Melancholic Migrants > Forum Home

Quebec’s roots in Western Christian values helps drive the antagonization of immigrants, specifically Muslims. The Muslims being seen as pre-modern, uncivilized and barbaric, Quebec’s otherwise enlightened and modern ideas based in Judeo-Christian, and later laic values are seen as superior to those of minorities. The Bouchard-Taylor Commission as explored by Marhouse, details the implicit and explicit hierarchies, and marks of discrimination present in Quebec society.

French-Canadian Quebecers being a majority within Quebec but a minority within Canada, many in this open forums conducted by the commission expressed concerns that they simply cannot afford to follow a multicultural policy, because the lifeline of their culture is at risk.

What led the commission to be formed was known as the ‘reasonable accomodation debate’ focusing on the extent to which immigrant and minority practices ought to be accommodated. Events within Canada, like the case of a Sikh boy carrying his kirpan to school, or an 11-year-old girl being informed that she cannot play soccer because of her hijab. And notably, the Herouxville ‘life standards’ code of conduct which was rather bizarre and arbitrary list of rules to rule out perceptions of Muslim barbarianism. Following the events in Hervouxville, the municipal govnemrnt of that town asked to for a declaration of a state of emergency to preserve Quebec’s national identity. Immigrants and minorities were—and still are—seen as posing a threat to Quebec’s national history. And so, the govnerment set up the Bouchard-Taylor consultation commission.

Quebec nationalist political leaders believed it failed to address Quebec’s identity crisis, given that these leaders desired a Quebec constitution to enshrine majority’s common values. Given that it was sympathetic to immigrants’ and minority concerns, many immigratn groups were pleased. Marhouse argues the way the commission was conducted exposed the deepest cuts and issues of racial and majority-minority relations in Quebec.

Marhouse would argue that the public forums became a place where the French-Canadians stood on the offensive regarding the threat of minorities, and the minorities and immigrants were made to stand on the defensive. This only normalized the hierarchy between racilaiszed people and French-Canadian Quebecers as it became apologetic to be an immigrant, or it was as though the French-Canadians were judges and the minorities had to defend themselves.

“There are good reasons to suggest that the Commission itself amplified the crisis it sought to remedy.” The Commission furthered certain public perceptions against minorities, because it was the public forums and the commission’s “spectacle” that caught the public’s attention, not the intricate reports that shed light on the systematic discrimination of minorities.

Buettener draws attention to the role of ethnic cuisine in multiculturalism, as well as in the development of British perspectives on the ethnic cultures as it relates to food.

Buettner points out David parker’s “celebratory multiculturalism,” where multiculturalism “refers to a succession of conscious efforts to make sense of, and manage, ethnically diverse communities at the local and national levels.” The strategy to combat racism and to implement multiculturalism became teaching about other cultures and preaching tolerance which arguably did little to actually confront racial prejudice. Restaurants made strategic choices to build a customer base among a white population to cater to their taste. Originally catered to Britons who had once lived in the subcontinent, South Asian restaurant started rising in popularity for other Britons due to lower prices, and the “adventure of trying an ‘exotic’ cuisine…”

Indian restaurants in the 1920s and 1930s, mostly catered to Indians, but also Britons who were former civil servants in British India. These restaurants provided the exotic, oriental atmosphere the ex-colonials craved, and were even called ‘sahib’ by the waiters. These restaurants continued to be patronized into the 1950s and the 1960s, but they were mostly for the colonials.

Food is a reference back to what once was. Food is a form of reliving memories, reliving the senses, the scents, the traditions that once shaped everyday lives of immigrants in their countries of origin. Never being able to reinstate what once was, food is that reference and food is that point of unity, togetherness, and finding solace in the search of home away from home. This search is what I think links food to migrant melancholia; given the nature of melancholia being a grieving process where the melancholic cannot simply grieve and move on, food becomes that factor the persists, resides, and remains to try to heal and address the greiving process, but also prolong it by never allowing th melancholic to let go of the loss.

A characteristic of the War on Terror was that the West did not really ever tangibly know what it was fighting. Any Islamist movement that spurred anywhere in the world, whether it’d be in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, or even the Philippines, it was the Islamist that was the threat. With the enemy becoming so difficult to pronounce or to articulate, anti-Muslim racism becomes, in my opinion, just as undefined, haphazard, and wishy-washy as the America’s imperial projects and its War on Terror. “In the current racial formation, Islam and Muslims have taken on a familiar, yet strange, meaning that is often evoked in terms such as ‘war,’ ‘conquest,’ ‘terror,’ ‘fear,’ and ‘the new crusades.’” The racial figure of the Muslims ranges far and wide to include populations that come not only from the Middle East, but Africa, South Asia, and elsewhere. “In the context of the Cold War and the subsequent War on Terror, religious identities are often cast as political identities that mobilize religious idioms.”

“Drone” by Heems to me is a satirical reference to this haphazardly conducted policy that is the War on Terror. Drones are a fact of life for the racialized, and those who do not identify with Islam at all, like the Hindus, also have to face violence for the Orientalist understandings of Islam. In “Drones” stones are thrown not just at mosques, but at temples. Racism is a part of culture, generalization of different peoples into one group is common sense, and the definition of a “Muslim” to a Westerner is likely contained in arbitrary lines that stretch far and wide.

Rana’s text details the racialization of Muslims and the superimposition of racial characteristics. Islam and Muslims being included in the US racial formation, as well as in the global system, led to this racialized Muslim constructed between cultural and biological concepts as ‘geographically external other.’ Matters of empire only exacerbated this emphasis on the externalization of the racialized Muslim.

As it relates to the term ‘Islamophobia,’ it in theory would not relate to race as concept. Race is operational used as a concept premised on a biological notion, and so it follows that Islamophobia cannot be racism, becasue religion is a social practice and is not biologically preordained. Islamophobia would result from a belief in Islam’s cultural and religious inferiority.

“Unhappiness is read as caused not simply by diversity but by the failure of people who embody such diversity to ‘touch and interact.’” This unhappiness would, as Trevor Philips may argue, lead to unhappy instances of violence. Philips recommends that communities integrate by sharing “an activity” such as football to connect people by taking them out of their ethnicities. “Multiculturalism might become happy when it involves loyalty to what has already been established as a national idea. Happiness is thus promised in return for loyalty to the nation, where loyalty is defined in terms of playing its game.”

British utilitarianism philosophy was also meddled in matters of empire. It so became that causing the greatest happiness meant bringing a colonizing, happy-making mission to the colonized peoples. This helped argue for a philanthropist-like perspective on colonialism. “Empire becomes a gift that cannot be refused, a forced gift. If the empire is understood as giving happiness, then perhaps happiness names the force of this gift.”

Mills’ characterizations of the colonized as childlike primitives is an assessment of their emotional state as he argues that the colonized allow emotion, as well as their senses to dictate their knowledge in contrast to “the impartial witness—the civilized man—[who] stands back and looks for the true causes of action in the world.”

“For Mill, the natives are mistaken, swayed by their inclinations immersed in the object that gives pleasure : like children, they are assumed to be in need of redirection.”

The colonial project is imagined as a form of “moral training or habituation” where the natives are like children, they are impressionable, and their education is to be arranged in a way that “happiness is the result.” Empire itself is argued to be a sign of British tendency toward happy diversity; toward mixing, loving, and cohabiting with others. The history of empire leads to migrants’ judgment for citizenship. Just as the colonized were pushed to become British, it is now migrants that have to commit this act which shapes policy. “To become British is to accept empire as the gift of happiness.”

For the migrant, to become a part of this empire, it is process of grief and of course melancholia. Early Freid distringuished mourning and melancholia by arguing that mourning is a relatively healthy process for grieving for a lost object, with the aim of this grief to let go of the object. However, “the melancholic may appear as a figure insofar as we recognize the melancholic as the one who ‘holds onto’ an object that has been lost, who does not let go, or get over loss by getting over it.

To diagnose melancholia would become a way of declaring that their love objects are dead. The melancholic is attached to something that is already dead because the melancholic cannot by making a self-declaration that the object is dead the same way another would pronounce that object to be dead.

In a commiunity, while everyone has already let go of the things they are supposed to let go of, the melancholic is still unable to get over loss and so becomes te affect alien. “The melancholic are thus the ones who must be redirected, or turned around.” So in the larger community, say in the UK, everyone else has accepted and knows the migrant’s past is dead except for the migrant. The migrant is expected to celebrate the multicultural, diverse British society and must rejoice in being a citizen, but the migrant is the affect alien and is the diagnosed melancholic.

Sawhney’s song shines a light on this melancholic feeling, specifically as it relates to second generation immigrants. This song might be in the voice of the second generation immigrant who does not quite understand what was behind the first generation’s migration, and will never tangibly feel it. As it relates to melancholia, the second generation immigrant does not even know what it is that it mourns. It does not know what the past was, what the country of origin was, or what the memories would have been. Therefore, there is not an object that has been declared dead for the person to then mourn it—the object never really existed in the first place. So how can the migrant possibly let go of something that was never there to begin with.

Muhammedi’s texts shines a light on Canada’s liberal immigration policy under Trudeau’s premiership, and Maghbouleh’s text presents the arbitrary definitions of race, acceptance, and details the Iranian diaspora experience in the US.

Muhammedi discusses the introduction of the point system, a system that basically defines what a worthwhile immigrant is in the eyes of the Canadian government. Age, education, training, occupational skill in demand, knowledge of English or French, personal assessment made by an immigration officer, relatives in Canada, arranged employment, and employment opportunities in area of destination dictated the worth of an applicant according to the point system. This policy presents the model immigrant being one that meets the educational, economic, and cultural demands of Canada. The national sources of Canadian immigrants by 1973 as detailed in the article happen to be Commonwealth countries, which showcases either the fact that basically half the planet was at one point under the British Crown, or that Canada prioritized likeminded people.

With the arrival of the first Ugandan expellees in 1972, the majority of the population was concerned about rising unemployment, federal politics, and Canada-Russia hockey contests. High unemployment at the time provoked fears that the incoming Ugandans would take away jobs. There were concerns of assimilation, given that Canada had already to deal with French, English, and Indignous communities in Canada. But even groups that accepted the immigrants would advocate and paint the picture that these immigrants are poor little fellows who are in desperate need of help. Not capable, independent people who are able-bodied and sovereign. “Some argued that ‘Canada can do no less. There is a humanitarian duty to admit some of these unfortunate displaced people to the country—to prove that were are, as we so often boast, a tolerant open society.’”

The immigrants essentially serve a purpose, perhaps mainly an eocnomic. I believe this is also evident in Maghbouleh’s text as the influx of Iranian immigrants dictated racial laws in the US, but also displayed Iran’s western-leaning modernization policies whihc were certainly beneficial in American foreign policy and soft power in the Middle East.

A first wave of Iranians arrived in the US on student visas in the 1950s, and by the second large wave in the wake of the 1979 Revolution, all Iranians were legally classified as white. However, after the Hostage Crisis, they were socially browned. But even legally, analyzed by Maghbouleh on a case by case basis, Middle Eastern immigrants applying for citizenship having to prove whiteness would argue their unlikeness to Iranians meant they were unlike the “clearly non-white” Iranians. Yet, at the same, Parsi migrants would argue they are white as being a descendent of the “clearly white” Iranians. Parsis were a group in India with high literacy rates and wealth. Evidence suggests Parsis’ social status was consolidated during British colonialism with emphases on colourism and forced assimilation.

Under the pro-western Mohammad Reza Shah, Iran’s modernization efforts included encouraging and sponsoring newly middle-class families to enroll their sons in universities abroad, most notably American universities. Given that by mid-1970s more foreign students came from Iran than any other country, Iranians and others with origins in the Middle East and North Africa were classified as white by law.

After the hostage crisis, many Americans organized a series of anti-Iranian demonstrations, with one demonstration hosting five thousand people, sharing slogans like “fuck Iran” and “Piss on Iran.” Iranians students studying at American universities would then have to undergo additional screening and documentation with several thousand students being deported to Iran.

While Americans were debating the threat of Iranians and their perceptions of them, Iranian are also caught in internal discourses over their own racial idenity. This is evident in Pourghoraishi’s case. Speaking as an Iranian myself, I was told that I am an Aryan whose lineage goes back to what is now Germany. I was not told explicitly that I am “white,” but it is fair to say that it was implied. To an Iranian like Pourghoraishi, being asked to argue that he is indeed not white would be like stomping on an idenity that you have known all your life, and a level of disrespect given the colourism that exists in Iran.

In both cases, the US and Canada play a saviour-like role: Canada’s public sentiments in favour of accepting Ugandan expellees was an act that was only worthy of the great tolerant country that is Canada to take in her warm arms that unfortunately souls; the US is to educate Iranians and to being modernization to their country. I do not mean that Canada and the US acted with pure malintent at all. I do believe—especially in Canada’s case—that there really was a longing for humanitarian aid. But given how difficult it has been for immigrants to be accepted—however capable they may prove themselves (like the Beverly Hills example)—and given the arbitrarily enacted racial laws, it is hard to ignore the white supremacist attitudes that exist in the fine lines.

Latino Muslims’ history details a story of discrimination, disguise of cultural expression, and repression of an identity whose lines were arbitrarily drawn.

A Morisco/Morisca refers to a Muslim in Spain who converted to Catholicism under the Spanish Inquisition and discrimination. Many of the Moriscos though outwardly Catholic, discretely and privately maintained their Muslim religious and cultural identity. Their migration to New Spain would be considered dangerous, becasue “in colonial Spanish America, ecclesiastical authorities were concerned with spreading Catholicism and regulating indigenous religiosity, with the aim of creating a model Catholic republic.” Inquisitors would ask accusers of heresy to name anyone that may appear in their memory who has denounced Catholic doctrine.

There was a political struggle that was increasingly casting religious identity as innate characteristics, transmited by blood. “Regional and customary practices among the Moriscos that included dress, food, and music could lead to individuals being labeled Muslims (moros), regardless of their actual religious beliefs.” The system ostracised Moriscos not letting them fully assimilate, but also blamed them and criminalized them for not successfuly assimilating. Many Moriscos continued to practice Islam in private and found solace in taqiyya, referring “the the permission for Muslims living under adverse conditions to perform their exterior acts of the religion imposed on them, so long as they remained faithful to Islam in their hearts.

In this struggle of maintaining a socially acceptable—or legally acceptable—image on the outside while maintaining Islam in their hearts, the Aljamiado manuscript acted as reassurance to the Morisco/as who worry that the lack of outward expression of Islam would lead them to hell. Muhammad’s plea to God as described in the manuscript for forgiveness, and for God to let Muhammad choose “anyone who carries in their heart an atom of belief” to be taken out of the fire lets the Moriscos know that there is a chance for them out of hell after all.

Bowen’s text highlights the intricacies of and nuances between what is promoted to be the universalistic Muslim identity being the ummah versus the realities of histories and cultural identities that undermine the interplay of different races and their practice of Islam. The Latino Muslims appeal to be a part of the African-American Muslim community—like the Naiton of Islam—highlights the social justice-oriented nature of the African-American Muslim’s identity. Solidarity among these groups were a factor, but also having a sense of belonging and understanding promotes the appeal of one group to another. Nevertheless, the Latino Muslim community would create their own communities, intermingled with but nevertheless exclusive of immigrant Muslims and African-American Muslims.

Though perhaps it was absurd for the inquisitors of Spanish America and of Spain to believe that there are innate characteristics of Islam instilled in Moriscos passed by blood, the struggle experienced by Latino Muslims throughout their history has woven into their hereditary heritage something that has little trace in other Muslims’ cultural and religious experiences.

SIDE NOTE: EXTRA CREDIT INVOLVEMENTS

• Concordia lecture on the War on Terror
• Australianama seminar

Involvements that you did not announce, but maybe I could still get credit for…please:

• Vigil for Mahsa (the one planned by Sonia and Sheida)
• Montreal International Documentary Festival: I received an email from the Islamic Institute regarding documentaries at the festival and so I attended. One of them was about the first ever newspaper in Iran that was made by women for women, and another was about tensions between political movements and cultural identities. A part of the documentary detailed the migration of a queer Indian man to Toronto. The documentary gave light to this man’s rejection of capitalism, and engagement in social movements that question the norm and promote communist ideals.

I will preface by saying that I am rather biased regarding this issue. I am what you may call a ‘grateful immigrant.’ The opportunities I was granted in this country are unique, special, ones I would never have otherwise achieved. I, of course, have faced hardships including racism, xenophobia, and hate for being who I am. But if I holistically reflect on my experience, I have been welcomed with open arms and have been given the chance to contribute, to learn, to grow, and to be an active member of Canadian society despite not being from here.

Thobani’s text is insightful and engaging as it displays the intentions behind the Multiculturalism policy that are otherwise hidden behind the rose-coloured glasses the state places on the eyes of its subjects. She discusses the “crisis of whiteness” emerging in the post-war era where there is a “national amnesia regarding inconvenient histories” and “global anti-colonial solidarity.” Thobani discusses the nuances of the government policy’s interplay between multiculturalism and its policy regarding Indigenous peoples in Canada; Canada’s push on Indigenous peoples to accept the ‘liberalization of immigration and citizenship policy.” Thobani argues that “emphasis on tolerance and diversity, multiculturalism has discredited Aboriginal claims to special status as the original inhabitants of the land.”

I cannot speak on Indigenous issues and identity. I come from a privileged place as an immigrant having not been through ethnic cleansing, genocide, and the push to accept the ‘hard-working’ immigrant and being labeled as the one who is unwilling to participate in society. However, I could speak on the immigrant identity.

Thobani argues multiculturalism would enable a “national amnesia regarding inconvenient histories.” I frankly disagree. Reconciliation is a growing national concern and policy which is still in its infancy. Yes, I agree with the sentiments that Canada needed to seriously detach itself from white supremacist sentiments that had existed in the West, and so multiculturalism was a continent solution. However, that does not take away from multiculturalism being a step forward—whether or not it provided economic value and relief, and whether or not it was an opportunist move, it, at least to some level, gave light, hope, acceptance, and respect to ethnic minorities.

Thobani later talks about citizenship and that equating immigrant and citizen identity through which “the constitution of cultural communities as homogenous entities erased the very many differences among them. Inequalities…were all rendered secondary and less material.” I may be confused, but it sounds like Thobani is arguing for creating second-class citizens. That an immigrant should never be in equal citizenship status as the White national. I believe citizenship should not be balanced over cultural or gender identity.

Thobani later discusses the bilingual nature of Canada and that through its push for immigrants to learn one of the two languages to strengthen the “cultural and social fabric” would be balancing an impossible act of remaining multicultural and maintaining the national character at the same time. The bilingual character of the country is a representation and manifestation of its history, its roots, and its present. Being a country with two official languages was a necessary means to address Anglo-Francophone issues, as well as limit discrimination against Francophones. It is true that Canada’s roots are colonial with ethnic cleaning, violence, and genocide to Indigenous peoples. But the country must accommodate for all its citizens as it stands today. It certainly does not do a great job in that, because Indigenous peoples still suffer their government’s failure to face reconciliation and fix the condition in which Indigenous peoples remain. I am not denying that. But I will also say that the country’s colonial roots are founded in French and British cultural identities, and it has to adhere and address those roots whose impacts sustain.

Canada balances addressing reconciliation, Anglo-francophone issues, as well as multiculturalism. To argue that it is all so faulty, to paint it all in a negative image, to ignore the benefit, real stories of growth, hope, and opportunity that Canada continues to narrate are also ignored. It is not perfect, neither is any policy or any state. But I will not sit here and ignore all that multiculturalism has done for me, my family, my peers, and the many generations that will come after me.

A few years ago, I was in my hometown in Iran for my late grandfather’s funeral. His body is buried in the Holy Shrine of Imam Reza, a significant religious site for Shia Muslims and the iconic part of my hometown of Mashhad.

The shrine, which is expansive and large, with many great halls, great meeting rooms, and spaces for worship, also comes with its political spaces. I remember being there with my sister to sit by my grandfather’s grave and pray with my sister. But I could not help but hear the deafening chants happening in one of the courtyards of the premises where a sermon was being given. Chants like “death to America,” “death to Israel,” “death to those who oppose the velayateh faghih (basically the Supreme Leader and those who follow him)”. I was disappointed, distracted, and upset that I cannot enjoy the beautiful, historic, and stunning shrine as well as mourn my grandfather’s passing without escaping the Islamic Republic’s divisive, hateful, and oppressive politics.

As Shawndeez points out, many Iranians associate the state of Iran’s affairs with Islam. Islam, in a way, has plagued their lives with oppression, hate, and taken away any sense of love and unity. Shawndeez introduces Parisa’s experience visiting the Imamzadeh Saleh, and her lack of interests in Islam manifesting herself into the ignorance of what can be so beautiful about Islam. Shawndeez says “it is this loss, this disinterest, this emotional distancing between the Iranian American and Islam that prevents any potential for a connection, an understanding.” I, as an Iranian Canadian, one who has lived half his life on one side of the planet, and the other half on the other, will tell you that when you are raised with the slogans of hate, told you are a heathen for not following the velayateh faghih, you are a heathen for being queer, but also told about the glories of Iran before the Islamic Republic, you cannot help but distance yourself from Islam.

Shawndeez later discusses queer expression of Iranians, and that they do not “share, experience, explore, discuss, or articulate their queer or trans identity in Iran or to Iranian people whatsoever.” I could not agree more. I have always been wary of showing my queer identity, because it is wrong, uncultured, matters of the bedroom with no place in society.

And so I cannot help but feel out of place when I am in my hometown in Mashhad. Yet, my experience in Canada does not necessarily and entirely constitute ‘home’ either.

What allows me to find comfort here in Western society is the openness to my queer expression. But I am limited in my cultural expression. As evident in Maghbouleh’s work, the Iranian identity seems to be anything but concrete, meddled with by arbitrary, haphazard legal proceedings and societal expectations.

In Winnipeg, I was a part of the Winnipeg Boys Choir, a choir that performed at least twice a year once during Christmas and once during Easter. I sang in churches, singing hymns and traditional Christmas carols. I really, truly, genuinely enjoyed being in that choir, and I love going to churches, especially during Christmas. I swear, I enjoy Christmas as not just an aesthetic, but as a religious experience that includes the singing of carols, the prayers, the rejoicing, and the beauty. Despite my love for Christmas and my appreciation for Christianity, my experience in this choir was not entirely filled with sunshines and rainbows. Given the traditional and Christian nature of the choir, it was not necessarily comprised of the most diverse bunch, and neither was the audience.

I remember being asked by one of the other members of the choir “where are you from again?” He already knew I am from Iran, and so I told him “you already know, I have told y-” and as I am about to finish my sentence, he screams “you are from Pakistan right? Paki! Paki!”

I was dumbfounded. But this experience is evidence of the “foreign forever” issue discussed by Maghbouleh. Even if I am speaking fluent English and French, singing Christmas carols and hymns in a Church, dressed and poised and presented in the ‘right’ way, I will still be seen as a ‘paki’. Even if I have a better understanding of Christianity, of the English language, of Canadian history, and of Canadian politics, more than many other Christians, Anglophones, and Canadians, I will still be seen as a ‘paki.’ Despite my family in Iran referring to me as ‘westernized’ or a khareji, despite being of ‘Indo-European’ descent, considered to be white in the American legal context, speaking a language with ancient roots that apparently have European roots—whatever I am, whatever I do, I am forever a foreigner…

After I read the chapter from Maghbouleh’s The Limits of Whiteness, I literally zoned out for a solid 10 minutes rethinking everything I have ever known about my identity and my race.

Growing up, I was always told about the great Persian Empire, of Cyrus the Great, and that it seems as though everything we know from mathematics and medicine, to wine and even the invention of refrigerators somehow involved a Persian thinker, philosopher, physicist, or what have you. I always tried to look behind these blanket statements of history trying to understand what is this over-obsession of Iranians with their race and history and why do they constantly have to prove themselves as ancient, learned, cultured, and civilized?

Maghbouleh references Iran’s history as a declining power, with a “traumatizing loss of territory and self-determination” and in a way, Iran’s sentiments towards their own kind had to revive following these insecurities. I believe that is still very much the case today. In a world where Iran is villainized, has lost the respect of the international community, and its people are suffering, Iranians remain in a state of melancholia for what was before the Islamic Republic, or even what was 2500 years ago in the glorious days of the Persian Empire.

“There is a hierarchy there, and Iranians feel that they are hottie patotties and better than everyone else.” There is certainly a negative sentiment against the Arab community within the Persian community. Iran under its current regime is seen by many Iranians as plagued by Islam—ignoring the fact that Islam has had its influence on Persians’ lives, including their scientific discoveries and their literature more than a millennia ago. And as immigrants, Iranians push the narrative upon themselves that they are the model immigrant who is white-presenting, similar to the European, civilized and well mannered.

And yet, I personally never quite felt welcome and fully included in white spaces. Only when I am with other South Asian or Arab friends do I truly feel seen, heard, and comfortable. It may seem strange to some Iranians, because, well, I must be closer in ideas, culture, and identity to the white person. Yet, my experience defies that.

I was completely dumbfounded when reading that my identity as an “Aryan” is a fabrication by Europeans and pushed by an overthrown dynasty.

So who am I? What is my real history? Who can I even trust to tell me about me and my history?

I always heard the phrase “history is told by the victor” or some variation of the phrase, but never did I ever feel this and understand this phrase as I do now.

In the reading on Noble Drew Ali, and the excerpt from Malcolm X’s autobiography, there is an over-arching theme of a recognition and rediscovery of a once lost identity. There is a great and even radical desire to take back what was once taken away in centuries of demonization, slavery, and dehumanizations of Africans.

Drew Ali’s perspective on nationhood, for “Every nation” to “worship under their own vine and fig tree” to me is the outward cry for rebuilding of what is lost, to reconnect with an identity, to become whole and fulfilled, to then have the ability to live in peace.

Malcolm X says in his autobiography “this ‘Negro’ was taught to worship an alien God having the same blond hair, pale skin as the slave-master”. To Malcolm X, the Nation of Islam is looking for those roots that defy the ‘injection’ of the Christian religion into African Americans and being taught “to hate everything black, including himself”.

What is rather astounding and slightly troubling to me is the extent to which members of these particularistic Islamic movements in the U.S. go to create their lost roots, crossing the red line of orientalism. As I did the readings, I notice Islam is more an aesthetic than a way of life. Esoteric spirituals using Arabic symbols, or free masons using orientalist symbols to express particularity in rather ‘exotic’ ways.

I am fascinated by the story of Queen Victoria and her munshi. I remember watching a film adaptation of this story, but I did not take it very seriously until this reading.

To me, this history highlights that even if the very Crown itself, in its own twisted and complicated way tries to find a bond with its racialized and marginalized subjects, British society would object to it. The wariness of the court of the presence of a brown person in regular audience with the Queen was an impediment rather than a celebration of the Queen’s appreciation for this man. The case of Abdul Karim confirms the unwavering dehumanizing of the servants, be it an ayah, be it a teacher to the Queen of the British Empire. Being called “stupid and uneducated” questioning how socially acceptable his familial past is, and a danger to state affairs simply because of his origin.

This story also highlights how British Orientalism was put under question. Orientalist narratives framed British colonialism as a righteous act and a civilizing mission. Mistreatment of the Indian servants was justified, as they are the ones who need guidance and control.

For the narrative to be reversed: for the Queen to be a student to the colonized subject is almost against the laws of nature, backwards, and to the British authorities absolutely insane.

The Civil Rights Movement is largely characterized with terms like “integration,” and “acceptance” the ideas Baldwin warns his nephew of. Integration meant that Black Americans can be sat with white ‘countrymen’ on a bus, in a movie theatre, or in class without implications. That, post “integration,” society would not fuel divides through segregation.

But to me, integration implies alienation. It implies that someone, or something, that is alien, abnormal, and different must be integrated. A great effort must be made to accept another who is unlike you. Baldwin discusses a feeling of endangerment among white Americans. This danger that their identity would be taken away from them. Part of this identity being superiority, or being in control of the narrative, how can a white person simply accept ‘integration’? To integrate with people whom they have objectified, how can they reconcile with having a core tenant of their identity be attacked?

A white person’s upbringing and history predisposes them. The history of racism and discrimination predisposes them. Their racial bias, their longing for segregation, or their racist fantasies for what a Black person is predisposes them. To me it seems that Baldwin makes the request of his nephew to not regard the white person in fury, but in pity, or maybe even sympathy for being in a circumstances where they are taught their identity is under threat.

Baldwin describes the white Americans’ ‘integration’ with Black Americans as out of order, and so uncomfortable to the white person. He says: “any upheaval in the universe is terrifying because it so profoundly attacks one’s sense of one’s own reality.”

Yancy discusses the racist comments calling for attention of a Black person, saying that it “communicates a spectacle to behold.” The person is now a “thing,” a “dreaded object.” When Baldwin warns his nephew of integration and acceptance, he warns him against accepting this narrative told on his behalf. That one should not shed away dignity and identity for the sake of “integration.”

So the what is the way to chart one’s own course? Is there a way to escape the racist, objectifying narrative that a racialized person is born into?

Fanon says : “His [the Black man’s] metaphysics…were wiped out becasue they were in conflict with a civilization that he did not know and that imposed itself on him. Being in the White man’s world, there is an inherent flaw and impurity outlawing any ontological explanation that the Black man is subject to. Subject to a standard of Blackhood imposed by the White man, an identity unknown and foreign to the Black man himself : “for not only must the black man be black; he must be black in relation to the white man.” Fanon is not only subjected to the characteristics imposed by the other, but by every inch of his identity, responsible for his body, race, and his ancestors. He is, in a way, subject to his pwn appearance : “I am the slave not of the ‘idea’ that others have of me but of my own appearance.” His appearance is pretext to his being as his body is one, and he is another. The black man is subject to the imposed characteristics, object of unfair classifications, and barred from the external world : “I shouted greetings to the world and the world slashed away my joy.”

“Since the other hesitated to recognize me, there remained only one solution : to make myself known.” Fanon expresses the sentiment that the suffering his race experienced(experiences) is ignored. Under the condition that the world would quit its prejudices, the history of the suffering of the Black person is swept under the rug. Though when Fanon wishes to stand against hate, to despise the oppressor, he was rejected despite begging and imploring. He was denied recognition. And so, if the world is denying recognition of the struggle of his own people, he takes it into his own hands. And so, he asserts himself and declares to be “a BLACK MAN.”

I find Sivanandan’s discussion on Britain’s foreign labour policy on the same field as that of Fanon. The Black person is a subject of the White discourse. Sivanandan highlights that British policy essentially “prevented the integration of migrant labour into the indigenous proletariat and thereby mediated class conflict.” Foreign workers—who in this case are people of colour from the many British colonial territories—are now pieces in the lucrative game of the the indigenous employers. The workers too are simply seen through an identity fabricated on their behalf. They are seen as workers who live in poor conditions stuck in an unfortunate cycle, with an inevitably continuous cycle of racism.

How does one reconcile with the these fabrications of the self from those who are anything but the self? Are these stereotypes and fabrications internalized and therefore institutionalized, even in the mindset of the racialized community?

Zine and Johnson explore themes of homogeneity, appealing to a quasi-homogenous society despite claims of multiculturalism, hiding behind terms like “queer” to avoid discussion of cultural nuances, and the frames through which cultural issues are viewed.

In exploring these ideas, Zine opens up the conversation on ‘death by culture.’ Discussing the tragic death of Aqsa Parvez, Zine argues conversations about her death revolved not around issues of domestic violence, but that of culture; it was so framed that, indeed, it was her culture that killed her, not her father. Many are left anxious that, God forbid, the benevolent Canadian nation is corrupted and infiltrated by other cultures. This frame exposes an overall narrative that the Muslim woman, whether natralized Canadian or not, is universally oppressed and is victim to her culture’s misogyny.

What stands out to me in Zine’s reading is the acquisition of “national capital” by performing the national identity to then purchase national belonging. The life of an immigrant, especially a young immigrant, becomes a journey of discovery of what is that immigrant’s true identity. It is this performative identity to fit in, or the former life that has been discarded? Looking back at Aqsa’s case, what was behind her desire to not wear her hijab? Certainly it is her choice to dress as she wishes, with or without a headscarf. But was this fatal journey of her cultural discovery just an extreme example of swinging back and forth between the inherited and performative cultures?

Questions of homogeneity, differences, and complexities are also explored in Johnson’s reading where quare folks are now in a greater, more complex journey of both their racial identity, their performative identity, and their sexuality.

Queer, as an overgeneralizing term blurring the lines of differences, may not stand to reflect the nuances, complexities, and beauties of one’s identity. In this case, as Johnson explores an alternative that would best represent a queer person of colour, he finds ‘queer’ to be ‘out of my name’ and so wishes to identify with a term that does not shun his racial identity away.

Queer has become a term that dismisses discussion, dismisses the nuances of a person identifying with the LGBT+ community. Queer is perhaps less confrontational, less bold. It conveys the message it is meant to convey, but does not open up a conversation. Generally taboo subjects, sexuality and gender are kept behind closed doors; they are ‘matters of the bedroom’ and so have no place in public discourse. Perhaps “queer” is a term that reconciles societal norms, and the unique identities that may not squarely fit into said norms.

Johnson quotes Gloria Anzaldua, claiming “even when we seek shelter under it [“queer”], we must not forget that it homogenizes, erases our differences.” What Johnson highlights is that although a quare person is shunned from the racial community to which the person identifies, the quare cannot afford to abandon this identity. Racial identity also faces nuances, complexities, and discrimination that can be handled only with a community. As Johnson quotes Audre Lorde : “without community there is not liberation, only the most vulnerable and temporary armistice between an individual and her oppression.”

My question then is, what is the community? Is it the one the immigrant appeals to and performs for and so adopts? Is the benevolent community where the quare person can be authentic, or the racial community that shuns matters of gender and sexuality? Is the community the immigrant—least partially—discards?