Melancholic Migrants > Forum Home

Present at Diwaliween

The problems that are presented due to translations like the “veil” and “foulard” are that the “foulard” is only acceptable if worn a certain way. The western perception of a “foulard” is for covering the neck and shoulders; however, as Al-Saji puts it, once it becomes “Islamic,” the familiarity of the clothing and the concept of covering is automatically perceived as an unfathomable idea that could be harmful to Muslim women as well as the French nation. The idea that the “foulard” should have a religious aspect, especially once associated with Islam, is automatically threatening. This is not only due to the general anti-Islam rhetoric so prevalent in the world post-9/11 but also because, in the eyes of the French, how could they allow a Muslim and colonised practice to seep into French society? It was simply too “dangerous” or beneath them to allow such a thing.
This highlights another issue with the translation, as “veil” evokes an imperialistic representation of Islam, thus negating the hijab, burqa, and niqab’s religious significance and purpose for a woman in Islam, and, importantly, the difference between them. The umbrella term “veil” simply does not encompass how different each item is.
Furthermore, the commonly thrown-around notion that women who wear the hijab are oppressed or a symbol of “regressive” gender practices, especially in the West, assumes they must be being forced to wear this. As Al-Saji says, the “veil” “metonymically stands in not only for Islam but for the putative gender oppression of that religion.” This harmful association between “veil,” “Islam,” and “gender oppression” is one that is used to regulate Muslim women in the West by “saving” them from this so-called sexist religion. However, it is clear that the French decision to make laws about what these women wear is, in fact, what is rendering them voiceless and without bodily autonomy, not the wearing of the Islamic covering itself.

The rap’s refrain suggests that melancholia will always reside in the hearts of those who move away from home. Despite the material success and wealth Nimo has achieved in America, it is not enough to replace the longing for home. The refrain highlights the duality of living in a Western culture whilst having grown up in India. The words “soul,” “heart,” and “blood” are often used when referring to a sense of home, religion, or an inextricable bond that cannot be broken. All these concepts are essential aspects of human life. Here, this profound human connection to family and belonging can be represented by values held by many people in India. Therefore, in the refrain, Nimo expresses a sense of ache and pain at being so far away from India and his family. By calling them “maru dhil” (my heart), he compares them to the organ that keeps his body alive, which is why he cannot move on.

This affiliation with family and the importance of caring for loved ones is starkly contrasted with the portrayal of the U.S. as a land where making money consumes all of a person’s time. This is evident in the line, “Got lots of money, so tell nobody to worry about my wealth.” However, when Swap points out, “Tho lagan kyare karis? Threes varus pathigaya”(When will you get married? Three years have already passed), Nimo responds, “There’s no time for all that" despite previously expressing that he wants a child. This is particularly interesting because, although Swap may not be as wealthy as Nimo, he is happy with his family. Swap, by virtue of being in India, was able to have a family and avoid being completely consumed by the notion of the American Dream.

Despite “Akho divas bhanvanu ne cricket ramvanu pan” (spending the whole day studying and playing cricket) being portrayed as lazy or undesirable at the start of the rap, people in India are shown to be doing what they enjoy. This ability to simply play cricket and eat for the sake of it is lost on Nimo, now living in America. There is always a goal that needs to be achieved, even if that goal is to relax by having a day of playing cricket. These conflicting ways of life, combined with Nimo’s distance from his family, truly make him feel like he is “two worlds apart” from them.

Maru dhil, my heart, maru loi, my blood from the start
Mari nath, my family two worlds apart,
How do I move on bhai,
Kevirithe jais, cuz no matter where I go,
My soul is in the same place

The interviewees are very aware of the changes in Quebec's policies since their arrival and how these changes can be labelled as a gravitation towards French views on issues such as religious markers and Islam. Globally and in Quebec, “many also recognise an evolution in public attention toward Islam”, where extreme racism and anti-Muslim hate have not only risen but have also become normalized and tolerated. In Sana’s 2015 interview, she states that there has been a “liberation of many racist things” in Quebec. This comment holds true almost 10 years later, not only in Quebec but across Canada, the US, the UK, and France. As she mentions, she got the “impression that Quebec was just becoming a French province again.” This illustrates how the French Islamophobic, right-wing, and authoritarian views towards Muslims and immigrants had seeped into Quebecois consciousness, making Quebec more hostile towards these immigrants (who may have been born or raised in Europe). This, in turn, created a similar feeling of frustration, sadness, and sometimes fear in these immigrants, much like what they had felt in France.

For those who lean more 'left,' the “debates [that] were so similar” in Quebec and France would have caused anger and a sense of regression. Of course, as “9/11 contributed to the production of a symbolic association of Islam and terrorism on a global scale,” these “debates” on the ‘safety’ of Muslims had become a topical conversation, especially for those with more fascist views who saw these “debates” as necessary. The shift from a tolerant Quebecois society regarding Islamic symbols to one that became more hypervigilant of Islamic markers (like the French) can be seen in Mandin’s article. In 2012, “Lounes” recalled a Quebecois man stating that “everybody does what they want here, it doesn’t bother anyone” when asked his opinion on the Muslim veil worn by a bank worker. This is in stark contrast to the 2013 Charter of Quebec Values, which “proposed to restrict the right of public sector employees to wear religious symbols. Rapidly, the debate focused on the case of Muslims.” This illustrates that since the arrival of the interviewees, the prejudices, restrictions, and barriers they had long sought to escape in France were becoming more common in Quebec's political discourse. This, along with a global increase in racism towards Muslims since their arrival, would have made the interviewees upset and disappointed with Quebec politics, where discussions about the acceptability of their existence have been debated. This resonates with how Muslim migrants from across the globe feel today.

The Aga Khan played a pivotal role in securing Trudeau’s acceptance of the Ugandan Asians, using his affluence and close friendship with Trudeau to ensure the safety of Ismailis. Many Ismailis had given up their British or Indian passports in exchange for Ugandan ones in an attempt to “reduce tension,” which left them “stateless” after Idi Amin refused to recognize them as Ugandans. As a result, there was a pressing need to find a place for Ugandan Asian Ismailis to belong, where they would not be targeted or forced to leave.
In his negotiations with the Canadian government, the Aga Khan promised that Ismailis would not “become a burden economically or a problem socially for Canada,” thus perpetuating the narrative of the ‘model migrant’ and associating Ismailis with the qualities of being hardworking, self-sufficient, and socially cohesive. He used this to his advantage while advocating for Ugandan Asians to come to Canada, highlighting the “past success of Tanzanian Ismaili immigrants,” which made Ugandan Asian Ismailis a ‘desirable’ type of immigrant.
The Aga Khan also devised “a confidential list [which] was passed to the government, and as people [members of the Ismaili community] turned up, they were checked off.” This indicates that his role was primarily concerned with Ismailis, rather than with Ugandan Asians as a whole. However, as evidenced by the “six thousand” immigrants allowed into Canada, the Aga Khan’s close relationship with Trudeau, as well as his commitment to ensuring the safety of his people, played a crucial role in Trudeau’s acceptance of all Ugandan Asians, who ultimately benefited from the immigration policies that followed the negotiations between Trudeau and the Aga Khan.

World War I had a great impact on Syrian men in America. In the case of Joe Allie, "it meant something special to go back home again to Indiana." The use of the word "home" evoked a sense of surprise for me. Throughout this course, the word "home" has carried such a weighted backstory. Did the new country that first-generation immigrants settled in really feel like "home"? Without the customs, religions, traditions, and families from their birthplace, could this new Western country really be a place where immigrants felt happy, acclimated, and proud to be a part of?
According to Curtis' writing, some Syrian men in America did indeed feel a sense of belonging that may have been intensified by World War I. The distance from their new home, fighting a war under the American flag, and being surrounded by fellow Americans must have dramatically increased their sense of affiliation with America—something that might not have occurred in other circumstances. Additionally, for Syrian Muslims, “their participation in the war advanced their social status as white Americans,” which suggests that the war was a mechanism through which Syrians could identify with White America rather than the non-white Middle East.
This notion is further highlighted by the “increased public attention to the discrimination” Syrians faced in America. While serving in the U.S. military abroad allowed them to prove themselves as Americans, back home, their families and communities were still struggling with prejudice. However, Syrians were becoming more integrated into American society, not just as foreign workers. This is evident in the funeral of Edward Shikany, where "a military firing squad and a bugler were present at the burial, and Shikany’s casket was covered with the U.S. flag. Though the sermon was given in “both Arabic and English”, the Syrian man being given the honour of an American soldier’s funeral (an honour, at least from the American perspective) was one of the utmost respects that could be bestowed upon him to signify his position as an American.

There is a common consensus among non-Muslims, particularly in the West (mainly in America), that being Muslim always means being foreign and coming from the Middle East or South Asia. This notion is often accompanied by stereotypes of the ‘dangerous Muslim,’ ‘the stupid foreigner,’ ‘dirty,’ and primarily ‘the other.’ This sense of otherness is something that people automatically fear and react defensively against. Therefore, when white women "wear the hijab and begin to face assumptions from others that they are not from the US," they are racialized, and others tend to perceive them quite differently than if they were white without the hijab.
In the case of Allison, “she was not perceived as a white American because she was perceived as a Muslim”. These two identities—being white and being Muslim—are seen as intrinsically different by many people. Therefore, Allison, as a Hijabi, experienced the same racialization as other non-white Muslims purely because her hijab served as a marker of her faith. This ties back to a discussion in a previous class about whether Islamophobia is racist, a point I argued and continue to argue is absolutely true. Allison’s race did not change when she became a Muslim; her faith did, and with it, her outward appearance. As Hussain states, when "blacks and whites are perceived as Muslim, it influences the race that is attributed to them." This meant that Allison was the subject of racist comments, such as "You have to wash everything, you know?" illustrating that, no matter a person’s race, their outward presentation as a Muslim will lead them to be perceived solely as ‘the other.’

Immigration disrupts the ‘harmony’ and safety of white-majority Britain – a common thought amongst Brits. One thing that is incredibly clear is that there is very little attempt to teach or willingness to understand why immigration, Black, South and East Asian presence in the UK is one of the many results of the British Empire and colonialism. In the media, minds and common discourse across the UK immigration is ‘not the UK’s problem’ there is little knowledge that it is the UK or the Western world that has caused such upheaval in the Non-Western country. Acknowledging this fact would come with blame and guilt, something the British government is not very good at accepting. For example “March [in] 2005 [saying] that Britain should not apologise for its history of empire.5” is a prime example of “what it meant to be British” and how that means not being remorseful for their actions against many indigenous people or people of colour. Immigration is the perfect way to blame the ‘other’, to blame immigrants who have been displaced, fleeing war or simple want to settle in the UK because they look or act differently to the white majority.
Any crimes real or perceived is the fault of immigration for ‘poisoning’ those British born Asian children as an “‘enemy within.’” For example if “Asians spoke English at home, it would help them ‘overcome the schizophrenia’ they experienced”. This illustrates how examples of a different culture via clothes, language or religion is perceived as dangerous and intrinsically “threatening to social stability”. Therefore it is perceived that the immigration of people who are different are the reason for any crime committed by their descendants or family members. Thus “it made possible a multicultural society in which it was unlawful to exclude Asians and blacks from pubs but essential to exclude them from the country.” This meant that the UK could not outrightly be labelled racist because there were no segregation laws. However, the word “essential” highlights the clear racist undertones that permeate the minds of British MPS and politicians as the only solution to the Asian or Black ‘issue’ is either excluding them because they are not British enough or fully integrating them into British society. As stated in Kundani “the hope seems to be that social mixing will dissolve ‘alien cultures’ into a monolithic Britishness.” This ideology was unfeasible then and is still now.

What appears to have motivated Malcom X to become a Muslim and what I assume drew many other Black Americans in the 1950s and 1960s to Islam is the notion that “there’s a man who knows everything.” and “his real name is Allah”. This meant that there was someone, a god, who understood and knew the history of the Black American struggle who had power and empathised with the black community. This figure of “Allah” who was, as a God is, powerful and loving. This belief in conjunction with a teaching that “the white man is the devil” must have been an attractive prospect. For Malcom x and many others there was now a religion fighting for their race, not against it. The Christian white man’s power was being erased and instead replaced with black unity, nationalism and strength. There was bonding, beauty and power in the black Muslim community that would surely have been seen as some sort of salvation or justice to those that had been wronged for so long by their oppressors. The idea that “if you will take one step toward Allah – Allah will take two steps toward you” is a reciprocal relationship that Malcom X may have been drawn to. This religion being presented to them that is so vastly different to Christianity gave them a sense of identity that transcends the framework of the white man. “The devil white man cut these black people off from all knowledge of their own kind and cut them off from any knowledge of their own language, religion, and past culture, until the black man in America was the earth’s only race of people who had absolutely no knowledge of his true identity.” This statement about Islam gave Black Americans hope that they could re-find their own identity pre slavery, an identity not marked by sadness or brutality. Therefore Islam was a means by which Black Americans could define themselves without any touch of the White Man, a prospect in America otherwise unfathomable.

Masculinity and ‘lad culture’ in Britain, especially amongst adolescents and young men, is a toxic and ignorant mindset which manifests itself in pompous and privileged behaviours. This is highlighted by Buettner as “masculinity was displayed through competing with mates to choke down a vindaloo or “take the piss out of the waiter””. This so-called harmless banter conducted by many men in Britain (even today) is an example of the imperialistic mindest that is so deeply entrenched in British society alongside a double standard for men and women.
These boys “took the piss” because they saw nothing wrong with it. The lack of regard for servers, especially people of colour, comes from the fact that the customers always assume they are better than those serving them. For example “young people used to think, I suppose, they were a bit important, going to a place where the waiters were very servile.” This “servile” nature is interlinked with respect, politeness and hospitality which is very prominent in Indian culture. In British culture it simply is not in the same way. There is no conception of the fact that their ancestors are the reason these waiters are here and serving them to make a living or seek more fiscally beneficial occupations. There is no colonial guilt or sense of responsibility. The masculinity and ‘lad culture’ is posed as just some fun when it actually “might well involve displays of racism’. Additionally, if women were to act in the same way it would be seen as selfish, unladylike and probably less tolerated in a restaurant because it is always easier to tell off a woman than it is a man. This allows boys and young men to act in a disrespectful way again and again because they do not feel any internal guilt nor are they reprimanded for the way the behave. As the phrase goes “boys will be boys” which excuses any racist undertones or maltreatment especially when it is after a drunk night and “going for an Indian” is convenient to them. They would “behave disrespectfully, if not violently (most characteristically by racially abusing the staff), and possibly try to leave without paying.” Which would not be uncommon behaviour even now given the recent anti-immigration movements and racially motived riots across the UK less than 6 months ago.
As for colonial nostalgia “interviewing another British Asian culinary “moderniser”—“dressed in Paul Smith” designer clothing— in 2001, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown quoted him as wanting “to take this business away from Pakis and Banglis who are just junglee peasants with rough habits. We want to appeal to the people who spend money going to the palaces of Rajasthan, bon vivant people. This is about rebranding the food, making it 21st century” sums up the notion that those from places that were colonised are backwards, dirty and need modernising or civilising. This mindset which clearly seeped into second or third generation immigrants who have been fed capitalist, western and imperialistic propaganda whilst growing up in Britain adds to colonial nostalgia. This mindset that came in the years after the “Raj-style décor, reflecting the current of colonial nostalgia apparent elsewhere in British culture” in the 1980s shows that colonial thinking is still present in the UK as the nature of the restaurants when “going for an Indian” are still adhered to the white man’s taste even if it is decedents for those colonised doing it.

Western Americans viewed Punjabis in a negative light, deeming them inferior and unworthy of marrying into their race. Leonard states, “the strongest prejudices were against Punjabis associated with white women.” The superlative “strongest” indicates that excessive anger or frustration was felt when the notion of the unworthy Punjabi man was violated. In a patriarchal society where women were subject to their husbands, a relationship between a Punjabi man and a white woman created a dilemma. Does a brown man have the right to be in a relationship with a white woman? Leonard recounts an incident where “an offended Anglo neighbour rousted him out of her house with a shotgun and had him arrested.” This illustrates that many Western Americans felt that he did not have this right and were insulted when he tried. The violence of using a “shotgun” to have him “arrested” for merely being in a relationship with a white woman highlights the disdain felt for Punjabis.
This situation reveals two systemic issues in Western America: the first being their racist ideology and the second being their sexism. In this scenario, not only was the woman not allowed to be in a relationship with a man of her choice—according to her male neighbor, who felt it was his place to ‘fix’ this improper relationship—but the use of “offended” indicates that a relationship with a Punjabi man was considered shameful. This can be generalized to Hindus and Sikhs as well, as shown by the “clerk who judged the potential mates to be too different in skin color and would not issue a license.” This highlights that any Indians or darker-skinned individuals were barred from marrying those who appeared white. This demonstrates that although both parties would have consented to the marriage, the ‘superior’ view of Western American society overpowered them purely due to their contempt for Punjabis and people of darker skin.

Food played an important role in establishing a community for New York Indians who were able to enjoy a diet they appreciated. For example, they could eat hot dogs because “they always knew it was safe to eat from other Indians’ wagons,” as they never contained pork. This feeling of trust through food and similar diets translated into safety on the streets, where children like Felita felt secure knowing “her brother-in-law Saad’s friends would keep a watchful eye on her” (referring to the hot dog vendors). Today, many young girls are still fearful of walking the streets alone; therefore, having a community present is an invaluable feeling, knowing there are people to protect them.
Additionally, restaurants provided a space to “eat familiar food, converse in Bengali or Punjabi, and discuss the events that were unfolding on the subcontinent in the turbulent years that followed Indian independence and the partition of India and East and West Pakistan.” This kept them connected to home and served as “important communal spaces”. As a result of these restaurants, not only were businesses able to start, but people also gained a sense of home in a country so different and far away from India.
These restaurants may have been a sanctuary for immigrant families who, without the food they were familiar with and the people they could talk to in their mother tongue, would otherwise feel isolated and different from everyone else around them. For example, “since these were some of the first halal restaurants in Harlem, they also became spaces where South Asian and African American Muslims met and interacted.” Food therefore helped maintain religious teachings by providing Muslims with a space to gather while eating food that is permitted in their religion, where they know they will not be judged or questioned. Similarly today, in communities with shared backgrounds and religions, food serves as a way to unite people and bring them the joy of home.
This may be why having “large numbers of non-Indian customers, starting around the beginning of 1921, [was] an event that created friction with the Indian seamen and students who had previously been able to sit at Kira’s tables for hours at a stretch eating, drinking, and discussing the political situation in India.” This change impeded their sense of community and the luxury of being able to converse peacefully in a space they felt familiar and comfortable in, especially as it made way for white customers who perhaps brought in more income. This shift could be seen as a move toward Western values of individualism and profit-driven prospects, as opposed to the collectivist mindset that had been preserved through the restaurants and the food and space they provided.

Language affects the melancholic migrant in two ways. The first being their relationship with their native language. The second being their relationship with the language that their new ‘home’ requires them to learn. This relationship with the languag is symbolic of their relationship with those countries. For example Rajiv’s father who focused on “correcting his mother’s English” and disowning anything related to his Indianness. This highlights the way in which he separated himself from his mother tongue in order to adequately “mimic the British”. There is a melancholia surrounding both of these relationships as something is always sacrificed. At the heart of the problem, the melancholic migrant can never have both, perfect English or French (in most cases), and speak their native language perfectly without something else missing. For example setting aside their native language in order to focus on the new one (even if this is temporary) for most first-generation immigrants. Or learning/ growing up with their mother tongue and wondering why there is a stigma related to their own language and all the clothing, food and religion that comes with it. Essentially language is the key that unlocks the door to a winder sphere of rich culture.

The loss of language affects the melancholic migrant because it is something to grieve. To a melancholic migrant who has lost the connection to their roots and heritage, whilst simultaneously trying to navigate their life in a new Western society – where they are not fully assimilated – the loss of language is a reminder of this diminishing heritage. Yet, it is also a severing of communication with others who share this heritage, thus removing any possibility of “connect[ing] with my Indianness” as Rajiv on page 21 puts it. This loss is surely fear inducing. In the same way that Rajiv “wanted Hindi and Bhojpuri” in order to connect to his elders and have something to pass on, many melancholic migrants who have experienced this loss of language, usually because their parents want the focus to be on English, feel a yearning and responsibility to “plant [their] language back in [their] mouth.” This goes to show that like Rajiv, who struggled with writing “The vowels in short and long form […] [a]spirated consonants for retroflexed letters[]” in Hindi. Similarly, many others including myself, desire to learn the languages that connect us with our heritage, family, and culture. Language is what allows us not to lose that part of our identity.

The sorts of women entering into networks of racialized men in the UK were often local white women who, like “Mrs. Olive Salaman,” frequently “spoke Arabic with a Welsh accent.” This illustrates their integration into the Arab, Muslim, and South Asian cultures that were extremely important to these racialized men. According to Gilliat-Ray and Mellor, there was a strong positive correlation between the women who married these men and a lack of support from their parents, as highlighted by the observation that “these white women often found themselves estranged from their parents” or were “women of lower social class.” When their Welsh upbringing left them destitute, they may have found a purpose within the framework of the racialized community.

The skills they acquired growing up in Wales were advantageous, for example, their proficiency in English. “Women could secure opportunities for their husbands by acting as translators and intermediaries, sometimes by concealing his racial identity.” This language skill and the ability to interact with other Welsh people without arousing suspicion would have been more valued in a community where not everyone spoke English than in a white-majority one. This newfound purpose and appreciation could have incentivized their entry into networks of racialized men in the UK. Additionally, women had independence when their husbands were away, as “he generally leaves his wife in control,” highlighting the autonomy granted to them. The element of giving back, as demonstrated by Olive Salaman, who adopted many children, would have given them an important role within the community. This may have made women feel valued, as they had the ability to make a significant difference in the community that had accepted them. According to her son, “She had ten kids from my father. There were five brothers and five sisters. And she brought up fourteen on top of them!” This respectful tone used by her son emphasizes his pride in his mother for helping others. Furthermore, just as “boarding houses not only offered respite, but a refuge from discrimination and despair” for the Muslim population (The Yemenis of Cardiff: Britain’s oldest Muslim diaspora), poorer women may have also found comfort in this community. As a parallel could be drawn between the sexist, patriarchal world of Britain in the 1800s and 1900s and the hardships faced by racialized communities. Consequently, a connection may have formed based on shared struggles, as these women could relate more to Muslim men than to men of their own race.

However, some hardships of entering into the network of racialized men in the UK included the fact that women “were responsible for the religious nurture of children according to Islamic values,” thus taking on significant faith-related responsibilities. Additionally, having their husbands accepted by their previous community could be challenging. In Olive’s case, “initially, her devout Protestant family rejected him as a ‘heathen,’ but they eventually warmed to his charisma, generosity, and work ethic” (The Yemenis of Cardiff: Britain’s oldest Muslim diaspora). This highlights the controversy surrounding marrying a Muslim, which, in some cases, could result in the complete loss of connections to family members if they were not willing to see past religious differences, an issue still prevalent today.

Hancock, George. “The Yemenis of Cardiff: Britain’s Oldest Muslim Diaspora.” Middle East Eye, 8 Jan. 2024, www.middleeasteye.net/discover/yemen-cardiff-uk-oldest-muslim-diaspora.

Religion, for most people, is a sense of belonging, faith, and service to God. To fulfill this, following religious scriptures or, in Islam, the Five Pillars is important. Therefore, on a basic level, the undernourished enslaved Muslims fasted because it was what their faith required of them, and it was their choice to comply with this: “a strict Mahometan; [he] abstains from spirituous liquors and keeps the various fasts, particularly that of Ramadan.” However, this came at great sacrifice, as the intensity of slave labour while fasting would have been both physically and mentally torturous.
Another reason for Muslim slaves to have fasted would be that it connected them to their homeland, faith, heritage, and Allah (SWT), which was enough to help them endure anything. The belief that Allah (SWT) knows their struggles would provide great solace, helping them through the fast. Additionally, the common teaching in Islam that prioritizes Deen over Dunya—spiritual faith over worldly materials—suggests that the enslaved, who remained so faithful to their religion that they even practiced in a Christian country with masters who did not share their faith risking great punishment, were likely able to uphold this notion and fast.
Beyond the spiritual aspect, the act of fasting itself was autonomous for the slaves; they decided whether or not to fast. This choice is something that enslaved people often did not have. Therefore, the act of fasting may have been both religiously significant and personally freeing, allowing them to exert control over one aspect of their lives.

A morisco/ Morisco is person who is descendant of a Muslim or who is a former Muslim in New Spain. Their presence is a reminder of the lack of “limpieza de sangre” whereby their religious beliefs may not be or can never be purely Catholic due to this heritage. This inhibits their ability to be saved which would have caused the zealous catholic population including the ruling elite and inquisitors great strain and distress. Additionally, their migration to New Spain may be considered dangerous for numerous reasons including the practice of Islam, their influence on indigenous people and their issues with Iconoclasm. The potential Islamic practices of Moriscos that may have carried on despite their conversion to Catholicism created great suspicion amongst the Catholics. The mentioning of the Prophet on page 86 where on “Judgment Day, Muhammad would sit at Christ’s feet and revoke sentences he deemed unjust.” Which highlights the belief in Muhammed’s jurisdiction over Jesus’ which undermines the entire philosophy behind Catholicism thus posing a threat to Catholic doctrine in New Spain. Additionally, the use of Arabic and mentioning of the Prophet may have been seen as a reminder of the previous Islamic expansion that posed a great threat to the Catholic rule of Europe. The fear that Muslims would influence indigenous people and steer them away from the catholic faith made anyone with Islamic connections dangerous. Muslims indoctrinating the indigenous people and spreading their practices in Arabic would obviously impede on the Catholics’ power over the indigenous population as the catholic church’s doctrine would no longer be held as religious truth. Thus potentially limiting their jurisdiction and power over the indigenous people, as they do not the share the same religious beliefs as those enslaving them. Similarly, the iconoclasm where relics and idols were destroyed, is characteristic of the Protestant purification of the church thereby linking two opposing bodies against Catholicism making the threat stronger.

Football is a symbol of unity, pride and joy in British culture. If children of and/or immigrants themselves could all “play for England” like Joe suggests to Jess in Bend it like Beckham there would be no racism as everyone would just be playing football together. As stated by Ahmed ‘here “whoever” scores will be cheered.’ This would disregard that person’s race or background on the pitch as they have assimilated in British culture perfectly by contributing to this sport that unites people from all around the country. However, this an idealistic lens that has never come to fruition. Take the famously told story of WW2 soldiers who came together to play an England vs Germany game on Christmas day. The narrative is depicted as a temporary togetherness of these men united by their love for the game. What is often omitted from this story is how the next morning they all went back to the trenches and into war. A parallel can be drawn to the 2021 European final where three black players on the England team, who missed their penalties, were faced with racist abuse. As soon as they were not scoring the goals their race did matter similar to the soldiers who off the pitch killed one another for being from different countries. Therefore, though some British folks present soccer/football as a road to integration and happiness it is evident that it is not. It may create temporary happiness and a false feeling of being integrated but just like Jess being called a “P***” on the pitch some football fans will be racist as soon certain players do not do what they wanted them to. This reminder that they are “others” because they don’t look like the white English players goes to show that football as a road to integration only works if nothing goes wrong and perpetual happiness is attained.

Islamophobia can be a form of racism because the act of being racist does not necessarily depend on the actual religion or skin tone of the person receiving the racism, it depends on what that person is perceived as by the racial offender. If a Pakistani woman is perceived to be an Arab and is subjected to Islamophobia the person subjecting this onto her is profiling her and antagonising her based on the fact that she is thought to be a Muslim. The woman could have completely different features and skin tone to a ‘typical Arab’ but that does not matter; what matters is that she has been perceived to be a Muslim which in most cases is enough criteria to be exposed to prejudice and discrimination. Therefore, the taunting of a group of people solely because they are perceived to be Muslim is racist as well as Islamophobic because the people being racist do not know for a fact if the person is Muslim or not or anything about their personal beliefs. This presents two examples of racism one is being racist due to someone’s skin colour and then making assumptions about their religion, beliefs and lifestyle because they are brown. A second is knowing that person’s religion and assuming them and all others of that religion are the same eg calling all Muslims terrorists. This is illustrated perfectly in the Hussain article where the “Arab slayer” “Before pulling the trigger ,he asked the Bangladeshi immigrant where he was from. His answer did not matter.” Which highlights that the true ethnicity of the man did not matter to the “Arab slayer” and therefore his racism towards Arabs rooted in islamophobia became apparent without him even interacting with an Arab man.

The oppressed whether that be women or black people have something in common, their oppressors. On page 10 Yancy states, "men getting together by themselves to solve the historical problem of male hegemony and sexism" would be the same as white people solving "the problem of whiteness". They could be viewed as analogous because in both cases the oppressed groups are being stripped from the equation by the oppressors. Their rights to make decisions about the system (patriarchy, individual and institutional racism) that has been set up for their failures are yet again usurped. This highlights the fundamental lack of understanding and sheer disregard towards these groups by those who feel the need to exert power over them. Both the men and whites would feel it appropriate to make yet another decision about women and black people as if it were their right, when it is simply not. That is part of the reason why racism and misogyny can be seen as similar in this case. It is less about the specific experiences of Black people and women (as those experiences are relatively different) and more about the way individuals exhibit racism and misogyny with no remorse and, in some cases, with little understanding of their superiority complex over the 'other.' This perpetuates the cycle of racism and sexism. That is why it is imperative to point out sexism and rupture that cycle of ignorance amongst misogynists. It is similar with racism highlighted when Yancy states ‘“Look, a white!” tells us to be attentive to what has become the background.’ Which highlights the importance of not accepting the status quo and calling out elements of whiteness that have been allowed to be viewed as the norm for so long.