Orientalism as Aesthetic Liberation & The Intersections of Marginalised Communities
-
Bengali Harlem, explores the intersections of race and societal marginalization, and aesthetics. One idea discussed in the first chapter was the impact of Orientalism as a form of aesthetic freedom within Western culture. The readings noted how Eastern aesthetics have been consumed by white Americans as symbols of sophistication and liberation. It was interesting to note how upper-middle-class Americans sought European sophistication through Eastern aesthetics (19). I found that this “liberation” through aesthetics was quite hypocritical. The Eastern aesthetic, which can be owned, eaten, and discarded is prized as a path toward the American “New Woman” (18). However, when women from the cultures these aesthetics originate from embrace them, they are often viewed through a Western lens as 'oppressed' or 'marginalized.”
The global networks created by the chikondars that were “ rooted in segregated Black communities” (19) give an example of the complex relationships marginalized communities create with one another. I found this relationship between South Asians and Black communities interesting, as I find that communities marginalized by a larger white society often look to Blackness, or at least Black communities, as a space for refuge and community building. However, while these communities may find refuge in historically Black spaces, they sometimes go on to marginalize or neglect Black communities in their pursuit of acceptance by the dominant white society. It was encouraging to see examples of solidarity between marginalized folks, specifically Ibrahim Choudry, the president of the Pakistan League, who, along with the Labour Temple All Faith Task Force advocated for civil rights on behalf of African Americans (187). It is interesting to observe the intermarriages between African American women and South Asian men, as historically, and presently, interracial marriages, particularly those involving a Black woman and non-white man as the counterpart, are rarely portrayed, or acknowledged in the media, and in historical narratives, because they do not conform to a white-dominated framework.
-
The hypocrisy you point out in how Eastern aesthetics are consumed in the West is really interesting. As you noted, these aesthetics, appropriated by upper-middle-class Americans as symbols of sophistication and liberation, become commodities that can be "owned, eaten, and discarded." This appropriation, however, strips these aesthetics of their cultural and historical significance. The fact that the same markers—clothing, food, or spiritual practices—are deemed liberatory for white Americans but oppressive when embraced by women from these cultures underscores the deeply ingrained Orientalist double standard. This duality perpetuates the myth of the "oppressed Eastern woman," whose agency is erased by the Western gaze while simultaneously celebrating Eastern aesthetics as tools for self-reinvention among white women.
Your observation about the relationships between South Asians and Black communities highlights a vital, under-discussed aspect of diaspora and marginalization. The chikondars’ networks rooted in Black communities demonstrate the ways marginalized groups can collaborate and create shared spaces of survival and resistance. These interactions challenge the dominant narratives that often portray marginalized groups as isolated or in competition with one another. However, as you point out, there is a tension here. While these networks reflect solidarity, they also reveal the fragility of alliances when one group seeks acceptance from the dominant white society, sometimes at the expense of others. This dynamic raises important questions about how systemic racism shapes inter-community relations and complicates efforts at solidarity.
The example of Ibrahim Choudry advocating for African American civil rights is a powerful reminder of how some individuals and groups actively resisted these divides. His work shows that cross-community solidarity is not just possible but essential in the fight against systemic oppression. It highlights the importance of mutual advocacy among marginalized groups and pushes back against the narrative of separation often perpetuated by white-dominated frameworks.
Finally, the portrayal of interracial marriages between African American women and South Asian men offers a radical counter-narrative to the dominant media and historical representations. These relationships defy the racialized and gendered expectations that uphold white supremacy, challenging the erasure of complex and non-normative relationships. By foregrounding these unions, Bengali Harlem disrupts the idea that interracial relationships must always center whiteness, showcasing the rich and overlooked histories of love, solidarity, and kinship between marginalized communities. But also, Bengali Harlem reveals the ways aesthetics, solidarity, and resistance intersect in the lives of marginalized communities. It challenges us to rethink how narratives are constructed and whose stories are told, offering a more nuanced understanding of the shared struggles and connections among oppressed peoples.