Melancholic Migrants > Forum Home

Hello,
I am requesting a pass for this topic.
I had one credit from October that I would like to use for this topic.

Thank you

In Racialization of Muslim Veils, Al-Saji analyzes the public debate leading to the 2004 French law banning ostentatious religious signs in schools. The author also writes about the French colonial attitudes towards women wearing veils in Algeria. The French state’s Islamophobia and obsession with secularism led to the enactment of this law. Most cases in which the law was applied concerned girls wearing the hijab.

I remember being taught about state secularism in class. It was an important aspect of the republican values, and the teacher emphasized it. At the same time, one of my other teachers was always wearing a necklace with a Christian cross on it, and she did not hide it at all. The hypocrisy is very real. We could argue that a necklace is not “ostentatoire” (ostentatious). However, if it is visible, isn’t it non-secular? I’m appalled by the level of hypocrisy France is capable of. Furthermore, focusing on the ‘veil’ as a gender oppression is a strategy to not address the state and society’s systemic racism and sexism.

It is interesting to learn about the colonial origin of this law. Fanon analyzed the French colonial project to unveil Algerian women in his essay ‘Algeria Unveiled.’ Fanon writes about the different veiling practices in Algeria, reminding the reader of the diversity of practices. The homogenization of Muslim women is a tactic of the colonial state to enforce a unified response to this so-called problem. The idea that the veil is a barrier to vision is to assume that the white male’s gaze should be the norm. Veiled Muslim women are perceived as passive and sexually ‘repressed,’ hidden. It is a colonial way of seeing. In the Western colonial culture, women are the object of male desire. Therefore, the veil is an obstacle to desire, creating frustration and aggressiveness. Reading this text made me think of the real intentions behind these laws, ‘protecting’ secularism. The laws prohibiting the burkini on French southern beaches were also passed because the veil would hide women’s bodies from the white colonial male gaze. I am done with France, I really hope Québec will not continue to follow this example.

In the reading, Thobani explores Canada’s strategy of using multiculturalism to not address questions of systemic racism. Ahmed wrote about multiculturalism as a way for a nation to reinvent itself. The Canadian government allows differences of others to exist while enhancing its own cultural superiority. Official multiculturalism helps stabilize white supremacy, transforming it to fit the new structures of the decolonizing era. The new national identity is more fluid and embraces diversity. It is the opposite of the American and European countries’s identities. Multiculturalism masks the continuity of white privilege. Pierre Trudeau’s government built Canada’s society as tolerant and respectful of difference and diversity. On the contrary, immigrants and non-white people are understood to be monocultural, and they need to be taught the virtues of tolerance and cosmopolitanism under the supervision of the white government.
Pierre Trudeau’s government allowed the inclusion of people of colour into nationhood. The same immigrants of the ‘third world’ who had fought against racism were now fully included in nationhood. Thobani argues that it was a tactic to prevent them from fighting society’s racism. They gained socio-economic mobility, having access to education and occupational opportunities not accessible to them before. Official multiculturalism in Canada is a tactic to depoliticize anti-racist groups. It emerged simultaneously when anti-colonial discourses had gained considerable ground internationally. It made me think of the concept of homonationalism. Since the 2000s, queer people have been depoliticized because of the integration of a certain category of queers into an ‘acceptable’ society. The white, passive, educated, upper-class queer is accepted into society. It is a tactic to not address society’s heteronormative and harmful structure. Both official multiculturalism and homonationalism depoliticize people and make them more passive, preventing them from wanting to destroy society’s structure.

Baldwin writes about the French colonial attitudes towards Algerians when he visited Paris in 1948. Often colonial societies believe that they bring civilization to “inferior” societies. France believed that it was doing civilizing work in Africa, especially in Algeria, to people who did not want to be “civilized.” This rejection of white French culture led to people believing that Algerians were lazy and uncivilized. They had trouble finding jobs because of racism and stereotypes, and white French thought they did not want to work. Algerians were living in poverty in cold rooms, and as Baldwin says, many of them spent their time in Arab cafés drinking tea. White French people did not make Algerians feel welcome in France, even though French society gained a lot from Algerians immigrating to France. Baldwin writes about the relationship between the police and Algerians in this era. France felt that it was losing its empire. Its authority was challenged by Arabs, and its presence in Algeria was contested. The police have always been menacing towards Algerians. Their fear of losing the French empire led to the police becoming vindictive and more violent, not knowing what to do. There was also the common colonial discourse of ingratitude: we brought them civilization, and they should not fight our authority but be grateful.
I remember learning a bit about the colonial relationship between France relationship in history class in high school. The subject was taught very quickly. It is only recently that the school system has even started to teach this part of history. When my mom was in high school in the 1980s, the subject was taboo. She told me her teacher said that the subject of Algeria was very important and that is it bad that the school system did not allow teachers to talk about it. At least her teacher raised awareness about it. It showcases the tendency of colonial governments to purposefully forget its shameful history or tell it in a way that promotes the empire. Martin, in Feeling Superior, writes about the feeling of superiority among many white people because of the type of history we’re taught at school: “the winners of a war never tell a history that doesn’t suit them.” (p.157) I will have to check my high school history notebooks, but I am pretty sure it is still the case today.

According to Muhammedi, Prime Ministers Pearson and Pierre Trudeau had a specific type of person in mind when thinking about good immigrants. In the postwar economic boom, businesses asked the government to enforce liberal immigration policies to meet the market’s demands. Immigrants had to be ready to work as soon as possible when they arrived in Canada. The implementation of the point system in 1967 was a result of these demands. Prospective migrants’s evaluation is based on human and social capital. The criteria are age, education, training, occupational skills in demand, whether they speak English or French, whether they have relatives in Canada, arranged employment and employment opportunities in the area of destination, and finally, the personal assessment made by the immigration officer. These criteria respond to Canadian labour’s needs. It made me think of a personal anecdote. My dad told me that he wanted to immigrate to Canada when he was younger and be a physician there. However, after he had done the whole process, they told him that he could immigrate if he signed a sort of contract promising he wouldn’t practice medicine there. It showcases how immigration in Canada is regulated to the market’s needs. You could be highly qualified but still unable to migrate because of Canada’s labour needs. Furthermore, these criteria discriminate against people coming from the ‘developing’ world. The point system allowed more diversity but the emphasis on skills and education was also a form of discrimination. It is still the case today. Allowing immigration for humanitarian reasons comes after the needs of the labour market. Therefore, the ideal immigrant does not live off social services, has a job which enhances the Canadian economy, and does not ‘take’ Canadian jobs away.

In Identifying as an Arab in Canada, Asal explores the struggle Syrians faced in Canada when the government adopted “anti-Asian immigration” laws. The system of racial hierarchy and assimilation were very present in 20th Century Canada, and the feeling of white European superiority persisted even in the post-war period, and still today.
Three laws targeted Syrians. In 1908, the Continuous journey policy was adopted. Migrants had to arrive from their country of origin without any stops along the way. In 1910, the government declared that immigrants of “Asiatic origin” had to possess $200 on arrival. In 1930, Canada prohibited entry to all immigrants of “Asiatic origin” except wives and minor children of Canadian citizens or residents. Syrians campaigned to remove themselves from the “Asiatic” category. Various organizations sent requests to officials about the removal, all using the same arguments. They thought they should not be a part of the “Asiatic race” because they were closer to Europeans than Asians. Secondly, they used the “assimilability” argument. Syrians presented themselves as good citizens, with Canadian values, who never had any problems with the police or justice system. It worked to a certain extent. The government was inclined to treat admissions on a case-by-case basis, rather than changing the law. Some MPs had a humanitarian approach and agreed with the removal. For example, given their suffering under Turkish rule and the difficulties of war, Syrians and Armenians should immigrate to Canada without money.
In 1947, the government changed its stance on the subject thanks to campaigning from different political groups. The public was more open to immigration, and they felt guilt in response to international pressure over Canada closing its borders to refugees and the prohibition on discrimination by the newly founded UN. Canada opened its borders.
We already touched on that last class, but I think it is interesting the idea that Syrians were trying to fit into the white category to get more privileges. They tried to prove they were good candidates for immigration and good citizens. Racial categorization was reappropriated by its victims to try to benefit more from the system. Syrians were impacted by the “anti-Asiatic” legislation and campaigned to reach a higher status to which they believed they belonged. I wonder if they really believed in the racial hierarchies or if they just went along with it to reach a higher status.

Reading the texts for Monday made me realize how much racialization is socially constructed with flexible criteria to adjust to the needs of American society. Immigration and naturalization laws in the U.S. are very stupid. They were based on arbitrary criteria. How can you categorize everyone since everyone is different and has a specific identity?
Gualtieri, in Becoming White, discusses the case of Syrian immigrants to the U.S. during the 20th Century. The courts did not know if they could classify Syrians as whites or non-whites. Some courts decided that skin colour did not matter if someone’s whiteness could be determined by other personal qualifications deemed necessary for naturalization. Another judge decided that geography was essential in determining someone’s whiteness. It was as simple as: if someone was from Europe or a descendant of a European immigrant, they were white. Europeans were favoured because they were assumed to be more predisposed towards the American form of government. They perceived non-Europeans as products of despotic regimes. Christians were also favoured in determining whiteness because they had “good morals.” For example, Christian Syrians were seen as white because of their religious identity. On the contrary, Muslim Arabs were sometimes considered whites if they were stripped of their religious affiliation.
Syrians were interested in claiming whiteness. For naturalization, it was more logical to claim it as whites than as Africans since Syria is not in Africa. They were also interested in the privilege that would come with having a white identity. Some would argue that as Semites, they were more compatible with ‘western’ civilizations. And if they were Semites, they were Caucasians, and therefore white. Their interest in claiming whiteness was also due to racist reasons. They were claiming whiteness and excluding Black people and Asians. Not being recognized as white was an attack on Syrian honour. Furthermore, “there could be no worse dishonor than for Blacks to have rights that Syrians did not fully possess.” They were completely distancing themselves from Black and Asian people to claim whiteness and privilege.
Overall, the idea of “becoming white” for Syrians reveals the fragility of the racialization system in the US. It was completely based on arbitrary choices to preserve whites and their privileges with “scientific” ideas.

British integrationist ideas are very similar to Quebec’s. Kundnani writes about how many British people believe in a “set of core values” that hold Britishness together. Immigrants, especially Muslims, allegedly separate themselves from British society. They do not want to assimilate and live by their values, leading to extremism. Therefore, because of 9/11 and other terrorist attacks, Muslims are the target of British society. Anti-immigrant racism that emerged in the 1990s is normalized. Racism seems to be a core value of Britishness, even if they claim that equality and freedom are. It is the responsibility of Muslims to integrate themselves, and integration is one-sided. Mixing is encouraged only in places with a majority of Muslim people.
All problems related to segregation, immigration, and terrorism are understood as a result of too much cultural diversity. In Quebec, this idea is very present in the political discourse as well. Bakali, in “Contextualising the Quebec Charter of Values,” writes about the idea of interculturalism. There is a notion of a moral contract between newcomers and Quebec society. Quebec’s white culture is seen as the modern at the forefront culture, which immigrants need to adopt. Quebec adopted interculturalism instead of multiculturalism as its stance towards racial diversity. It is linked with the notion of self-preservation, which is very present in Quebec’s society. The government adopted an assimilationist approach to preserve Quebec’s culture. We can see it through language and culture. It promotes the notion of ‘one culture:’ the French white Québécois. It is the norm, more valued than other cultures, and stays the same; it is constant and stagnant. One example of these ‘common values’ is Hérouxville’s immigrant code of conduct, adopted in 2007. It is made of 11 points clearly addressed to Muslim immigrants: 5: Boys and girls can swim in the same pool whether Muslims like it or not, 7: No walking around with your face hidden except on Halloween, 11: women are even allowed to make decisions on their own. The aim here seems to be preserving Quebec's white culture, just like white Britishness in the UK. And they seem to be convinced that they are saving Brown women from Brown men, which allows politicians not to address sexist issues in Quebec.

The Nation of Islam has been influenced by various movements, mythologies and theories. First of all, the monotheist sacred books, the Quran, the Bible, and the Torah, influenced its mythology. Throughout Malcolm X’s account of what he learned about the Nation of Islam, we can see recurring characters known in the world in other religious books. For example, Moses is part of the mythology of this group. He is sent by Allah to civilize white people living in caves. Malcolm even explains the link to the Bible: “Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness.” The Nation of Islam interprets it as the serpent being the symbol of “the devilish white race.” Interpreting holistic books that are already believed by many people is a clever way to build up mythologies. Science also influences the Nation of Islam’s mythology. The origin story states that among the Black race, there were 24 scientists. One of the descendants, “Mr Yacub,” was born to create trouble. He learned how to “breed races,” and he created a “bleached-out” white race using eugenics. Using science in the Nation of Islam’s mythology was a way to make it more real. Race theories also inspired the Nation of Islam. The whole basis for the origin story was race theories. They believed that different races were created at different times. The main characters are the “devil white man” and the “brainwashed black man.” It explains why the black man does not know his own history. The white man “whitened” it to continue to control the world. This point is very interesting because we can easily argue that white men “whitened” history for its sake and continue to do so. The Nation of Islam created mythology from known characters from religious books, science, and race theories.

Buettner uses Stanley Fish’s idea of “boutique multiculturalism” to refer to the increasing British taste for so-called Indian food (p.5). Most white Britons have a superficial relationship with South-Asian cuisine, which passes for multiculturalism even though they are far from accepting South-Asian immigrants. At first, South-Asian restaurants had a clientele of lower-class South-Asian immigrants, like seamen. These were working-class establishments completely ignored by white British people. The only exception was the ex-colonials who worked in South Asia. South-Asian restaurants were selling them the ‘Oriental’ dream with native waiters and “good old Indian” food. They were cultivating the ex-colonials nostalgia for the colonial ‘good old times.’
Therefore, in Britain, these restaurants were known as places with an arrogant, white privileged colonial clientele, served by allegedly unhygienic South Asian people. The average white Briton feared insalubrity and smell and digestive problems, ideas which emerged from racist assumptions. This is why, in the 1960s and 1970s, young white working/middle-class men went “for an Indian” to display their masculinity with acts of racism. Going to a South-Asian restaurant was associated with taking a risk.
South-Asian restaurants then adapted their cuisine to fit the taste of white Britons. Their white clientele grew with the assumption that consuming “Indian” food was multicultural. It is a common phenomenon in European nations with colonial histories. White people have a growing desire for “exotic” food. South-Asian restaurants successfully accommodated their cuisine for white people. For example, I remember going to an “Indian” restaurant in London and seeing the dishes rated from 1 to 10 for their spiciness. It was probably according to white Britons’ sense of spiciness and not South-Asian people. However, the successes of South-Asian restaurants led to opportunities for British cities to advertise their local ethnic diversity. They are using minority cultural products for self-promotion while denying the deep-rooted racism and intolerance towards South-Asian people, especially Muslims.

19th-century colonial regimes enforced strict marital norms regulating “non-Christian” marriages. The goal was to enforce the superiority of Christian marriages, which were considered threatened by Indigenous social norms and migrants from Asia. A certain understanding of marriage determined the transmission of property, citizenship status, and immigrant entry. Christian marriages were characterized by monogamy; the other relationships were considered inhumane and degrading to women. Colonial regimes created a racial taxonomy of marriage to enforce the superiority of Christian marriage, categorizing the rest as deviant.
In the case of Julio/ Jawala Singh, in New Mexico in 1933, two women claimed to be his wife after his death. The court had to decide which marriage was legitimate. Nami Singh was his first wife in Punjab in 1898. It was an arranged marriage, and Jawala left to move to the US after a few years. He married his second wife, Soledad, later in New Mexico. There was no debate over the legality of his second marriage, but there was no evidence of divorce from his first marriage. Soledad argued that arranged marriages with young girls were morally wrong and illegitimate, but it was not enough. The court decided in Nami’s favour. But because it would make Soledad a concubine, and Asian immigrants could not possess land, the court reversed its decision. The court delegitimized the first marriage, recognizing it would have disrupted the standards of “Christian nation” marriages. It made me think of a similar case in Canada in 1867.
In Connoly v Woolrich, two families, an Indigenous one and a Eurowestern one, fought for the inheritance after a white man’s death. The first wife insisted on the legitimacy of their marriage, and the judge agreed. No priest was in the area; therefore, they could not perform a proper Christian wedding. But it was the best they could do to create what would be recognized as a “real” marriage. This decision shocked the second family, which expected to receive the inheritance. The decision was not reversed. Even though it became a precedent, in later cases, judges found other mechanisms to rule in favour of the Euro-western families, ensuring the superiority of Christian white marriages.

The neighbourhood of Harlem in New York has been known as an African American area for a long time. But it was also a place where many immigrants came from the English and Spanish-speaking Caribbean and South Asia. Young mostly Muslim men who were a part of the ex-maritime Indian workforce moved to the neighbourhood from the 1920s to the 1950s. South Asians were an important part of Harlem, working downtown alongside African Americans, Puerto Ricans, and West Indians. They had jobs in hotels, restaurants, and factories, and some of them also sold hotdogs, saving money to open Indian restaurants. These restaurants had a social role. They were places of interaction where people from different parts of the world who lived in Harlem bonded. It was an important communal place for the ex-seamen of the Indian workforce. The restaurants were also integrated into the daily lives of African Americans and Puerto Ricans living in Harlem.
In the Theater District in midtown Manhattan, the clientele was different. It was mostly the most adventurous non-Indian customers of the theatergoing crowd who had a growing need for Indian food. Orientalism surely impacted the interest in South Asian cuisine, it was seen as 'exotic' food.
Prof. Vivek Bald gives the example of the Bengal Garden, an Indian restaurant which opened in 1948. Habib Ullah and his wife Victoria ran the restaurant. They involved family members in their business and efficiently divided the labour, which was a success. The clientele and workers were from racially and ethnically mixed backgrounds. For example, Victoria was Puerto Rican. Indian restaurants were a success among the large Caribbean population because they had been serving the community for years, creating a sense of familiarity with South Asian food. However, they had trouble making the restaurant fully work because too few Anglo-Americans were willing to try the food, and there were too many Indian restaurants. Habib Ullah still gained experience from running the Bengal Garden, and he helped other immigrants open their own restaurants.
Today, the history of South Asian migrants in New York is often forgotten. I wonder why their story, in particular, is not told.

Rajiv Mohabir in Antiman explains his relationship with his Indo-Guyanese culture and his father’s. His father is trying to fit in, to assimilate as much as possible into North American white culture. On the contrary, Rajiv feels the melancholia Sara Ahmed writes about in “Melancholic Migrants.” His dad is a first-generation immigrant who wants to assimilate completely, and Rajiv is a second-generation immigrant who feels melancholia. He wants to learn Old Guyanese and Indian traditions, especially his grandmother’s songs: “I wanted to plant our language back in my mouth-the language that had been stripped from us through indenture” (26). He also took a language class to learn and travelled for a year in India to reconnect with his culture and his elders.
In contrast, Rajiv’s father was furious when he learned that his son was learning the language and his mom’s songs. He wanted his son to learn what is considered ‘useful’ languages to translate the Bible. His father adopted a Christian name and Christian traditions. He burned the Ramayana, an epic Hindu book from ancient India, in front of his family and got rid of everything related to his childhood, religion, and region. These actions showcase the complete rejection of his culture.
Rajiv wanted to reconnect with his culture, but he felt like his queerness clashed with his family’s culture. He recalled his aunts and uncles laughing about “antiman” which means pariah. He knew that to be an antiman is to be laughable, a secret that would break his ties with his family if they knew about it. He could talk about it with some of his cousins but felt like he had to hide it from his elders. Raji’s mom knew about his queerness but did not accept it well. And he could not talk about it with his dad, because of the risk of losing his family. His need to reconnect with his culture and his elders is so strong that he is ready to hide a part of himself. It is the case with many queer people coming from immigrant families.

Gilliat-Ray and Mellor write about the life of Muslims from all over the world in Wales. One of their analysis focuses on the life of Muslim women in these Welsh communities. Welsh women of lower classes married Muslim seamen. They were clients of the boarding houses and cafés of this group of Muslim men. Often, by marrying them, Welsh women were estranged from their families, depending on their social class. Because their husbands were working at sea and were not with them for a long time, they had more autonomy. They had more independence and more responsibilities; for example, they took care of household management. Husbands left their wives in control of the house, preventing them from disrupting the household every time they returned. This situation implied that women were responsible for the religious upbringing of their children. Their behaviour was scrutinized by neighbours who policed their relationship with other men and ensured the community’s boundaries and norms were respected. Welsh women marrying Muslim men had the vital role of being interlocutors between their husbands and the white Welsh community. They were at the center of the Muslim community, holding it together in an atmosphere of trust, sociability, and mutual assistance.
When we learn about key women in history at school (if we learn about them), it is always about the white privileged women, for example, the queens of empires. It is important to learn about all women. In every community, there are always exceptional women who are forgotten by history. I wish we could learn more about people like Olive Salaman. We should be able to put at the forefront of history individuals who are not the archetype: straight cis, white, privileged people.

In the context of enslavement, orientalism may have been advantageous for Black Muslim enslaved people. GhaneaBassiri explains that the reason for the European voyages of discovery was to find new mercantile routes to prevent any contact with the rival Muslim empires. Muslims, Native Americans and Black Africans were important in shaping this 'new' part of the world as slaves and as independent actors. Most Muslims in the Americas arrived as victims of the slavery system from North and West Africa. African Muslims were also involved in the Atlantic slave trade in Africa during the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth centuries. Europeans understood Africa as an uncivilized place where its natives lacked intellect. However, Black Muslims had a higher status: they were perceived as 'half-civilized.' Even though Islam was associated with debauchery, white Christians believed they could fully 'civilized' them. A lot of Black Muslims complied out of self-interest, hoping for better treatment and possible travel back to Africa. They emerged as the elite of African societies and saw themselves as such due to their own past as slaveholders. It is interesting how, even among enslaved people, there was a form of hierarchy.
Being labelled a 'Moor' had benefits. They were assets in relations between America and other nations in the Mediterranean trade and, therefore, had a different status than other slaves. Their "de-Islamization" allowed them to be considered more 'civilized' and improved their lives as slaves. White Anglo-Americans used them for commerce in Africa and to Christianize the continent. For example, Job Ben Salomon assisted the British in their commerce, got to go back home to Africa, and was freed.
African Muslims sometimes beat white Anglo-Americans at their own game by complying with their "de-Islamization," only to go back home and be freed.

PIEDAD was a support group founded in 1988 for new Latina Muslim women in Florida (p5). It provided support for new Muslim women with educational and social services. The group’s dawah process relied on friendship, teaching, inclusivity, and a continued life of learning. PIEDAD did not forge hierarchical relationships in its organization between the learner and the teacher, and it addressed the needs of new Muslim women. Not relying on hierarchical relationships to teach piety, ideas, and practices is clever. Too often, in many areas of our lives like school, learning and teaching rely on hierarchies, which is counterproductive.
Morales explains that in Sunni Islam knowledge is concentrated in the ulema: Islamic scholars. They are recognized as more knowledgeable than regular Muslims. PIEDAD only taught “what we are sure is correct” and relied on a sheikh or imam for the more profound questions (p.6). Therefore, most of their teachings came from an outside male and probably non-Latino Islamic scholar. They did not have their own religious scholars and were critiqued for being new Muslims teaching new Muslims about Islam. Another issue is how an imam who does not know about the reality of new Latina Muslims can help tackle personal questions raised by PIEDAD members. Would it have been possible for women in the organization to become Islamist scholars and be recognized as such?
Morales explains that “broader Muslim groups” argue that Islam promotes racial inclusivity and equality (p.6). PIEDAD was critiqued for only addressing Latina women new to Islam and has since changed its stance. The group later included all women new to Islam. They worried it would create divisions in the Muslim community. I am wondering if it is necessarily a bad thing to create specific groups to welcome various identities in Islam. In the case of PIEDAD, Latina women could more easily relate to other women in the same situation as them to learn and understand Islam. But it would be a problem if the group would completely change Islam’s values, practices, and teachings.

Sara Ahmed explains in her text the recurrent idea in the U.K. that playing football can be a part of the road to integration and happiness. She cites Trevor Philips, who recommends playing football to connect with people of “different ethnicities” a few hours a week (p.122). No interaction is seen as the problem for the lack of happiness in multiculturalism. Football is perceived as common ground, and the fantasy is that it transcends identity and ethnicity. In Bend It like Beckham, Jess is the ideal daughter of immigrants in England because she wants to be a part of the English game. It is represented as the only place where she can be happy. Her inclusion in the beautiful game fuels the national fantasy of football transcending identity. However, in reality, racialized people in football face racism and fight for their inclusion in the game. For example, England lost the final in the men’s euros 2021 in the penalty shootout. The English players who missed their penalty kick happened to be all Black men. They faced a massive wave of violence and racism because of it. Football only transcends ethnicities when England wins.
In Bend It Like Beckham, Jess’s coach tells her to let go of racism to be happy. He even says he understands what she experiences because he’s Irish. I jumped out of my seat when I heard him say that. It is incredibly ignorant and racist to think that the discrimination that a white Irish man may face is the same as the one a Brown Indian girl faces. Instead of addressing heads on the problem of racism in England, the movie explains that we all suffer and we have to let go of it to be happy: “whether racism hurts depends upon individual choice and capacity” (p.144). It is a way to avoid the subject and pretend it’s racialized people’s fault.

Rana links anti-Indigenous racism to Orientalism and Islamophobia. Before the Europeans arrived in America, Christians were fighting Muslims and Jews. They were the enemies of white Christianity. In America, Christians faced Indigenous people. In both the old world and the ‘new’ world, Christians considered the other people with a different religion as inferiors. The philosophers of the Enlightenment wrote about the ‘uncivilized’ Muslims and Indigenous people. Islam was considered at the margin of Europe; they were “the infidel savages” and “the slaves/ captives” in North Africa. The pretend inferiority of Muslims in North Africa was considered a ‘good’ enough reason for Christians to enslave them.
Indigenous people were also at the margin of European philosophical thought. Encounters with Indigenous people in America led people in Europe to believe that they were “savages.” Even the romanticized image of the “noble savage” was still condescending and racist and contributed to the creation of a hierarchy by Christians where Indigenous people were inferiors. As we have seen before, the romanticization of the Orient is also harmful and racist.
In both cases, Christians considered the sexual practices of Muslims in North Africa and Indigenous people immoral. Indigenous women were perceived as promiscuous because they did not fit the European ideal of how a woman should behave. Indigenous men and Muslims in North Africa were seen as perverse and not masculine enough.
Islamophobia and anti-Indigenous racism were intertwined. Husains explains that racism is “a system of oppression underpinned by material interests and state power” (p.4). It showcases the fragility of white Christian supremacy and the need to create hierarchies to reinforce the system. I wonder if today, Islamophobia and anti-Indigenous racism are still intertwined.

Yancy’s text “Flipping the Script” explains how racialized individuals know white people so well. People of colour confront whiteness in their everyday lives all the time. Yancy highlights the presence of white people engaging in racist practices impacting their lives. It made me think of “the outsider within” perspective. Black feminist thinkers have theorized the idea of Black women living on the edge, looking in from the outside and out from the inside. Black women’s ideas have been at the intersection of anti-racism movements and feminist movements, placing them on the edge. It allows them to have a different perspective and see what’s real.
Yancy and Ahmed’s ideas are similar. Black people can see the reality of whiteness because they have a “raced positional knowledge” (8). Their experience of racism in their everyday lives allows them to see whiteness and how race works. In contrast, white people are too much in the system and cannot see it: they live in an alternate, fantasy world of colourblindness. Baldwin’s idea of innocence in his letter might be related to this. White people are “innocent” because they do not see the world as it is (20). “They have destroyed and are destroying hundreds of thousands of lives and do not know it and do not want to know it” encompasses how white people cannot and do not want to understand by themselves how races work and the horrors resulting from it (19). This idea, however, is not an excuse for white people to be racist because they don’t know about racialization or to expect people of colour to teach them.

The idea of the Orient/ Occident divide is based on power imbalance and imperialism. Said explains that the Orient is not a “free subject,” it was and is created in the West (3). The West restructured the region to assert its power over it, and in all types of representation of the Orient, the Occident always has the upper hand. It is the imperialism of Britain, France and, more recently, the Americans that created the Orient and its pretend inferiority.

The Orient is not merely imaginative because we can see the impact of Orientalism in the West. It is related to our discussion of race and class: being ‘colourblind’ is not a solution because racism is very real as well. Said explains that “The web of racism, cultural stereotypes, political im­perialism, dehumanizing ideology holding in the Arab or the Muslim is very strong indeed (27).” He showcases the effects of Orientalism and racism. The Swet Shop Boys, in their song “Batalvi,” express their opinion on the matter. Riz MC says “Get on with Oxford certificates, Trying to stretch culture, Trapped in a silhouette.” He explains that he tried to escape the image of the Muslim terrorist created in the West. The word “trapped” highlights how difficult it is to escape this false image and how deeply rooted it is in Western societies. This example highlights the effect of Orientalism in the West.