Melancholic Migrants > Forum Home

Imagining cultural communities as fixed and "neatly distinguishable" is problematic because it simplifies a more complex reality. This essentialist view presents cultures as homogeneous and fixed in time, thus ignoring their vast diversity and capacity to evolve. Cultures are fluid and are influenced by many interacting variables, all linked to social, economic and political contexts. Communities comprise individuals with different experiences and points of view that express different relationships to traditions. Homogenising them erases these important nuances. On the other hand, reducing cultures to static entities means ignoring their natural adaptability to change. Cultures are constantly evolving and changing. This dynamic is evident in children from immigrant backgrounds, who are good examples of cultural hybridity. For example, young people of North African origin living in France may speak French and eat traditional French dishes while cultivating a strong link with their heritage through cultural food. Their identity is, therefore, the result of a complex mix of influences, which cannot be reduced to a single pure culture. It can also lead to exclusion and discrimination. When certain cultures are presented as incompatible, this becomes a pretext for excluding groups and seeing them as a threat to national identity or dominant values. Reducing cultures to fixed ideas only encourages division rather than understanding. The Canadian state has introduced the category of "visible minorities", and according to Thobani, this reinforces racial distinctions based on skin colour. This categorisation contributes to the erasure of anti-racist discourse and the marginalisation of racialised people. By identifying ten "non-white" groups as visible minorities, this classification institutionalises racial differences by focusing on physical appearance. This then reinforces stereotypes and inequalities. By concentrating on the cultural differences of "visible minorities", the real issue of racism, whether institutional or personal, is often overlooked. This thus hides the systemic disadvantages that people of colour have in society, which restrict their ability to paticipate in social, economic, and political life. Furthermore, by reducing people of colour to a uniform picture defined only by their culture of origin ignores the diversity of these groups and the various aspects that contribute to their identities. Thus, the term ‘visible minority’, according to Thobani, obscures white privilege and continues to marginalise people of colour.

• What is the role of colonial desire (for knowledge, sex, etc.) in the colonial image of the hijab?

Al-Saji explains how colonial desire influenced the image of the hijab/veil during the colonial period. According to her, French colonisers saw the veil not only as a symbol of cultural difference but also as an obstacle to their desire to control and possess Muslim women and Algeria in general. The veil was seen as a sign of a backward and oppressive culture that had to be unveiled in order to civilise the Algerian people. The veil was seen as a barrier preventing the colonisers from possessing the bodies of Muslim women.
On the other hand, this obsession with unveiling women reinforces the image of the veil as a limitation to the colonial vision, a limitation that they attempted to overcome in order to impose their power. The text also highlights a paradox, which is that Muslim women who wear the veil are both hypervisible (objects of oppression) and invisibilised (reduced to voiceless victims). This image of the veil, constructed by the colonial eye, serves to justify the intervention of the colonisers while at the same time concealing the inequalities and violence of colonial society itself. In short, colonial desire has created an image of the hijab that serves to justify colonialism while reinforcing Western stereotypes and norms.

• What is the relationship between sexularism and Orientalism?

Sexularism presents the idea that secularisation leads to gender equality and sexual freedom, contrasting the West, seen as modern and secular, with the Muslim world, seen as traditional, religious and oppressive towards women and non-heteronormative sexualities. This discourse is similar to orientalism, but rather than describing the Muslim world as sexually depraved, it sees it as a threat to Western sexual freedom. In this sense, secularism is used to justify the exclusion of Muslim populations, presenting them as lagging behind in terms of sexual modernity and gender, in debates on immigration and integration.

One of the main concerns of the authorities was the practice of polygamy as it was considered an ‘Asian’ custom and a ‘Mohammedan barbarism’. It contradicted the ‘civilized’ traditions of Western Europeans and whites in the United States. State marriage laws categorically prohibited polygamy, and immigrants were required to swear not to tolerate or practice it as a condition of immigration and naturalization to American citizenship. Given that some Mormons still practise polygamy today, this law is more racist than logical. I’d also like to touch on the subject of polyamorous relationships, a type of relationship that is sometimes associated with polygamy but is much less talked about. Although polyamory is different from polygamy, there are similarities in specific dynamics. For example, in some polyamorous relationships, one partner may accept that the other has relationships with other people without actually participating in them, which is reminiscent of certain aspects of polygamy. More attention and thought are needed to understand these different types of relationships and the perceptions associated with them. Correct me if I’m wrong or if I have misinterpreted things, but voila.

I'm requesting to skip this post because I attended the SAATHIS talk. Thank you!

I'm requesting to pass this post because I attended SASSA event on September 27th. Thank you!

I'm requesting to skip this post because I attended the "Inherited Memories of
Partition" talk on September the 20th. Thank you!

Homonationalism is, as its name indicates, a form of nationalism that weaponises LGBTQ+ rights as a means of conveying and justifying imperialistic and xenophobic politics.
In the post-9/11 context, racialised bodies, particularly those associated with Islam or the Middle East, have been systematically targeted by surveillance policies in the United States. As queer people from these communities, we find ourselves confronted with a double otherness: our origins already place us in the category of potentially hostile ‘Others’, and our queerness, far from protecting us or ‘de-racialising’ us, adds another layer of marginalisation.
What is particularly disturbing is this strategy of selective integration. The American state has constructed a narrative that valorises homosexuals as respectable and assimilable into the national fabric while demonising other groups, particularly Muslims and people from countries considered enemies of the West. Within this framework, queer Desis individuals are caught up in a ‘double movement’ that Puar highlights: on the one hand, we are pushed to embrace American exceptionalism, to fit into the nationalist narrative by rejecting sexualities perceived as ‘perverse’ from the East. On the other hand, there is also a resistance, a refusal to assimilate, where some choose to claim this ‘sexual perversity’ attributed to the brown terrorist to challenge these essentialist discourses and affirm the complexity of our identities.
This phenomenon, which Puar describes as homonationalism, has deeply divided our communities. To survive or integrate, some of us agree to conform to the dominant norms, to align ourselves with an image of respectability that excludes parts of our identities that are deemed ‘uncomfortable’. Others, on the other hand, choose to resist, not deny, our origins and our intersections of identity, and this resistance creates tension within our circles. This division is even reflected in the relationship between LGBTQ+ organisations and Desis community associations, where we see distinct and sometimes incompatible initiatives. Puar mentions the example of the tensions between specific LGBTQ+ associations and the Sikh gurdwaras after 11 September.

My mother is Kabyle, which means she comes from a specific region of Algeria. But it's not just a location, it also means she's part of an ethnic group distinct from the Arabs. As an Amazigh people, the Kabyles have their own language, traditions, history, and a whole heritage that differs from the Arab majority in Algeria. That's why, when she introduces herself, she always insists that she is "Kabyle Algerian". For her, it's crucial to make this distinction because to reduce her to an Arab identity would be to deny an essential part of who she is.
This demand is not insignificant. It's part of a history in which Amazigh identities have often been pushed aside in favour of homogenisation around Arabness. My mother rejects this implicit assimilation. Her Kabyle identity is an asset, a heritage she wants to preserve and pass on. It's not a rejection of Algeria; on the contrary, it reminds us that Algerianness is plural and that several voices and stories make it up.
In fact, it reminds me of the experience of Syrian migrants in Canada. They, too, have had to fight against the pressure to assimilate, this time into Anglo-Canadian culture. To resist, they created churches, community associations, and a whole network to preserve their language, traditions, and faith. At the same time, they had to juggle multiple identities "Syrian" "Arab", "Turkish" often imposed by the administration or the stereotypes of Canadian society.
I think these two stories, that of my mother and that of the Syrians in Canada, are similar in one crucial point, they illustrate the tension between majority and minority identities. Whether in Algeria or Canada, marginalised groups must constantly assert their singularity in the face of categorisations that simplify or erase them. For example, for Syrians, the term "Arab" has long been central, even if it has had different meanings in different contexts and at other times. In the same way, my mother rejects the idea that Algerian identity automatically boils down to Arab identity.
These stories also show the extent to which words matter. Whether it's my mother, who insists that she is Kabyle or the Syrian-Lebanese associations that claim their Arab heritage, there is always a symbolic and political dimension behind these choices. Words determine how we perceive, claim and transmit an identity. Finally, these struggles reveal how complex it is to protect one's identity in a world where the norm is often assimilation or simplification.

Baldwin describes French attitudes towards Algerians as « snide and vindictive », showing a kind of vengeful violence. He explains that the increase in police brutality against Algerians was a sign of how scared French authorities were after losing Indochina. This reminds me of a story my Tunisian grandfather told me. Before marrying my grandmother, he travelled extensively between Germany and France. In Paris, he lived in the 18th district, which you are familiar with if you listen to a bit of Charles Aznavour. This district is divided into two parts: Barbès, where immigrants lived, and Montmartre, where the artists lived. Today, the area is being gentrified, meaning a lot of « bobos » (bourgeois-bohèmes) now live there. One night, as he returned to his « chambre de bonne », there was a police raid in his building. The police checked every apartment and asked everyone for their ID. Since he was Tunisian, nothing happened to him, but if you were Algerian, they would take you for « interrogation ». Therefore, this displays a really tough and traumatizing climate for Arabs. This intense climate is still very present in today’s France, as the media continues to heavily circulate Islamophobic content. Even the UN Human Rights Office has called on France to address its deeply rooted issues of racism in policing. So, whenever someone tells me, « France gave you everything; if you were in Tunisia, it would be so much worse », I can’t help but respond like my grandmother does: « J’emmerde la France ».

« In their looks, their words, their intonations, all that. Everything that could be used to differentiate « real French people » from non-white French people has been used. Karim's story about how he behaves and how he thinks of himself has been the reality for every person of colour (I want to assume). I have many examples of stories similar to Karim’s, and I will share one. I remember my aunt, who I think of as a bit white-passing. The year she graduated from high school, she called the admissions centre for Sciences Po, an outstanding school, to get some information. The girl who answered asked for her name, which is Imene. After giving her name, the girl said on the phone, «With a name like yours, you won’t be able to do much » (in diplomacy, because this was the field she was interested in). Even though she was born in France and went to «Les écoles de la République, » she was always considered unfrench. This event really stopped her, and she decided not to apply. This is just a tiny microaggression that every Arab-looking person had to go through in everyday life in France in the 90s. Now, I think that this kind of racism is more subtle, in a more Canadian manner.I also resonate with what Karim says about « always to make a good impression, » as this is something my parents reminded me of when I was a kid. But it didn’t sound like futile advice; it was more like a matter of life or death. Because the way you look is menacing.

In 1967, the Liberal government created the points system to assess potential immigrants based on human and social capital. Based on factors like age, education, training, desired job skills, proficiency in English or French, a personal evaluation by an immigration officer, family members in Canada, arranged employment, and employment opportunities in the destination area, this system assigned applicants a score.Those who achieved a pass mark of fifty points were allowed to enter the country. Although designed to be more objective than previous systems, this system continued to favour immigrants with a high level of education and skills.

There are many reasons why Canada agreed to take in the Ugandan Asians. The first and most humanitarian is the one that Pierre Trudeau publicly evoked by declaring that Canada had a moral duty to help people in need.
Secondly, the Canadian government justified its choice by highlighting a feeling of fraternity that would unite the Commonwealth countries. In addition, some Canadians justified the decision by seeing it as a form of reparation for past discrimination suffered by Asian communities in Canada.
One might think that Canada was acting purely out of altruism in its immigration policy, but there were other reasons for this decision as well. Ugandan Asians were often well-educated, highly skilled and promising entrepreneurs. Pierre Elliott Trudeau pointed out: "These people are not destitute refugees, they are the most desirable type of immigrants. It's a windfall for us." Which shows that he saw their arrival as an advantage for the country.
Finally, the Aga Khan's influence on Trudeau was considerable. The Aga Khan, spiritual leader of the Nizari Ismailis (the second largest Shia Muslim group in the world), had a personal connection to the situation, as many Asian Ugandans expelled were Ismailis. He was also a close friend of Trudeau and played a crucial role in influencing the decision. He made it easy to welcome their immigration by providing financial resources and by convincing Trudeau that this group would not become a "burden" on Canada.

Gualtieri argues that becoming white was instead a choice for Syrian migrants because they actively participated in the construction of their white identity in order to gain privileges and citizenship. Syrians became "white" only after they claimed it through concrete actions such as hiring lawyers and forming associations, and once the law confirmed it. To access the "holy grail" represented by whiteness, Syrians played on religious lines, as shown by the example of Elkourie, who emphasizes that Syrians are compatible with the West because they are Christians. Seeing that relying solely on religion would not work, they defined their whiteness by opposing themselves to Black and Asian people, explicitly participating in the pre-established hierarchy. An example of this is this citation from Najib al-Sarghani, the secretary of the SSND « no better than blacks (al-zunuj) and Mongolians (al-mughuli). Rather, blacks will have rights that the Syrian does not have." This fear reflects the shift in Syrian discourse on race, moving from a claim of their compatibility with Western civilization to a concern about being seen as inferior to Black and Asian people. Finally, the decision made in favour of Dow (a Syrian seeking naturalization) confirmed the Syrians' belonging to the white race while reinforcing the dominant racial discourse, thus contributing to the exclusion of other immigrant groups, notably Muslim Arabs.

The distinction between Aryans and Semites has profoundly affected the self-perception and nationalist sentiments of Iranians. Even though Iranians are classified as white in the USA, their racial position is often contested. The Aryan myth, which suggests that Iranians are the original Caucasians, has served as the foundation for a dominant ideology of Persian cultural and racial purity. This myth encourages Iranians to identify as white and feel superior to Arabs. This belief is passed down within families. The Aryan myth asserts that Iranians are descendants of people who originated in Western civilization, based partly on linguistic similarities between Persian and European languages. This view leads to a racial hierarchy in the Middle East, placing Iranians at the top. This is notably illustrated by Feri, a second-generation Iranian-American student who recognizes the contradictions in the discourse held by her parents about the whiteness of Iranians and the Iranian community. She describes Iranians as "hottie patotties" to reflect their perception of superiority. However, she, like many second-generation Iranians, questions the validity of the Aryan myth and understands that Iranian identity is more complex and diverse.

In conclusion, for both Syrians and Iranians, identifying with whiteness serves as a tool for social mobility and acceptance in Western societies. By differentiating themselves from other marginalized groups, Syrians and Iranians wish to access white privilege.

Malcolm X turned to Islam, and more specifically to the Nation of Islam, following his experiences of racism and violence, which left him profoundly disillusioned with white society and its values. His brother Reginald introduced him to the Nation of Islam’s doctrine in prison, giving him a point of view that resonated with his current situation, and in particular, the idea that historical manipulation erased the accomplishments of Black people. His conviction that his people’s suffering was due to a society controlled by the “white man” was strengthened by this vision, which not only explained the tyranny he had seen but also gave it meaning and purpose. Simultaneously, his desire to learn grew more robust and he studied literature and history. He was taken aback by the brutality and cruelty of European colonization and the wealth of African and Asian past civilizations. The further he progressed in his reading, the broader his knowledge became, and this strengthened his understanding of the historical battles of black people.
At the time, many African Americans shared this attraction to Islam because they were motivated by a context of racism and segregation. Islam offered them a sense of community, an affirmation of racial pride and an ideal of self-determination. For many, Christianity was associated with white oppression, while Islam appeared to be an authentic and liberating alternative. Therefore, Malcolm X, who embodied the fight for social justice and emancipation, encouraged many African Americans to explore Islam.
On the other hand, the Nation of Islam is clearly in opposition to traditional Islam. Firstly, it proposes a racialized perspective of Islam, arguing that the black race is superior to the white race. Then, it says that the white race is evil and was born from genetic manipulation. This doctrine, illustrated by the story of ‘Yacub’s History’, is a radical departure from the teachings of Islam, which advocates the equality of all human beings before God. Therefore, maybe the idea of a black race being superior to any race also sparked the interest of many black people.

The growth of "Indian" eateries in Britain for instance, although many hail their appeal as evidence of British multiculturalism and tolerance, this acceptance frequently comes out as fake. White British people may eat foods like chicken tikka masala or « curry » but this selective enjoyment does not always translate into a greater comprehension of South Asian culture and its people. Many of these diners hold onto negative stereotypes about South Asians, which contradicts any claims of multicultural acceptance. Many people's main way to engage with South Asian culture is through eating at these restaurants. This little interaction rarely results in real connections but rather enables people to feel good about their claimed tolerance without facing their biases. True multicultural participation is made more difficult by the commercialization of culture, which is exemplified by the "Curry Capitals" phenomenon and perpetuates prejudices while exoticizing South Asian food.

As an example of that, I have this video attached which I find very funny https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCPFTpu2RAg
I also find it amusing that despite France's complicated relationship with its Arab population, couscous was once voted the country's favourite dish.

In food reside memories. Yesterday, I went to Koujina, a Tunisian café near Jean Talon, and ordered a sandwich. From the very first bite, I was transported back to my eight-year-old self, sitting on the beach in Kelibia, savouring my harissa and Tuna sandwich, simple yet so flavorful. The taste of it brought back waves of nostalgia with every bite being a journey through time. Food is deeply linked to the melancholy of migrants, as it has the power to transport you across huge distances with a simple taste.

Chapter 1 of Bengali Harlem

Many legal frameworks in America made it very difficult for Indians to enter the United States, like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which was the first act to target a specific ethnic group. The Alien Contract Labor Law aimed to restrict the immigration of labourers who were under contract and, therefore, disproportionately affected Indian workers. Finally, the Immigration Act of 1917 further tightened immigration restrictions by creating an “Asiatic Barred Zone” and excluding immigrants from parts of Asia, including India. Nevertheless, many Muslim lascars were able to come to the US thanks to an American opening to the demand for “expanding American culture of travel, tourism, and consumption and a broad demand for Oriental goods” .
Orientalism and the American desire for « oriental » goods had an ambivalent impact on Bengalis. It offered economic opportunities to Bengali peddlers who benefited from this high demand for silk scarfs, rugs and brass objects. Acquiring oriental goods became a symbol of social status, particularly among upper-class women, who used these objects to decorate their homes thematically. For instance, Bertha Honoré Palmer used these objects to declare her identity and social standing by designing homes that were influenced by several cultures, particularly the Orient. However, this same interest in the East also fuelled misconceptions and preconceived notions about Bengalis, which further exacerbated the inequalities they faced. Orientalist views prevented Bengalis from being recognized as unique individuals and successful businessmen, which would often result in exploitation and marginalization.

Chapter 5 of Bengali Harlem

Food is an important unifying feature among cultures. I think dinner is never a solitary moment but a moment to share with family and friends. These moments strengthen our ties with our family and friends and create shared memories. They also serve to gossip and discuss the latest news. But more deeply, food serves to affirm your cultural identity and as a remembrance power. Food takes you places for real.
Therefore, food has helped to create connections between Indians themselves and “white folks”. The fact that these workers were “apparent” to everyone raised the profile of the Indian community in the eyes of the whites, but above all, in the eyes of the Indians themselves. Compared to those who worked in factories and basement kitchens, these hot dog vendors were part of the active life and daily social landscape of Harlem. They were a key element in maintaining the Indian community. These small traders also provided a degree of security. As an illustration, Helen's younger sister Felita recalls moving from cart to cart with the knowledge that her brother-in-law Saad's friends would keep an eye on her and protect her in the streets. Eventually, individuals who managed to save some cash started modest stores and tiny restaurants, which became community landmarks by helping to deepen the relationships within the Indian community as well as the Puerto Rican and black American Muslim communities.

The imperial and trade projects of Britain played a crucial role in bringing racialized individuals to the UK. Indian servants were brought over for several reasons, such as a desire to keep loyal servants, a desire to recreate British people's abundant life in India and the need to manage the family's needs during the long boat trip to Britain. For example, the "ayahs", expert nannies, were essential during these trips. They were expected to take complete charge of the children and the belongings of the family. Often, they also became necessary to the household. However, many found themselves dumped after the trip without a proper contract, consideration and legal protection. The mistreatment they suffered, which often led them to live in overcrowded and expensive accommodations while waiting for a new job, is a brutal reminder of the exploitation they faced. Although they were closely involved in the domestic sphere, the racial basis of their employment highlighted the dynamics of British Orientalism. Families travelling to India often chose Indian rather than European servants because of their reliability and ability to "minister to the needs of the family". This preference highlights the influence of imperialism on the dynamics of labour, transforming Indian servants not only into cheap labour but also into exotic symbols. For example, William Hickey brought back a Bengali boy dressed "very smart as a hussar", though he admitted that "as a servant, he was not of the least use to me". This quote underlines the symbolic role played by these servants, more as objects of fascination or pets for British families than as respected workers. Another example of the duality of their status as humans and chattel can be seen in Queen Victoria's relationship with two Indian servants, Mohammed Bux and Abdul Karim. On their arrival at Balmoral, Victoria was described as "as excited about them as a child would be with a new toy", serving as an object of display. They were treated as possessions.

Lascars were a boon to British capitalists because they were a cheap and easily manageable labour force. By "employing" lascars, shipowners could hire three workers for the price of two European sailors. This financial boost increased British shipowners' reliance on lascars (mainly Yemeni and Indian sailors). As Sydney Collins stated, lascars were also seen as "more manageable and amenable" and were prized for their loyalty and sobriety. The colonial racial stereotypes made it hard for these workers, notably because of their perceived docility. Compared to English sailors, lascars were seen as less masculine and self-reliant, reinforcing that they could only perform well under European leadership even if they were competent sailors. These racist beliefs weren't the only ones, and one of the most devastating was the belief that due to their "tropical" origins, lascars could withstand the extreme heat of ship engine rooms better than European sailors. Because of that, lascars were given the most tedious and dangerous jobs and worked in unbearable conditions. These stereotypes ensured their exploitation in inhuman working conditions and made sure they stayed at the bottom of the shipping hierarchy. The treatment of the lascars was frequently gruesome. Ansari highlights the abuse they suffered on ships, where their captains beat many. But the suffering wasn't confined to the boat because when they arrived in the UK in port cities like Cardiff and London, they were often abandoned and forced to live in overcrowded and unsanitary accommodations. The language barrier also served as a suffering instrument. For instance, when lascars fell ill and were unable to communicate their pain, they were forced to endure their suffering.

Finally, the exploitation of Indian servants and lascars under British imperialism highlights the issue of the racial commodification of labour. Both groups faced difficult working conditions, influenced by racial prejudice. Ayahs were valued for their skills and were seen as exotic possessions, whereas lascars were seen as cheap, submissive labour. These workers were often placed in dangerous positions because they were considered inferior. It highlights the racist basis of imperial labour regimes. These stories show how race, class and imperialism interact and result in the systematic exploitation and marginalization of people of colour.

Diouf

According to Diouf, Muslim customs remained among West African slaves in America because of their great devotion to their Islamic faith, which they considered vital to their identity. African Muslims had a strong belief in their religion that caused them to assert themselves as such even in dangerous conditions as Ayuba Suleyman Diallo reveals. Unlike non-Muslim Africans who were more open to conversion, Muslims were frequently religious warriors who had battled for Islam in Africa and were therefore hesitant to renounce their faith. However, in Catholic areas, they were sometimes forced to wear visible Christian symbols or risk being reprimanded and persecuted. As a result, and according to the Comte de Gobineau, the French minister in Brazil, many began practising pseudoconversion, while secretly retaining their Islamic beliefs. In summary, Diouf believes that the fundamental reason Muslims have been able to keep their practices is the remarkable strength of their faith. This faith, which can be regarded as a genuine profession of religion was vital in their resistance. Because of their profound comprehension and knowledge of their beliefs, these slaves were able to endure the most terrible difficulties and survive in a very hostile environment, passing on their knowledge from generation to generation. Muslim slaves were also deeply committed to Islam, and its five pillars one of the most demanding of which was Ramadan. Indeed, despite their horrible living conditions and already limited nourishment many slaves chose to take part in Ramadan. Even if the Quran permitted them to refrain due to their circumstances, they considered fasting as a way of preserving their faith and identity. This also shows that they considered their stay permanent and consequently refused to give up, despite the numerous difficulties, showing a deep capacity for spiritual endurance.

GhaneaBassiri

Focusing solely on biographies in the history of Islam in America is inaccurate as this represents only a small proportion of the African Muslims transported as slaves. These biographical descriptions, which often focus on exceptional individuals such as the ‘slave princes’, can arouse interest. However, they limit the narrative to anecdotes rather than broader narratives. Even though thousands of enslaved African Muslims lived in colonial America, most of them are absent from these accounts. To avoid these biases, biographies need to be combined with other types of historical analysis. As GhaneaBassiri points out, "Examining historical evidence from the African regions where slaves were purchased, alongside American sources that identify slaves by African names or Muslim origins, provides a more comprehensive understanding. Sources such as runaway slave advertisements or slave ledgers help contextualize the broader experiences of early Muslims in America" (p. 16). This can help broaden the perspective and offer a more complete picture of the history of Muslims in America.

According to Trevor Phillips, community conflict arises when « people who look very different » never engage with each other. He proposes a cure for this disease: football. Phillips argues that the unhappiness in diverse communities stems not from the diversity itself, but from the lack of interaction between these groups. He suggests that activities such as football, which brings together people from different ethnic backgrounds, can help create links and solve division problems. Football is seen as a means of integration because it provides a common ground where ethnic differences can be put aside. Football is a symbol of national unity and by participating in it, people show their loyalty to the nation. In return, happiness and integration are guaranteed which means that participation in common national activities can help overcome divisions and build a more united society. Football symbolizes the potential for unity as shown in Bend It Like Beckham. In the movie, football allows Jess to break free from cultural restrictions and pursue her dreams. Football is presented as a space where differences can be set aside and where you can form new identities. This promotes social cohesion and integration.
Furthermore, Sara Ahmed criticizes the idea of « culture shock» in Bend It Like Beckham by pointing out that the film simplifies cultural differences by contrasting football with Jess's restrictive life with her Indian family. Football symbolizes freedom and happiness while her home represents constraint. Ahmed also points out that proximity to white culture is linked to freedom and that Jess's joy comes from her interactions with white characters. Therefore, it suggests that integration requires assimilation into a Western culture. Ahmed challenges the idea that cultural difference is a problem to be surmounted by arguing that happiness and freedom are shaped by cultural stories that favour certain forms of belonging.

Yes, Islamophobia can be a form of racism. It is based on an essential approach to culture, which makes it like racism because it treats religion as a fixed and unchangeable characteristic. In today's United States, Islam is increasingly seen as a racial identity rather than just a religion. This is the result of racism, the maintenance of white Christian supremacy, and the legacy of imperialism. This racialization of Islam takes place through visible signs, such as clothing, behaviour, and physical features (Rana 27). Indeed, Islam is now perceived primarily as a cultural practice, leading to the belief that Islam is culturally and religiously inferior to Western “culture.” Islam is thus reduced to a list of fixed and simplified characteristics. An example of this simplification is the law in France banning young girls from wearing abayas to school. The problem is that the abaya is not a religious garment but a cultural one. And here lies the problem with Islamophobia, this constant conflation of Islam/Arab/Black/Terrorist/Islamist.
Rana explains that when a person's physical appearance was no longer enough to distinguish them from other groups, culture began to mark these racial differences. For example, Muslims began to be defined in terms of “blackness.” Religion was no longer the only way to distinguish them, so they were differentiated along racial lines, creating distinctions based on physical rather than religious characteristics. Again, according to Rana, this is where the Semitic-Hamitic hypothesis appears, classifying the inhabitants of the Middle East into two categories. On the one hand, there are the Semites (Jews and Arabs), and on the other, the Hamites (Blacks). This racial ethnology began to break down with the advent of decolonization and the beginning of nationalist projects. However, the association between Jews and Muslims persisted and played a major role in the “racialization process” of the many Muslim populations by grouping them into a single group.

I think that the term "Integration" allows white people to reassure themselves. As black people gain rights, it frightens a large part of the white population, who see people appearing around them who previously escaped their gaze. As Baldwin says: "Imagine how you would feel if you woke up one morning to find the sun shining and all the stars aflame". That's the state of mind in which members of the white community find themselves. Everything has always revolved around them.
They've put themselves on such a pedestal that when black people ask for the bare minimum, it turns their world upside down. They've never truly considered this possibility because, in their eyes, black people are far too different, almost inhuman.
With the growth of the civil rights movement and the fact that racialized people began to make their voices heard, it was no longer possible to ignore this reality. So, I think the term "Integration" serves to reassure white people so that they don't feel that their identity is under threat. By integrating and assimilating black people to white standards, white identity can continue.
However, Baldwin's definition differs. He sees integration not as a means of conforming populations, but rather as an opportunity for white people to realize that they are not special and that the reality in which they live can no longer be sustained. Things must change. Baldwin also points out that "we cannot be free until they are free", calling for white people to recognize that their freedom is tied to the liberation of others.
"One might say that the n-word is that which whites create as the spectre/phantom of their own fear" (Yancy, p.5). This idea resonates with Said's analysis in Orientalism, where he shows how the West constructs the 'Orient' as a projection of its fears and desires, to preserve its own identity. In the same way, racism becomes a means of displacing insecurities onto another identity, thus enabling self-reflection. Racism is a systemic projection of one's insecurities onto a vast group of people, allowing white people to distance themselves from their fears by embodying them in Black bodies.
This projection is not merely a belief as it is lived and performed, as Yancy illustrates through his example of a child pointing to a black person in the street and calling him the n-word. Whiteness is also a performance - a way of living embedded in everyday life. Because racism is so deeply ingrained, whiteness becomes the norm, invisible to those who benefit from it. As George Lipsitz states, "Whiteness is everywhere in U.S. culture, but is very hard to see." This invisibility perpetuates the systemic power of whiteness because it functions without being challenged or fully acknowledged.

Said defines Orientalism in three terms. The first is an academic discipline rooted in European colonialism that applies to many fields, such as philosophy, history and sociology. The second definition states that Orientalism is also a school of thought that separates “ontologically and epistemologically” the East from the West, claiming that the two are completely different. The third and final definition describes Orientalism as the “corporate institution” that asserts its dominance over the so-called “Orient”. By merging the three definitions, Orientalism can be understood as a means of legitimizing violence and domination over a place.
The way the Orient is often portrayed evokes a fairy tale, full of flavours and colours, a place where all Western taboos and prohibitions come to life. The Orient is seen as an object of desire and part of the collective imagination. However, Said makes it clear in his text that the Orient is not merely imaginary but rooted in material reality. The fact that we talk about it, describe it, and colonize it gives this concept a tangible and real existence. By positioning the East as the antipode of the West, the latter can place itself in a position of strength and cultural hegemony by projecting its societal ills onto the East.
Orientalist stereotypes are also evident in Bald’s text, which describes how such stereotypes, stemming from Orientalism, may have been "beneficial" to certain Black communities in the United States during the Jim Crow era. The notion of the Orient as mystical, magical, and exotic allowed a marginalized and reviled Black population to be mystified and associated with an Indian-desired community.
However, while this allowed many to travel and work more freely, racism as a form of class hierarchy still prevented upward social mobility. This reveals the limits of such a strategy: despite the mystery surrounding them, their non-white skin colour still imposed significant restrictions.
Finally, the exotic, sexual, and universal aspects of the Orientalist vision are particularly clear in the SwetShop Boys’ music video. The clip uses various raw, assembled footage of movies and video clips, depicting beautiful women dancing alongside scenes of violence as if that’s all the Orient represents. Additionally, the subtitles make no sense and are a mix of three languages, emphasizing the fact that Orientalism presents a highly unilateral and distorted vision of the “Orient.”