago. Likewise, in the upper echelons of commerce and industry there are a number of Malays whose hallmark is their competence and ability.

The primary reason for this success is the vast expansion of opportunities for the Malay masses through education and not through ethnic quotas and special privileges per se. To put it differently, it is the state's commitment to social justice, and not its ethnic agenda, that is mainly responsible for the upliftment of the Malay community.

Malay leaders should assure their community that neither Malay political preeminence nor institutions are under any threat from the non-Malay populace. The vast majority of non-Malays accept that a Malay core within a multi-ethnic national leadership is vital for national stability and harmony. What is important is for that core to be just and fair to all communities.

But it is not just Malay leaders who should dispel the unjustified apprehensions of the Malay community. Chinese and other non-Malay leaders can also give a helping hand. Chinese Chambers of Commerce at national and state levels and other trade and manufacturing bodies operating within the community can take proactive measures to assist Malays, other Bumiputras and even Indians to establish small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Since non-Chinese business people have always found it difficult to access the production, supply and distribution networks of SMEs, aid from Chinese businesses could provide a breakthrough. Malays and other non-Chinese should also be given opportunities to occupy the upper echelons of Chinese dominated corporations.

The overall situation of the non-Malay communities is better than it is made out to be by some of their ethnic champions. The Chinese remain as ubiquitous in the economy as they were before the NEP was launched in 1971. The Chinese rich continue to dominate the upper crust of the economy. Non-Malays are also actively involved in the civic and political life of the nation. Apart from playing leading roles in trade unions and NGOs, Chinese, Indian and other Malaysians are at the helm of a number of political parties both in the ruling coalition and in the opposition. Since independence non-Malays have become an integral and essential part of the nation's political process.

The solution

It would be too simplistic to suggest the rescinding of the NEP or the abolition of Chinese medium schools as the remedies. For even if the NEP is not there, the underlying fears and aspirations of the Malay-Bumiputra community related to its economic strength and resilience would still have to be addressed. Similarly, the Chinese school has become a metaphor for the community's sense of ethnic security and identity. This is why any effective, long-term solution should seek to overcome fundamental fears and apprehensions of all communities.

If the State is sincere about strengthening the Malay economy in the coming years, it is justice that should be its central concern. What this means is that it should harness all its energies to tackle what is undoubtedly the single most important challenge confronting the Malay economy: the challenge of widening economic disparities within the community. The state should also go all out to combat the pervasive rentier culture which has inhibited the growth of genuine entrepreneurship. Eradicating both corruption, which has emasculated the economy, and abuse of power should also be its national priorities. None of these goals would require ethnicizing the economy.

If it is important for non-Malays to develop some empathy with the idea of a Malaysian nation that had emerged from a Malay polity, it is imperative that Malay leaders convince the Chinese and Indian communities that they are committed to the evolution of a social order that will be less and less preoccupied with ethnic policies and more and more devoted to an all-embracing vision of justice that focuses upon our common humanity.

Only when justice supplants ethnicity will it be possible to overcome the current challenges facing Malaysia and ethnic fears be laid to rest.
By Chandra Muzaffar, President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST)
Asiaviews, August-September 2007

Asian Racism in Indonesia

Another article largely examining the problems that Indonesia is facing in regards to developing a working model of multi-ethnic and religious relations. Enjoy

The problem of multi-ethnicity in Indonesia

Indonesia is a multi-ethnic and multi-religion society but for most of its 62-year history as an independent nation-state, the Indonesian ruling elites have chosen not to deal with this reality. Their offensive and degrading interactions with colonialism in the past, together with their bad experience with various 'local' uprisings during the early years of independence, led to a 'a strong obsession with unity'. Now we can see how much this obsession has harmed the Indonesian people. Today we are paying the price.

Soekarno's decision in 1959 to adopt Guided Democracy as the governing principle of his reign and Soeharto's New Order policy to prohibit discussions on issues of SARA (Suku, Agama, Rasial and Antar Golongan-Ethnic groups, Religion, Race, and Intra groups) were all motivated by that obsession. So for more than five decades, Indonesians pretended to have a harmonious relationship with each other even when conflicts were occurring everyday. The Soeharto regime in particular has, for the three decades of his power, successfully 'put conflict under the carpet'. Except for recurring incidences of anti-Chinese sentiments in 1974, 1977, 1980 which reached its peak in the tragic May 1998 Riots, there was little information about conflicts around the country. Some ethnic Chinese Indonesians would argue that anti-Chinese sentiments were purposely nurtured in order to divert the people's attention away from other kinds of conflict, especially state-society conflict.

The situation went out of control after the 1996/1997 economic crisis which led to the fall of Soeharto's regime in 1998. During the first six-seven years after the new era of 'Reformasi' was proclaimed, social unrest happened in various places of the country, from Kalimantan and Maluku to Aceh, Poso and Papua. Nowadays, ethnic and religious issues have become the most important determinant in Indonesia's social and political life. It seems that after years of 'forced unity', the people have become too over- enthusiastic about re-learning the diversity among them and emphasizing the differences. In so doing, locality, ethnicity and religion have begun to create new problems of ethno-nationalism and separatism.

Our question now is 'shouldn't we re-learn unity and be united again?'

Considering the archipelagic nature of our country, where each island produces different goods that are being exchanged for the consumption by others, we actually should rediscover the meaning of unity. No island, especially the small ones like West Timor, would be able to support itself without the help from the peoples of the other islands, a reality that is reflected in the busy flow of people and goods in every day inter-island exchanges.

But how should we re-learn unity? The answer is 'from history'.

Clearly, mutual dependency, common interest, and a simbiosis mutualistic relationship have been developed over the ages and created a connectivity between the islands as well as between the people who occupy these islands. Our history has shown that the Nusantara archipelago, through its inter-island trading network, has become a social, economic and political entity which can only grow with cooperation between the inhabitants of its numerous islands.

As many historical records indicate, way back in the past Nusantara was widely known as a rich and prosperous place which attracted many foreigners to come and trade various local crops with the natives. Obviously it was the cooperation between the natives themselves which created a good impression of them in the eyes of foreigners and was an attractive pull factor.

If in the past unity gradually became a valuable necessity, today unity is similarly a must, if not more crucial, particularly under the pressures of current economic globalization. Without cooperation and unity, we certainly would not be able to compete with other countries.

In forging this unity, even the ethnic Chinese, Arab and Indian Indonesians should be included because each group has their own unique sociological role that cannot be replaced by other ethnic groups. Their contribution to the so-called Indonesian nation-state was written in the stories of their migration, settlement and existence in this country full of social and cultural exchanges, not to mention their friendly cooperation with the locals throughout the generations particularly before the Dutch colonial occupation. These groups, together with the locals, as a whole represent the diversity of Indonesia. As many have said, this diversity is a social asset that should be utilized to achieve the common goals specified in the 1945 Constitution of Indonesia, namely the people's freedom from oppression, their prosperity, security and dignity.

Finally, as a lesson learnt, the Indonesian case has proven that diversity and unity is not a zero-sum choice. Both are an undeniable part of the society with neither one more important than the other. The mistake made by Indonesians was to emphasize the importance of unity by neglecting diversity. The result was chaos still felt today.

To change the situation, the Indonesian leaders have to find the proper equilibrium between their desire for national unity (repeatedly articulated by military leaders as NKRI-short for Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia or Unitary State of Republic Indonesia-being "a fixed price") and adequate respect for the Indonesian people's diversity, their different beliefs, cultures and traditions. Only then can Indonesia achieve peace and stability.
By Thung Ju Lan, Senior Researcher, The Research Center for Society and Culture of The Indonesian Institute of Sciences
Asiaviews, August-September 2007

Asian Racism in Thailand

Another article on Asian Racism - this time in Thailand. Enjoy.

Thailand deals with ethnicity

Thailand is not a multicultural country as its leaders often claim. The ongoing conflict and violence in southern Thailand reveal the country’s deep-seated discrimination and injustice against the country’s minorities who have different cultures, languages and religious beliefs. Thailand is a very diverse country with 79 different nationalities and linguistic groupings.

The hullabaloo surrounding the drafting of the new constitution during the past several months on the provision related to whether to declare Buddhism as the state religion is another case in point revealing the insensitivity towards Thailand’s diversity.

As in the rest of Southeast Asia, religious belief in this country is often linked to ethnicity. Approximately 10 per cent of the 66 million Thai population are Muslims and comprise the country’s largest religious minority. Almost all of the Muslim in the southern provinces of Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat are Sunni, with Shiites representing a small percentage. In the case of the Chinese ethnic group, they are either Christian or syncretic Taoist-Buddhists.

It is interesting to note how Thailand has succeeded in assimilating the Chinese. Within Southeast Asia, the Chinese communities tend to have strong cultural identities and societal links amongst themselves. That is not the case, however, for the Thai-Chinese communities. They are different.

Once they arrived in Thailand, they adopted Thai names, took up Buddhism and other aspects of Thai life and norms without any resistance. The estimated 13 million Chinese-Thai citizens are considered well off, both in terms of education and wealth, but they have chosen to follow the local culture and traditions. Any visit to Bangkok’s famous China town, Yaowaraj, would reveal this strong trait. While all the façades and huge neon signs along the main roads stress the Chinese-ness of their cultural heritage, the small alleys or soi and walkways show the other side of them being Thai.

It was only in the past ten years that the government has allowed the teaching of putonghua or mandarin Chinese. After more than half a century of suppression, the government is now enthusiastically promoting the teaching of the once so-called “communist language” which would require at least 5,000 language teachers from China.

In contrast, the Muslims down south live in isolation despite Bangkok’s claim of successful assimilation. They have more contacts with the neighbor in the south, Malaysia, than with their own government. This strong linkage with Malaysia continues unabated today, especially since the 1902 annexation by the central authority in Bangkok of Pattani and six surrounding areas. This places Thailand in a precarious situation.

Within their own communities, they have little interaction with the Thais. The only contact they have would be when the local authorities want to find fault with them. Their children attend religious schools or pondoks near their homes and are taught by religious leaders they know and trust.

Before the tumultuous event of 11 September 2001, the Thai authorities have never attempted to control or monitor the curriculum taught at these various pondoks, assuming that their curriculum must be automatically in line with the Thai national education system to take advantage of the higher education system for students in the provinces.

Since there is no standardized Muslim syllabus, the daily teaching method and its contents are being left to the religious teachers themselves. Many local pondok schools continue to teach Islam as the main subjects and Thai-Malayu as the main language, without sufficient tutoring in subjects such as the social sciences and humanities. Some parents do not want to compromise religious teaching classes with other subjects. As a consequence, children studying in private pondoks are unable to compete with other mainstream students coming from elsewhere, including Muslim children who study in Thai schools.

Thai-Muslims face two dilemmas once they reach their youth. Without proper education and lacking the Thai language ability, both oral and written, they find themselves unable to go for higher education in their own country. Most of them choose to go abroad or cross the border to study in Malaysia and other Muslim countries in the region or in the Middle East and Africa. But those educated abroad eventually end up unemployed upon returning home. A survey conducted by a team of scholars from Prince of Songkhla University showed that 60 per cent of Thai-Muslims youth in 2003 could not get jobs. Inevitably, they become a highly alienated group of youngsters. Full of frustration and a sense of hopelessness, some of them have been targeted for recruitment by either criminal groups or separatist groups.

Thailand needs to change its mind-set in dealing with its multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society. Some senior Thai officials, for instance, including the statesman Gen Prem Tinsulanonda opposes the teaching and use of Thai-Melayu as a working language in the Muslim areas for fear it would diminish their ability to absorb the Thai language.

Besides the Thai-Muslims, other less well-know ethnic groups including the Karen, Mon, Chong, Mlabri and Meo are also struggling to overcome the injustice and prejudice against them. They want to be accepted and treated as equals in Thailand. The only difference is that their struggle continues without media’s attention.
By Kavi Chongkittavorn, Bangkok-based journalist
Asiaviews, August-September 2007

Asian Racism in Singapore

This article is one i read in a taxi on a weekend visit to Singapore - and strangely enough it is actually written by a Singaporean. The article encompasses many of the points i have been trying to illuminate through the collection of articles that comprises this blog - that racism is alive and kicking in Asia and is conveniently ignored or dismissed as being a problem belonging to other countries. Enjoy.

Racism within Asia
AsiaViews, Edition: 30/IV/August/2007

In recent months, there has been much discussion in the media here about how Singapore could cope with a large migrant population from other parts of Asia if the country is going to aim for a population of 6.5 million within the next decade.

Though the question of race relations has not overtly being discussed, yet, it is what we are referring to when we talk about integration, etc. Asians seem to be very reluctant to talk about race relations or racism within their societies, but are quick to point fingers at the West. A couple of months ago, there was ample coverage given, especially in Singapore, to an episode of ‘Big Brother’ TV program in Britain in which Indian Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty was the butt of racist comments.

Reading these reports, particularly in the Singaporean press, I could not resist the thought, “what’s the big deal, is it not present here?” This is particularly after some experience I’ve had here around the same time when I was looking to rent a condo apartment and was told not once but five times by housing agents that the owner “did not want to rent to Indians”. Some letters to the editor written by Indian expatriates published in ‘Today’ newspaper about 2 months later indicated that this is a widespread practice here.

I have raised this issue with Singaporeans recently and the usual response with the shrug of the shoulders is “well, racism exists everywhere” so what can we do about it?

In one of the popular expat forums on the Internet here, when I raised this point there was a heated debate which developed that reflected this attitude. One typical comment by a Singaporean professional woman in her 30s was: “No, housing agents are not racists, but local house owners may have pre-stated their preference to the agents representing them of not renting to Indians on account of Indian cooking involving very pungent spices that makes the house smell”.

When I responded: “This is what I said, it is a racist attitude to think that anyone of color cooks spicy food at home and smells”. Her reply was: “It is not my intention to make excuses, I’m merely stating the facts…”

Singapore has often boasted about the harmonious multicultural society they have created where Chinese, Indians, Malays, Eurasians, Filipinos, etc, live in harmony. But, what has transpired in the ‘blogsphere’ in recent years indicates that not everything is rosy under the surface.

Coming back to my experience, when I questioned the housing agents for the reasons for refusing to rent to Indians I was told that because they cook with such aroma, it leaves a “bad smell” in the house long after they have left. I pointed out that (a) I’m not an Indian, but a Sri Lankan-born Australian (b) I don’t usually cook at home because I live on my own. One agent told me “that doesn’t matter, you look Indian, all the same”.

This is exactly what is called “stereo-typing” a process which is described in any cross-cultural communication textbooks as “those overgeneralized and over simplified beliefs we use to categorize a group of people (which) have a tendency to make a claim that often goes beyond the facts, with no valid basis.”

At a time when Singapore is looking towards India—an emerging world power—to develop closer economic ties, and with increasing number of “Indian” professionals coming here to work and many even taking up PR here, it is an opportune time for Singaporean educational authorities to take a closer look at how the educational system could be utilized to address this problem of stereo-typing and racism. It does not apply only to Indians, I have noted that Filipinos, Indonesians and Thais to name a few, are also effected by such racial stereotyping.

I must also add that racist attitudes towards other Asians are not peculiar to Singaporeans. Even Malaysia’s recent treatment of its migrant laborers from Indonesia and Bangladesh in particular has been described by some observers as racist. A few years ago, when I arrived in Hong Kong for the first time I noticed that their customs checked the bags of all the people of color arriving there and not the Chinese nor the Caucasians. This was before the 9/11 event. After that I have observed that they do the same at Bangkok airport.

Over the past 25 years I have been to Bangkok over 30 times. Since the 9/11 event I have been there about 6 times and each time they have called me up and checked my bags, even though I was passing through the “green” line and I’ve noticed that they only check the bags of colored people, especially with South Asian appearance. Obviously they suspect us as possible “Pakistani Muslim terrorist”, even though I’m Buddhist and for 20 years living in Sydney, it was Thai monks who performed our family religious ceremonies including my father’s last rites in 2001.

Though many of us, especially professionals of South Asian background, find this attitude offensive, perhaps many of these officials behave in such fashion because they lack cross-cultural communication training. In many Western countries when they have such security concerns they usually do it more subtly where a few Whites will also be checked along with the non-Whites.

Today, in this globalizing world, not only Singapore, but many other Asian countries are facing an influx of people of different ethnic backgrounds, either coming as tourists, convention delegates or to work or invest in their countries. So, knowledge of cross-cultural communications should be an essential ingredient in these countries.

I lived in Australia for 20 years—throughout the 1980s and most of the 1990s—at a time when Australia had to address a similar problem in their society, because they were experiencing an immigration boom from Asia, after the ‘White Australia” policy was abolished in the mid-1970s. Australia was also trying to link up economically with a booming Asia, whose people were historically seen by most Australians as of “lower status” or what was called the “yellow peril”. This was tackled through the educational system with new Asian Studies and Cross-Cultural Communication courses introduced in high schools and tertiary institutions. Today most young Australians are less racist towards Asians and are more comfortable dealing and living with them—even marrying Asians in increasing numbers.

Two years ago, I taught an inter-semester course at a leading university in Singapore on Cross-Cultural Communications during which I covered many theories on stereotyping and racism. When I set assignments for students and asked them to apply these theories to practical situations, all of them took examples from the Western textbooks we were using because no Asians texts were available on the topic. They were happy talking about the Caucasians, Hispanics, Blacks or Australian Aborigines rather than applying these theories to their own environment and talk about relationships between the Chinese, Malays, Filipinos and the Indians for example.

There seems to be this perception in Asia that racism is a problem of the West, a problem of the “White” people. But, ‘Whites’ now understand the problem—thanks to many Indians, Africans and Arabs like Edward Said who pointed this out to them more than 30 years ago—and the West has taken remedial action via the education system. The fact that the Britons were able to acknowledge that there was racism involved in the ‘Big Brother’ episode and Shilpa Shetty was voted overwhelmingly as the winner of the show is reflective of such enlightenment.

In Asia, people are still in self-denial mood. Singapore, with its multiracial population mix and its ambition to become an educational hub and a bridge between South and East Asia, is in an ideal position to address this issue. A good start would be to introduce cross-cultural communication courses and textbooks with Asian examples which could be a benchmark for Asia.

By Kalinga Seneviratne, Singapore-based journalist, media analyst and international communications lecturer.
Asiaviews, August-September 2007

Racism in Cricket

Interesting article on racism in Cricket. The much maligned Australian cricket team and fans are often accused of racism now it appears that the Indian cricket fans have also stopped to that level.

Indian crowd racially taunts Aussie Symonds
October 11, 2007 - 10:26PM

Australia's Andrew Symonds has been racially abused by Indian fans while fielding during the home side's innings in their one-day match at Vadodara today.

The only black member of the national side was taunted with monkey noises from the crowd during the latter stages of India's innings at the Reliance Ground.

A Cricket Australia official confirmed the racist taunts were directed at the allrounder who was heavily booed on the occasions that he fielded near the boundary line today.

"The matter will be left in the hands of the local authorities," a CA official confirmed.

The Australian cricket team was trying to respect Symonds' wish not to make a big deal out of the incident.

However the Indian camp had condemned the behaviour of their fans.

"This should not happen but the problem is trying to control the crowds and in some areas there can be some trouble," said team manager Lalchand Rajput.

"People come to watch the game and this sort of behaviour spoils the game."

He said the Indian team would be very upset that a player had been racially abused.

"Yes, definitely these things are not good for the morale of the team, it is upsetting for them," he said.

"They (the fans) should watch and not get into these sorts of trouble and behave in the right way."

Australian Cricketers' Association chief executive Paul Marsh expressed similar sentiments.

"If this incident has occurred I would be disappointed for Andrew," he said.

The International Cricket Council has made cracking down on racial abuse from crowds a top priority with Australian, English, West Indie and South African fans having come in for criticism for racial abuse towards.

An ICC spokesman said the body treated racial abuse very seriously.

"We have not received any complaints about this but in general terms we have a no tolerance policy to racism and a very strict anti-racism code," a spokesman said from Dubai.

"Our anti-racism policy was approved and strengthened in November 2006 with all members having signed up to this, that racism will not be tolerated at any ground."

The matter left a sour note on Australia's comprehensive nine-wicket win over India that handed the side an unbeatable 3-1 series lead with two matches to play.

It is understood the matter was not a major talking point in the Australian dressing room following the change of innings.

The next contest will be in Nagpur on Sunday.

AAP

Flaming Hatred: Malaysian style

Another article on the attempts to generate inter-racial hatred in Malaysia. Thankfully cooler heads prevail here. Maybe if religious freedom was a reality and not just a myth for the majority it would not be so easy to flame these hatreds?

Two detained for sending inflammatory SMSes on race riots

KUALA LUMPUR — Malaysian police have detained two men for allegedly sending mobile phone text messages about race riots, under an internal security law which allows them to be held without trial. The men, who are in their 20s, were arrested by police in Johor, where acting police chief Mohamad Mokhtar Mohamad Shariff said they were held under the Internal Security Act.
"I wish to stress that security in the state is under control and that the SMS messages being circulated are purely rumours and malicious," the police chief was quoted as saying by the Star newspaper. Some Singaporeans have also received text messages warning them not to go to Malaysia.

Police have boosted their presence in the state by increasing patrols and deployed some 200 anti-riot police officers to ensure security, according to the New Straits Times. Race relations have become an increasingly fraught issue in Malaysia.
A series of court cases — notably regarding conversions from Islam — has called that status into question.

Activists have been campaigning for greater religious freedoms in the country, where proselytising by other faiths is banned.
Last November, text messages carrying rumours that ethnic Muslim Malays would be baptised as Christians sparked a large Muslim protest in the northern state of Perak. It led to a government warning that the Internal Security Act could be used on anyone spreading texts, which could cause instability. — AFP

Race Riots in Malaysia?

Hope these don't go down any time soon...

Police arrest fifth person for allegedly spreading rumours of race riots in Johor

KUALA LUMPUR — Police have arrested a fifth person for allegedly spreading rumours of race riots in Johor, as another flashpoint surfaced in Malaysia's inter-ethnic politics.

The Malaysian national was detained under the Internal Security Act, which allows detention without trial, over SMS messages about race riots, AP reported. The messages, which have been circulating for days, said that Malays and Indians had fought in two Johor towns and that rioting would break out on Malaysia's 50th independence anniversary, which was last Friday. The government dismissed the messages as false. No riots were reported.

Meanwhile, an email, claiming to be from an Islamic body, has urged Muslims to stay away from Indian restaurants because of certain Hindu practices that were allegedly performed daily on the premises, the malaysiakini website reported yesterday.
The email, posted on a website on July 26, suggested that the rituals, which were meant for blessing and purification, were unacceptable to Muslims. The author of the email said that he was a director from the Muslim Consumers' Association of Malaysia (PPIM).

Identifying himself as "MJH", he said that some Hindu-owned restaurants that practise the rites served cuisine associated with Indian Muslim restaurants and used Malay-sounding names to bring in Muslim customers by "confusing" them.
Dismissing the email, Mr A Vaithilingam, president of the Malaysia Hindu Sangam, said: "I hope people would be level-headed when they come across this email. It's best to ignore it."

PPIM spokesman Noor-Nirwandy Mat Noordin denied the group had issued the email. "This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that PPIM has been used to further some opportunistic agendas," he said.