Melancholic Migrants > Forum Home

The model minority discourse positions South Asian masculinity as politically passive, non-aggressive, and associated with a certain asexuality. They are perceived as “all brain”, thriving in the professional world but lacking masculine proficiency, thus qualified as unfit for sports. This identity is formed in opposition to African American masculinity, considered “all brawn” and praised for their success in sports. It is embedded in a hierarchy of masculinity in which being strong and athletic is the hegemonic form and in which “race is associated with ability” (Thangaraj 376;382). In multi-racial basketball leagues, South Asians felt like they always had to negotiate their presence and felt marginalized. By creating their league, they made their own space to reclaim their masculinity, challenging racialized stereotypes. In this sense, Indo-Pak basketball leagues can be deemed a form of resistance, challenging stereotypes and affirming their cultural presence in sport.

At the same time, by adopting African American aesthetics and behaviors, South Asians assert their “American-ness” without having to identify with whiteness. Their proximity to African Americans has offered them an alternative path of cultural integration and a model of masculinity. They challenge the white hegemonic normativity by consuming another culture. Still, South Asians keep a corporeal distance from African Americans and hyper-masculine “aggressivity,” keeping the privilege of navigating the black and white spaces as they wish while forbidding non-South Asians in their league. As for those who were bi-racial, they tended to accept half-white people way more easily than those who looked darker (Thangaraj 380). They adopt “cultural Blackness” to display a form of “cool urban identity” while keeping a distance and thus without facing their experience of racialized masculinity (ibid 378). It also does not come with more tolerance or awareness of racial issues. Therefore, racial hierarchies are not actively challenged as they argue to do so.

Moreover, while they claim to contest essentializing discourses and stereotypes, they reinforce the stereotypes of masculinity and reinstate other hierarchies. Their masculinity remains constrained by heteronormative and patriarchal structures, and deviations from traditional gender norms are marginalized. They tried to challenge an oppressive structure while reinforcing another. Moreover, the focus on aggressive, heterosexual masculinity within basketball points out the issues of the patriarchal and heterosexist nature of sports, in which queerness is seen as a threat to the legitimacy of one’s masculinity. Identities that fall outside the heteronormative expression of masculinity are not acknowledged in those spaces and even rejected, reinforcing an exclusionary model of masculinity. Thus, instead of challenging or deconstructing dominant masculinity, they conform to its hegemonic traditional form to be accepted.

The reasonable accommodation debate had set the ground for immigrants and minorities to be seen as a threat to Quebec’s national history and identity. While the Bouchard-Taylor Commission was erected to address different cases in which the practices of minorities or immigrants were forbidden and claimed to be fighting inequality and discrimination, it paradoxically reinforced the “crisis” and the racial hierarchy underlying it (Mahrouse 94).

By adopting the older version of the definition of racism, they made it harder to detect implicit and systemic forms of racism. They were themselves unable to see that this very commission was itself racist by making French-Quebecois decide on which practices minorities and immigrants were allowed to exercise in Quebec. Making them the judges of what was tolerable or not, inherently positioning their Western culture as the superior one (Mahrouse 90). It indeed relates to Edward Said’s analysis of Orientalism in which he also argues that Westerners use Orientalism as a way to uplift their identity by placing themselves in contrast to the “Orient” (Said). Moreover, they position themselves as experts, behind which they can hide racism and xenophobia, arguing they know what is better for everyone.

Birge’s article also conveys this idea by arguing that the Quebecois government has been using narratives of gender equality and sexual freedoms to frame immigrants, especially Muslims, as homophobic and dangerous for women. Mainstream feminist discourse largely participates in creating this narrative, dramatically overlooking intersectionality. Homonationalism, coined by Puar, intervene in making sexual freedom both a civilizational competency (Bilge 306) and a form of pinkwashing, concealing racism and cultural discrimination.

Thus, the Bouchard-Taylor Comission has made the reasonable accommodation debate omnipresent in Quebec, with the goal of protecting Quebec's identity from the threat of the “other”. Gender/sexuality protection is embedded in this discourse, portraying multiculturalism as a threat. In the colorblind/raceless framework of our times, cultural practices are used as a proxy for race (Bilge 315), concealed under “modern” values, human rights, and progressive initiatives such as the Bouchard-Taylor Commission.

Thobani argues that Canadian multiculturalist policy reinforces gendered hierarchies by framing immigrant women as victims of their culture, in need of being rescued by assimilation into the Canadian culture. While claiming a tolerant and egalitarian policy, multiculturalism creates a hierarchy with non-Western culture being backward and patriarchal. Immigrant women are portrayed as oppressed by patriarchal cultural practices, such as arranged marriages or pieces of clothing. On the one hand, it encourages women to distance themselves from their culture and community without acknowledging their agency. Once they are well assimilated, immigrant women are instrumentalized as symbols of cultural difference, demonstrating the nation’s value of tolerance and multiculturalism. Thus, multiculturalism is a tool to manage immigrants’ assimilation into Canadian values while showcasing an image of a cosmopolitan, inclusive nation to the international community.
On the other hand, this gendered “othering” reduces gender struggles to cultural “deficiencies,” undermining the intersectionality of race, class, and gender and the existence of systemic patriarchy and gender-based violence in the West, too.
Thobani explains how multiculturalism works within a framework of white superiority and patriarchal structures, managing immigrant gender dynamics in a way that preserves the existing power relations rather than challenging them, as they argue to do so.

I remember going to my best friend’s house as a kid, and her dad, who had come from Morocco in his twenties, would always ask about my grades and then push her to do better than me. It felt like we were constantly competing, putting a lot of pressure on her. Reading Martin's interviews made me think of this differently, as interlinked with his personal history with France. Many interviewees, tracing their origins in former colonies, have declared suffering from feelings of inferiority and fear of rejection. Jean said that throughout his childhood, he wanted to “succeed like the whites “succeed”” and Vincent stated that as a foreigner, he must prove that he is capable, more than others have to(Martin 160). I now see how these feelings are tied to an internalized colonial legacy that is still being passed down, where immigrants and their children had to constantly prove themselves to be accepted.

There is also this long-held idea, that the French still uphold, that being educated makes a person superior to another. As Baldwin was told that he was different from the Arabs because he was more civilized (4), the classification of races has often been made through perceptions of civilization and education of certain groups of people. We have seen how whiteness has been associated with the highest form of civilization, leading some communities and groups of immigrants to “negotiate” their whiteness to gain privileges.
In parallel, in the French cultural representations of Maghrebi immigrants, stories of exceptional trajectories are often reserved to excellent students. These narratives suggest that academic success and intelligence can be a means to overcome barriers created by racism.

As Mc Solaar says, “Le savoir sera mon seul alliée,” education becomes the way to gain respect and integrate into French society. And thus, as one of the interviewees says, a means of survival, “Integration lets me survive” (Martin 161). For second-generation Maghrebi women, this pressure to excel academically often comes from both their families and French society, where they need to prove their worth against the stereotypes.

Canada’s decision to accept Ugandan Asian expellees was part of the country’s will to change its image toward multiculturalism and humanitarianism. Trudeau openly presented Canada as being on the path of a shift toward a more inclusive society (Muhammedi, 81), which conveniently overlooked Canada’s historical legacy of injustice toward immigrants, Indigenous and other marginalized communities. Thus, this decision to accept Asian immigrants from Uganda was opportunistic in the way that it would help them restore their image and bury their racist history.
 
Moreover, while the government said they had a moral obligation to accept them and claimed compassion, there were other reasons behind that. First, some clear political and economic calculations were made, making this “compassionate” act a form of selective humanitarianism. Ugandan Asians were deemed “desirable migrants” (84); they were educated, highly skilled, and would benefit the economy rather than relying on the Canadian system. In sum, the rational calculation was that the cost of receiving them would be inferior to the benefits of giving a good image internationally and reaffirming loyalty to Britain (98). Moreover, to avoid this act from being a precedent for other minorities to come to seek refuge in Canada, they decided it was better not to treat them as “refugees” but rather as expellees (92). This demonstrates the limitations of Canada’s humanitarianism.
Second, there was an agreement between the Aga Khan and Trudeau, the spiritual leader of the Ismaili Muslim community, which was kept secret from the public (94). They were close friends and worked together to ensure the successful establishment of Ismaili Ugandan Asians in Canada. The latter were given priority in resettlement on the grounds of being the most in need of resettlement. This shows the arbitrary and selective nature of Canada’s immigration policy and the rational interests behind accepting Ugandan Asians.

To resist the exclusionary legislation, Syrians and Armenians had chosen to act from within the Canadian system. First, their strategy was to re-appropriate racial discourse and benefit from it rather than protesting to abolish the system. The feeling of white superiority persisted post-war, and the anti-asiatic legislation to which they were subject was lowering their social status and harming their professional mobility. Thus, they wanted to be considered Europeans, as the Encyclopedia Americana stated (Asal 83). For that, using the Canadian racial hierarchy and positioning themselves in a liminal position, away from other minorities, was a rational choice to protect themselves from discrimination and xenophobia (ibid 92). Part of their strategy was to prove that they were well-integrated, successful economically, thus they deserved to be considered as Europeans.
Second, in order to achieve that, they had decided to use the institutional channels and lead a legalistic campaign. They had been running petitions, meetings with ministers, and politically organizing to connect with government officials. For example, the Syrian Lebanese societies (CFSLs) was created to coordinate the campaign with a secretary general and lawyer, to meet with officials and even the minister of Immigration (82). This conventional way to protest against the legislation shows their will to demonstrate that they had assimilated Canadian values and were good citizens who would not cause any trouble to the state, thus, that they weren’t “undesirable” migrants and that their status should be improved.

The history of Syrians’ legal classification as white persons to be granted naturalization in the United States is an example of whiteness negotiations in order to gain privileges. Immigrant groups have claimed white as an identity to access naturalization, but who can be considered white has been up to debate. Is it a question of skin color? Of culture? Of religion? Of morals? White people had set the rules and the characteristics of who could be considered white, often changing their perceptions and decisions according to shifts in interests and norms.
In Gualtieri’s essay, immigration judges had been arguing that the categorization of immigrants as white is not a question of color but instead of the racial history . They assert that Syrians are white due to their belonging to the Caucasian race. Other judges had been arguing against this rationale, claiming that there exist different kinds of whites, that the good ones are the ones of European descent with “good” values, and that whiteness should be defined in terms of geography (Gualtieri 35). On the other hand, the INS claimed that whiteness could be measured in cultural terms (ibid 50). Religion also plays a role in determining who is white since there was a debate on whether Muslims Arabs could be considered white, which was understood as only without their religious affiliation. White people had been choosing who is white according to their perceptions, for example, that Muslim Arabs could not be expected to intermarry with Americans and assimilate like others. They also shape their criteria arbitrarily, for example, arguing that Caucasians mean white in the case of Syrians and then that white doesn’t mean Caucasian in the case of Japanese persons (ibid 38). It shows that whiteness is a malleable construct strategically defined by those in power to maintain dominance and privileges. Immigrant groups have tried fitting into it to access privileges like naturalization. Moreover, in the case of Syrians, the legally attributed whiteness did not keep them from experiencing racism (ibid 46).

Husain’s article also presents this idea of perception and construction of whiteness. White people are considered white until they start wearing the hijab or other cultural/religious identifiers. Husain demonstrates how Muslimness supersedes the white/black binary, forming another category associated with foreignness. Allison’s story illustrates this by depicting how wearing the hijab immediately changed the perceptions of her colleagues toward her; they started assuming that she was not from America, while she was considered a white American before displaying a sign of Muslimness (Husain 596). In some cases, white converts voluntarily decide to downplay their white identity to be accepted in their Muslim community by taking their cultural trappings (ibid 600).

Thus, it shows that whiteness is a narrative socially constructed and constantly reshaped by white people to serve particular political, socio-economic, and cultural interests. To access privileges, some groups might decide to fit the characteristics shaped by white perceptions of whiteness and differentiate themselves from others. Religion plays a role in the perceptions of whiteness.

Internationalist Black Islam significantly influenced jazz by providing Black musicians with a new identity and a sense of global solidarity. The Ahmadiyya community offered them an alternative to feeling stuck within the systemic racism framework.
Converting to Islam and joining the community had an effect on Black American music and led to the creation of new genres. First, they started to mix influences and create their musical languages by blending Arabic and bebop slang with the political and religious ideas of Black Islamic internationalists. The spiritual awakening of converted jazz musicians, coupled with the idea of a global struggle for liberation and fighting white supremacy, led to jazz being infused with strong messages of resilience and resistance. The feeling of belonging to a broader community of Black International people empowered them to reject the stigma of colored inferiority created by Jim Crow. Moreover, since the religious group had worldwide networks, it was easier for African American jazz artists to leave the country and rely on networks elsewhere. This transnational aspect has also influenced their musical creativity. For example, when he converted to Islam in 1947, Blakey traveled to West Africa, where the Ahmadiyya had branches. Back in the United States, his jazz was tainted with African rhythms influence, which contributed to the emergence of a new style of bebop, hard bop. This style further expressed Black affirmation and Black American and African liberation. They increasingly drew their inspiration from outside the US. The Jazz Messengers and Blakey had been including instruments, music, and musicians from diverse religious backgrounds from all over Africa and the African diasporic world, consequently creating hard-bop music within a larger black global context. Thus, by freeing African-American jazz musicians from their constrained identities through affiliation to a broader community, Internationalist Black Islam has allowed musicians to both express their struggle in their music and to find inspiration outside of the United States’ borders, which eventually led to the creation of new genres like hard-bop.

I meant overlooking not overcoming

While some could argue that incorporating Indian dishes into British culture shows evidence of multiculturalism, Buettner’s chapter “Going for an Indian” shows that the process of acceptance, integration, and appropriation of Indian dishes in British society is marked by different struggles for power, involving racism.
First, this culinary integration is linked with the colonial legacy and British imperialism. Ex-colonials were the first ones going to early Indian restaurants because it reminded them of their time in India and their power over servants. Thus, they expected an “exotic oriental” atmosphere with all the decorations and “native” waiters acting as domestic servants (149)—some even patronized Indian restaurants to further shape their experience to their liking. The consumption of Indian food can evoke a sense of nostalgia for the era of British colonial dominance and an immersion back to when they felt powerful. This early integration of Indian food into British customs demonstrates racism rather than acceptance and is even a form of colonialism celebration.
Second, the masculine practice of “going for an Indian” for which men gathered in curry houses and competed over spiciness (153) while being disrespectful toward waiters, often displaying racism, emphasizes the point about colonial legacies and thirst for domination. Male customers predominated because of the late opening hours and did not care about being drunk or rude. They used curry houses as places to exhibit their masculinity while they would not act this way in other restaurants. Thus, they disregarded the people working in the restaurants while making eating their food a social practice. On top of reinforcing social hierarchies, it shows that the integration of culinary practices is not necessarily related to multiculturalism.
Third, to be assimilated into British culture and attract white clients, Indian dishes have been adapted to fit British taste, often implying simplification of recipes. This rebranding of Indian cuisine to fit into the dominant culture does not demonstrate multiculturalism but rather the will of white people to whiten other cultures while “spicing” theirs through the processes of assimilation and appropriation.
Thus, seeing curry as merely a symbol of multiculturalism in Britain is overcoming the underlying dynamics of colonialism and racism.

“Many whites concluded that these newcomers from tropical or semitropical regions were quite unsuited for life in British Columbia’s more rigorous climate” (Ward, 82). This argument from white officials about British Columbia being too cold for Indians, which made them “unsuited” for the country and thus was a reason to prevent their immigration “out of charity to themselves” (Ward, 83), really caught my attention. This claim was commonly accepted in West Coast communities and gives insights into white people’s racism toward Indians in BC.
First, as Ward states, it shows a form of orientalism as people shared a common image of Indians coming from tropical, exotic places with light oriental clothing. Thus, they wouldn’t be able to survive in the northern weather of Canada.
Second, this illustrates the hypocrisy of white people in adopting a positivist approach, claiming that their decisions are made for the benefit of all since they have superior knowledge on everything while it is really to meet their anti-immigration/ racist agenda. Several newspapers and even politicians have argued that they had respect for East Indians but that they should stay where they belong because they won’t be able to assimilate in Canada. They probably used this argument as a cover for racism to sustain imperial ties and avert unrest in India, as they avoided explicit discrimination (Ward, 86).
Third, this argument disguises entrenched racial hostility and fears that echo racism faced by Chinese migrants. They express their fear of being replaced by an influx of Indian immigrants that would be a threat to their civilization and BC’s “white destiny.”(ibid, 83). They believed that since Indians wouldn’t be able to assimilate, they would preserve their own culture, which would eventually overshadow their poor white one.
Overall, I found this argument of British Columbia being too cold for Indians a good reflection of many underlying racist approaches in the white Canadian discourse.

Chapter 5 of Bald’s Bengali Harlem relates the establishment and integration of many Indians, especially ex-seamen, in east Harlem amongst communities of immigrants from Puerto Rico, Cuba and Dominican Republic. The multicultural environment of this neighborhood facilitated integration and connections, with many Indians marrying into local communities.

Food has played a significant role in the integration process of Indians. The firsts Indian restaurants started emerging in the 1940s and 1950s. As they were some of the first Halal restaurants of Harlem, different Muslim communities, namely South Asians and African American, were meeting there. Some have recalled these places to be communal hubs where people gathered to discuss political issues and even debate different practices of Islam. Over time, these establishments have been extended to social spaces for all communities in Harlem. “Black journalists, artists, local politicians” used to have meetings and hold events in Indian restaurants. Thus, Indian restaurants in Harlem fostered connections between diverse groups, creating a sense of solidarity and community in the neighborhood.
On the other hand, these restaurants have served as communal spaces for the Indian diaspora to preserve their culture and language. By discussing political issues and news in India with other people of their community, it allowed them to stay connected to their identity. It made me think of Rajiv’s Ari in Antiman who felt so much happier when she could speak her native language in this specific store, and thus of the importance of the native tongue in migrants’ melancholia. Thus, Indian restaurants have also allowed Indian communities to keep their culture alive both in Harlem and in themselves.

The racial makeup of Harlem was attractive to Indians because it allowed them to be integrated into a community with other minorities and to feel a sense of belonging and solidarity. In this neighborhood, each community felt free to practice their culture without the fear of facing racism. I also think that minorities, especially of colours, felt less “seen”, in the sense of not being pointed out by whites for wearing a specific piece of clothes or even just their skin colour. The diversity of communities had made Harlem a neighborhood of cultural freedom. Thus, Indians were drawn to it.

Rajiv’s melancholia manifests itself through learning Hindi, the language of his Aji, and wanting to go to India.
“I want to connect with my Indianness” (Mohabir, 34). He is very close to his grandmother and goes against the will of his parents to let go of this culture and assimilate. It seems like it is stronger than him; he wants to recover a lost identity taken away from him. “I want to plant our language back in my mouth” (Mohabir, 26).
Melancholia is also illustrated in the fact that he misses and is trying to return to something he does not know. On the contrary, his father wants to move on with this new life and culture and forget about this identity. His father also wants his children to stay away from the Indo-Guyanese culture and does not want his mom to teach them. He even burns his wife’s Ramayan as a sort of “cremation ceremony for his previous life” (ibid, 20). It reminds me of Yasmin Hai’s memoir, recalled in Sara Ahmed’s chapter, as her Pakistani parents really want her to assimilate and be a “good English girl.”

Both Antiman and Australianama show the influence of white orientalists in shaping the discourse and views on other cultures. In Antiman, the parents want to assimilate, probably because they have faced racism from whites. When Rajiv goes to Madison, white people are there to learn Hindi and even the songs and culture. “The grandchildren of the same white people who told her generation that they were backward and broken” (Mohabir, 37). This sentence shows the interrelation between racism and expertise that makes up Orientalism through generations. In Australianama, Samia Khatun explains how white feminist thinkers have played a role in depicting non-white women as stuck in a non-civilized world. Their discourse on gendered violence being related to the early stages of civilizational progress has even played a role in mobilizing public support and justifying the intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 (Khatun, 144).

“The fruit of our labour was used to build your nation” tell the lyrics in Debris by Asian Dub Foundation. I think this idea is conveyed in both Visram’s chapter and in Gilliat-Ray and Mellor’s writing. Both Ayahs and Lascars are used as cheap labour for the benefit of Britain’s economy and are then left with no job and no passage back to their country once they are not needed anymore. For lascars, they were useful until the shipping industry started to decline post WW2; they started to face socio-economic difficulties that were not addressed (Gilliat-Ray & Mellor 466). The ones from lower castes were unable to find work or to go back, and the question of repatriation was only brought up when they were considered too much of an issue for the city. The discussion mainly was about the financial burden of repatriation for taxpayers (Visram 29). In the case of Asians servants, more than cheap labour, they were considered like goods. It was “fashion” to have an Asian servant, more than an African (Visram 13). Visram explained how they used to disguise Africans in Oriental costumes which refers to Said’s concept of Orientalism.

These readings made me reflect on the links between capitalism and colonialism. Bringing back Ayahs to Britain started with the time of the East Asian Company since British families had luxurious lives with servants that they wanted to keep when going back to Britain. This company was delocalized for cheap labour to maximize profit which led to colonial behaviours towards locals. It could be seen as the capitalist hunger inducing colonial practices. However, if colonialist and racist ideas were not that deeply entrenched in Westerner’s minds, they would not think of using Asians as cheap labour and as the Asian Dub Fundation’s song says “sucking us dry our country’s natural juice”. Colonialism has fueled capitalism through the use of locals as cheap labour and extraction methods of resources.

The song also shows the paradox between having brought Asians for cheap labour and racism. I interpret the lyrics “we’re only here ‘cos you were there” in Debris as “you colonized our country, you exploited us and brought us here and now you complain that we are”. This paradox is also demonstrated in Visram’s chapter since British families bring servants to Britain, then leave them without work and complain that there are so many “destitute” in the streets. There is also a paradox in the way the “Muslim” neighborhood of Cardif became gentrified due to the charm of multiculturalism while Muslims had to move out to a poorer neighborhood. On another level, it made think of how this happens in many big cities with the “hipsters” wanted to move to former working-class neighborhood for its charm and authenticity and the community culture while making it unaffordable for communities to stay.

As the stories of Moriscos keeping their Muslim beliefs in the private sphere in Cook’s reading, African Muslims in the Americas “adopted outward signs of the religion that had been imposed on them but secretly retained their own beliefs” (Diouf 78). However, Diouf depicts instances in which Muslims did not only kept beliefs, but practices, even the most challenging ones such as Ramadan. African Muslims enslaved in the Americas were not obligated to fast since the Quran states that believers can abstain to do so if they are in difficult conditions or far from home (Diouf 95). They even made praying collectively possible and found alternatives to some practices not practicable in the context such as the zakah (91) and the hajj (95). This strict practice of Islam they imposed to themselves is interesting in two regards. First, as argued by Diouf, it shows that enslavement made their faith even stronger, yet they had to adapt it to the reality of repression, they were not going to abandon it. As a form of hope, Islam was something enslaved Muslims could rely on to escape reality and comfort themselves (86). Second, the quote from Kélédor: “it was the only thing left to me from my family and my country” (ibid) made me think of Sara Ahmed’s concept of melancholia. By keeping to practise Islam, African Muslims kept memories of their home and past lives, letting it go would be letting go of their identity.

The link I draw with GhaneaBassiri’s reading is using Islam as a form of relief for enslaved Africans, a way of making their lives relatively better, even if this in a complete different way in this reading. This text relies mainly on biographies of African Muslims, thus there is a bias since most stories are of “fortunate slaves” while there were “tens of thousands of them” and larger narrative should be used to complement them (GhaneaBassiri, 16). Still, in the stories, Africans Muslims were considered superior both by themselves and by the slaveholders. For example, slaveholders had a preference for the “Senegalese, who had a strong Arabic strain their ancestry” to command over the others because they were said to resemble the whites and to be instructed (24). They were considered “semi-civilized” and used for trade and to “Christianize” the continent (30). This led to a hierarchy in the African American society, which is a common ruling strategy of whites colonizers, that is dividing a community and conferring privileges to some of them. In these cases, they considered Muslims superior than African pagans due to their conception of the “instructed Muslim” and the proximity of Islam to Christianism. This is also reminding of Bald’s story of the Bengali peddlers in which white Orientalism "favoured" those considered “Orientals” rather than Black, leading the latter to want to pass for them.

What is a Morisco/Morisca, and why would their migration to New Spain be considered dangerous?
The immigration of Moriscos/Moriscas (Muslim converts) to New Spain was considered dangerous because deemed a threat to the establishment of a Catholic Nation (Cook 80). I talked about the notion of “communautarisme” in France in my former post and I think this is also relevant here. It is this fear to not have control over the entire population because of potential social fragmentation. It is also a fear of resistance if a group can rally together and challenge the social order.

How does the repression of the outward signs of Islam seem to have affected the Moriscos?
The repression of public Islamic practices by the Inquisition seems to have created internal theological debates. The case of Maria Ruiz illustrates how since they were forced to participate in Christians rituals while remaining personally Muslims in their private spheres, they came to be divided between two sets of beliefs (Cook 85).

In Bowen’s reading (166), I find very interesting how the term “Moor” was considered by Irving as an oppressive term like “n*” and that his statement was contested by African-American Muslims. For them, it was a historically significant term that represented resistance and cultural heritage. I think it conveys two ideas. First, that a term initially used by Europeans to designate Muslims and categorize them can be used as term of ralliement and resistance. That reminds me of the Muñoz reading and the concept of disidentification, that is turning a “stereotype” into a form of empowerment. Second, it illustrates how white people think they know a lot about the experiences of people of colour by studying history and the Muslim World but cannot truly comprehend because of their white bias.

In his early work, Freud distinguishes between mourning and melancholia, the former one being the “healthy process of grieving”, letting go the lost object and moving on, while the latter implies holding onto the object, not letting go and thus experiencing pain constantly.
One of the links between “Bend it like Beckham”, “Anita and me”, Yasmine Hai’s memoir and Nitin Sawhney’s song is this constant ambivalence and dilemma for migrants between letting go or holding onto their culture.

As Sara Ahmed argues and criticizes, there is in the mainstream white discourse the idea that holding onto another culture is a barrier to integration and thus to “happiness”, for the nation as a whole. This is very striking in France, where they argue that it creates what they call “communautarisme” and that it is a risk for the unity and indivisibility of the French Republique, this is also the ground on which they have based the concept of “laicité”.

In some cases, first generations of migrants believe that this is the way to happiness for their family, and probably to protect their children from racism they have experienced.
In Sawhney’s song, I think the opening is about his parents having mourned their culture to seek this happiness. This is also what Yasmin Hai relates in her memoir, as her Pakistani parents really want her to assimilate and be a “good English girl”. They want her to mourn the culture and stop speaking Urdu, although this was the only language her mother spoke. Her father believed this was the way to be happy in this country. Still, he forbids her to watch some English programs because it is not the “good” kind of western culture. A form of ambivalence can also be seen in Yasmin’s words “I didn’t know whether to be happy or sad about how English I was”. She doesn’t feel like she will ever belong in England but she also had to let go her Pakistani culture. This is what Sara Ahmed calls the “affect alien”. She was forced to mourn a culture but she is melancholic in the way that something is missing, she feels an emptiness in her identity as she doesn’t fully feel English.

In other cases, like in “Anita and me” or “Bend it like Beckham”, the situation is different but the ambivalence is still there. Meena and Jess believe they will find happiness in assimilation, in proximity with whiteness but they still want to be close to their family and culture and they struggle to find this balance, often restricted by their parents.The ambivalence is also present for the parents who want their kids to be happy but also want to preserve them from an oppressive white world. Ahmed criticizes the way “Bend it like Beckham” conveys the moral that migrants should get rid of this melancholia and let go of past experiences of racism and open their heart to white culture in order to reach happiness.

I feel like second generations tend to be more stuck in this in-between two cultures trying to find a balance, while first generations tend to be more radical in mourning or preserving their culture. But in some of these examples, it is interesting to see how parents can rethink their positions and ideas through their children's experiences.

In previous centuries, religion often defined individuals’ identities and served as a basis for rejection and oppression. However, in today’s more secular world, religion plays a less central role in shaping identity. Instead, Islam has been racialized by the white majority, where cultural practices and appearance associated with Muslims, in the white gaze, are used to categorize and discriminate against individuals. This racialization of Islam affects people from various nationalities, cultures, and even religious affiliations, as noted by Rana. The term "Islamophobia" allows to identify and name the common experience of racism faced by those perceived as Muslim, regardless of their actual beliefs.

Rana connects the history of Islamophobia to the broader experience of racism faced by groups such as Jewish people and Native Americans. He argues that Islamophobia is not a new or isolated form of racism but is deeply rooted in a long history of domination, exploitation, and fear of the “other.” The racialization of Islam on a global scale has allowed dominant powers to exercise control over certain groups while exploiting them (Husain, 4).

An example of this racialized Islamophobic thinking is the Oak Creek Gurdwara shooting. Although the victims were Sikhs, the white supremacist attacker perceived them as Muslims, demonstrating how Islamophobia extends beyond religious identity to a broader cultural and racial stereotype. Instead of distancing herself from Muslims, Arora, responded to the attack by showing solidarity with Muslims, recognizing that both groups face similar experiences of racism, despite different cultural backgrounds.

I think the same idea is conveyed in the “Soup boys” song with the mention of stones being thrown at both the Mosque and the Temple with no distinction. The introduction of Obama not addressing the arbitrary use of drones against those viewed as the enemies of the nation also illustrates Islamophobia. The images in the background display different cultures and images of drones and “War on Terror” attacks. It demonstrates a shared struggle of different cultural minorities in the United States against racial oppression - Islamophobia.

How paradoxal is it that white people have created the structures of whiteness and cannot even see it?
“Look, a white!” is a gift because it allows a better perception of reality, unveiling the invisibility of whiteness to the whites. I like the wording “invitation to see more” (Yancy, 10), it gives white people the opportunity to understand what their identity represents in a world in which whiteness is omnipresent for everyone but for them. Becoming aware of the privilege and oppression system that they do not encounter in their existence but actively participate in maintaining. An invitation to a Black counter-gaze is an invitation to make a step out of ignorance. I think this is what Baldwin and Yancy mean when using the word “innocence”, implicitly ignorance.
“Look a white!” is a tentative to understand the narrative from the other side, be aware of the reality, deconstructing the one that we, white people, have lived in since childhood socialization and that is perpetuated out of ignorance.
It also speaks to the idea of white normativity, as Sara Ahmed writes, “we don’t see those bodies as white bodies. We just see them as bodies” (Yancy, 9). White people are unaware that they also have a colour, the colour of privilege. I think the Kominas are trying to convey this idea of normativity by starting the video with Maher Khalil’s story, pointed out by whites because of his colour and then acting as white guys doing normal insignificant things to show the contrast of the realities they live in.

The analogy with misogyny can be found in the way that many men would say that they consider women as their equal, that they are “gender blind” in a hiring process, for example. They consider themselves as allies, but they don’t see that they participate in the reproduction of the structural hierarchy when pointing out that they just upgraded a woman to a good position, for example . It goes with the “I have black friends” type of statement, those are a veil to the reality, a bandaid on a very deep cut. It is, however, for many people easier to stay “blind” to a system of oppression they themselves created and in which they are the prinpical actors because they fear being pointed out and losing their privileges. Reversing the script is also a way of introducing “those oppressed” in the equation and value their voices, giving them agency in the narrative.

As described from Said, Orientalism can mean different things but it all has to do with the fascination of the Westerners. Whether it is a strong academic interest, hunger for domination or the exoticism of the “unknown”, the “other” (Said, p.3), Europeans have been reifying the “Orient” as an object of desire and curiosity. Westerners have also been using Orientalism to uplift their culture and identity by placing themselves in contrast to “the Orient” (Said, p.3) and to assert their superiority, for example in terms of affective normativity compared to the “excessive emotions” of the Latinx people (Muñoz).

Bald’s story of the Bengali Peddlers demonstrates this form of fascination for East Indians (Bald, p.50). They were seen as selling “wisdom” and bringing “magic”. Bald uses different adjectives from the tales lexical such as “fathomless eyes”, “air of oriental mysticism” which illustrates the curiosity and fantasies that Americans and tourists felt towards them. It led some African American to want to “pass” for East Indians, as they seemed to be treated better, to some extent. Although, there was a broad regime of racial appartheid in the US South at the time, Black people have been able to use this fascination of the “whites” to sell them goods such as “silk, rugs and curios” (ibid) and mock them by performing Indianness.

To the question, can Brown people use Orientalism to their advantage?
I don’t think it will ever benefit them in these terms as orientalism is a form of racism. However, in a process of disidentification (Muñoz), that is without assimilation or rejection, they can try to use the orientalist stereotypes and the fascination to make whiteness seem impoverished while showing their rich culture. Still, as we can see in the music video/collage of the “Sweatshop Boys”, the Western oriental fantasies are far from the challenges Brown people face in the West and these realities need to be put forward and understood by them instead of the anchored “exotic” depictions.