Showing Difference, but not Promoting it
-
Some British folks consider soccer/football as a road to integration and therefore happiness because it contributes to the forgetting of multiculturalism and promotion of national cohesion which leads to happiness. In the game, colour can be forgotten, multiculturalism can be forgotten, and melancholic feelings of migrants can certainly be forgotten. All that matters is scoring a goal and being celebrated as British. Race can be forgotten; cultural differences can be forgotten, and racism can be forgotten. It doesn’t matter that these three things still exist and affect the migrant, because the game is the most important thing, and in fact, if the migrant would just let go of their melancholic feelings, they could actually contribute to and enjoy the game, just like any other British person...right? Though still facts of life, they must be put to rest in order not to be selfish and sacrifice the cohesion of the nation. They must get over their feelings. Additionally, Ahmed states that the colonized migrant is seen as being obsessed with finding pleasure, and finding it through objects, as well as repeated cultural behavior. This, in Ahmed’s words, is seen as childlike and primitive, whereas the civilized practice of finding the greatest amount of utility possible to lead to happiness and goodness for the nation is the only correct approach that must be taught to the colonized. In addition to this civilized happiness, is the idea that the British brought this utility and thus happiness to the uncivilized, pleasure seeking, childlike colonized people and thus hold a happy memory of empire. Happy memories about the civilized, utilitarian institutions the white man brought to the subcontinent such as courts, laws, and hierarchies. To not have a happy memory of empire is to not have pride for the nation and its past, and to not have pride for the nation is to reject integration and social cohesion, and to reject integration is to be a threat to the nation and possibly even violent. To not have a happy memory of empire is to have sad memories of empire, possibly even angry memories and thus you are holding onto emotions whose letting go of are necessary for the cohesion, success and freedom of the nation, as well as the success and freedom of future generations of migrants. To not have a happy memory of empire is to resist letting go of unpleasant memories, but also current unpleasant struggles of racism and discrimination. The promise of happiness also states that in order to achieve happiness the migrant must allow things to be the way they are, to ignore racism, to accept difference without promoting it, to just join the football game. The only problem is, though, is that this is an empty promise for the nonwhite migrant. The migrant can let go of all the memories they have, and fully accept British integration as much as possible in exchange for happiness as promised, just as Yasmin’s father does, but there will always be something missing. In Jess’ case in ‘Bend it like Bekham’, she achieves happiness/freedom by her proximity/relationship to Joe, the white man. Yasmin on the other hand has no constraints to being in close proximity to white people and is heavily encouraged to be in proximity to white people by her father, but will never be white, and thus will never be happy. It is not her persisting melancholic emotions about her experiences with racism, or her promotion of multiculturalism and difference, or her rejection of utility and integration but rather it is her lack of whiteness that leads to her unhappiness, something that remains an unchangeable factor. Rather than integration as a path to happiness, it is integration as a path to alienation for Yasmin. With the theory of utility and the idea of the happy memory of empire, she are promised happiness. When that promise remains unfulfilled, we understand the real implications of the assumption of utility, and the happy memory of empire. Additionally, Ahmed claims that it is the duty of migrants to let go of unpleasant emotions in order to contribute to the greater good and cohesion of the nation. It is the migrant's fault if they are still bitter about the past, or bitter about racism. It causes them to isolate themselves from society, or rather “injury causes injury”, in Ahmed’s words. It is because of this rhetoric that letting go of the past and assimilating is seen as a moral task or duty for the migrant. Additionally, objects like the Turban and the Burqa are very conditional when it comes to being seen as happy. One on hand they bring out histories of empire, cultural objects and childlike pleasure that tread on thin waters that might express even a grain of unhappy memories of empire however on the other hand, if enthusiastically integrated into British national pride can promote the idea of the happy, integrated migrant who has kept their tradition but is willing to get past all that they went through in order to not make white people uncomfortable and express melancholic memories of white violence against colonial subjects. Showing difference, but not promoting it.