Melancholic Migrants > Forum Home

In reading these two works I found it difficult to resist comparing the experiences shared by these narrators. Both obviously highlight the difficulties they've faced being queer Muslim POCs, but it seemed to me that Ali's experiences of rejection and dejection stemmed from his experiences with other people, such as members of his family and friends, whereas the majority of Habib's dejecting experiences seemingly arise from feeling excluded from Muslim spaces as she is a Muslim woman who challenges classical notions of what it means to be a "Good Muslim". Ali does mention Islam, most notably in his discussion about his relationship with food and how that relates to Ramadan, but at least in the part of the text assigned, his personal relationship to Islam seems to be less of the focus. He frames Ramadan as "starv[ing] out of some deluded sense of obligation to a faith that casts us as underlings in a modern world," which certainly doesn't seem like much of a favorable relationship to me. I wonder if finding a Mosque like that which Habib describes could have helped him navigate the challenges of his younger life.

To continue the discussion of these ideas, it's remarkable how much dissonance there is in "Western" (especially Canadian) society when breaching the topic of multiculturalism, specifically in the picking-and-choosing of parts of cultures that are accepted and rejecting the rest. An example of such, as discussed above, is the hijab. As has been discussed in our class before, the cognitive dissonance between "women are forced to wear the hijab" and the resulting "in order to prevent the oppression of women we should ban the wearing of the hijab" which only succeeds in further oppression is boggling. The idea of Canada as a mosaic, as opposed to America as a melting pot, might make Canada seem like a more accepting and multi-cultural society, but when aspects of immigrant cultures are only accepted if they coincide with pre-existing values of Canadian society and are suppressed if not, all you have is a melting pot with extra steps. The examples Thobani gives relating to cultural/religious dress are a fantastic example of this: you can dress and worship however you want, as long as it doesn't actually impact any aspect of the Greater Canadian Society.

Out of all the aspects of these readings I find the dissonance between Baldwin's perception of Algerians and Algerian's perceptions of themselves to be the most interesting. While Baldwin certainly acknowledges the standard French opinion of Algerians, highlighting the incredible prejudice they face and the poverty they often life in, he describes their situation with what I almost detect as a hint of rose-tinted glasses. While it wouldn't be fair to say that he envies the Algerians (especially since he outright says that he doesn't) I can't help but shake the feeling that he wishes he had more experiences like that of the Algerians, in as much as "they knew exactly where home was".
In Baldwin's eyes, the Algerians living in France had, at least, a connection to their roots. They were colonized roots, undoubtably, but in contrast with the Black American, whose ancestors were ripped from their home and stripped of all connections to "home", that is one thing that Algerians could claim: their home, Algeria.
Baldwin describes being told that he is "evolved" by the White French, while the Algerian Muslims are "not-civilized" in an interesting opposition from the North American context: Enslaved Muslims often being better treated than Enslaved Pagans on the basis of being "more evolved".
The interviews that Martin recounts also don't seem to paint the picture that Algerians (or other previously colonized minority groups) have an idea of "home" in the way that Baldwin describes. The vast majority of those interviewed seem to feel that they are not truly "French", and that they never could be, despite some of them being second or third generation Frenchmen. To Baldwin's point it is also true that some of these people, as a coping mechanism with being denied "French", reach towards their ancestral ties to Morocco or Algeria, while this is not possible for Black Americans. But how could Algeria be a proper "home" to someone who has only ever lived in France, surrounded by the White French and French social structures and attitudes.

As we have discussed multiple times before in this class, Immigration into America for Arab and South Asian people was often very different from the preconceived notion of immigration we tend to hold today. In a similar instance to the Bengali peddlers we've discussed, Syrian immigrants to the United States did not exclusively come to the Americas with the intent to set up shop in this foreign land, cut their ties from their motherland, and start fresh like most English/German/Western European migrants. Instead the intent was often less "immigration" and more "travelling", these migrants sought job opportunities and methods of making wealth that they could then export back to their homelands for their families and communities.

After economic failure and recession hit Syria following a blight on mulberry trees, which then stunted silk production, as well as the opening of the Suez canal that undermined Syrian silk exports, it was very common for Syrians to emigrate internationally in search of job opportunities. Some studies suggest that as much as a sixth of the Syrian population emigrated from the area between 1881 and 1901, likely in search of these very opportunities.

As to where these people migrated, the Gualtieri reading seems to suggest that the majority of Syrian immigrants came through New York City and other large metropolitan areas. While it is true that many Syrian migrants, after amassing some wealth, purchased homesteads in more rural areas of the United States, the truth of the matter is that large Syrian communities were often based in large metropolitan areas because those were the ports of entry. For someone entering a foreign country, it is much easier to stay within the community of foreign people like yourself, or moving to another large, similar community, than it is to strike it out fresh into a population totally alien to oneself. Just as those from rural areas of Syria had often migrated to the more populous areas of Syria in search for job opportunities, once these were no longer available, immigration to foreign populous areas still provided the best chance of amassing wealth.

Something often overlooked about Non-Violent Protest is that it only works if the Oppressor is willing to listen to the Oppressed, which very often is just not realistic. Non-Violence is a slow form of protest at best, as you've mentioned, but in the worst case it might not ever make a difference. There are just some forms of Oppression where Non-Violence doesn't work, such as when "negotiating" with Fascists. As said in TH9, there is ..."only one language that Fascist understand": Violence.

When dealing with an Oppressor who ONLY deals in violence, Non-Violent protest does little but make the Oppressed an easy target. This is why, I believe, that the issue of Police Brutality has existed since the concept of a police force was first conceived and still exists, unsolved, to this day. The Police, as a concept, have the monopoly on violence within a society. At their core, the language spoken by the Police is violence. Not a single police force is interested in releasing its grasp on this monopoly, and not a single government is interested in giving up its most trusted way of controlling its populace. Non-Violent resistance to the police has been going on for decades, if not centuries, with little to show, which is the single biggest weakness for non-violent activism.

Debate on the nature of cultural appropriation is often unproductive. If you boil any culture down enough, every aspect of every modern culture is "appropriated" from somewhere else: as a wise woman once put it, "you think you just fell out of a coconut tree?" When it comes to the Moorish Science Temple and the Nation of Islam, this same argument applies. Yes, it is true that Islamic (adjacent) ideas clearly influenced the inception of these organizations, and these organizations attempt to garter some legitimacy through this claimed connection. The claim that these organizations are not "properly Islamic" is a moot point: the primary function of these organizations aren't to maintain a "proper, 'Eastern' Islam", they are explicitly designed to help root the cultural identity of African Americans who otherwise have had all identifiers stripped from them and replaced by White facsimiles.

This is why Islam, in the North American context, was so attractive to Black Americans and especially to Bebop musicians: it represented a radical new way of thinking about self-identification/expression that truly pandered to that specific demographic. Black people who recognized the injustices in the system they were born into craved ways to split themselves from this cancer; converting to true faith in Islam (non-White) and having true faith in Bebop (non-White) represented two ways for them to achieve this desire to some degree.

Those denouncing the customs of Black American Islam miss the point entirely. Their faith is no weaker simply for having altered traditions. The essentials are still rooted in the same place, the only difference being that the Black American faith directly serves and supports its followers in a way that "True Islam" wouldn't have the capability to. Bebop is not a heresy because it appropriates Ragtime, Swing, and the Blues, nor is Black American Islam a heresy because it appropriates aspects of Islamic thought, belief, and history.

For any minority group, the importance of a "Communal Space" cannot be overstated. For any group, really, shared communal spaces are importance but especially for those outside the societal "norm" it is immensely important to have a space where people can gather to share their communal beliefs, identities, and cultural products. There is no greater crime on this planet than isolating someone, and it is common for members of minority groups to feel isolated in a society that does not reflect them. Community is the only remedy for Isolation. It is no sheer coincidence that the first instinct of Bengali merchants entering this country for the first time was to lay down the foundations of a global network that might span the globe: to have these international connections is a very effective way to avoid isolation. But so are the founding of Communal Spaces: restaurants, neighborhoods, social clubs.

While Bengal Garden may not have survived as a business venture, its importance as a Communal and Cultural Phenomenon is very audibly praised in this reading: the knowledge gained from this singular failed enterprise served the foundations of several successful business ventures in the Bengali Harlem community. Not to mention the relief described by Bengalis who finally found a place in this White Nationalist country where they could eat familiar food and talk familiar politics in a familiar language.

The Indian Seamen's club serves as another shining example of the importance of Communal Spaces. It should be obvious just based on the overwhelming demand seen in this social club. When any kind of institution services that volume of people over such a short time-frame, it's clear that the institution in question serves great purpose and is highly valued by its community. In this instance, the importance of the Indian Seamen's Club (and in no small part, Choudry) is clear; a welcoming space and a friendly face was provided to those often under-served and over-utilized.

These institutions, amongst many others, serve to unify a small and oppressed minority. They're a light shining against a smothering Whiteness. They are both catalyst and result of community-building.

The first part of your post where you discuss code switching and survival strategies, including the rejection of heritage, touches on something I find incredibly profound. As Rajiv says: "How was it that these people who I came from hated themselves so much that they would rather kiss a white person's ass than call themselves Indians?"

I think this idea of 'self-hatred' strikes a much harder chord than the term 'melancholia' might, and continues the idea that Integration is, at its core, a truly heinous concept. This self-hatred is born out of the struggle for migrants to renounce their heritage and fully adopt their 'new culture', but it's impossible for someone to truly forsake their past lives and lived experiences. We are who we are because of the things we've experienced. In rejecting one's culture and past, they are simultaneously rejecting their very being. Integration without self-hatred is impossible.

This self-hatred manifests in many different ways, all in an attempt to bury their history. Rajiv's father burning his mother's books and incense, his aunties making fun of him for attempting to learn Hindi, the anger of Rajiv's father when his Aji teaches him songs, they're all actions designed to make Rajiv not want to connect with his heritage. They're all actions of self-hatred, of embarrassment.

As you mentioned, in addition to having their Faith dissected and used as both boon and curse to argue for/against the idea of Educated Muslim Slaves, there was a serious attempt to distinguish Black from Muslim both on behalf of Whites and the Enslaved. Regardless of the fact that African Muslims were enslaved right alongside both African Pagans, a conceited effort to separate these groups led to some African Muslims to declare themselves "Not Black", which led to preferential treatment by their Enslavers (e.g. the belief that these Muslims were better for "domestic servers" and not "qualified for the ruder labours of the field"). What I find noteworthy here is two-fold: the prescribed identity attributed to African Muslims by Whites, going back to the triple gaze discussion; the idea that "Muslim-Passing" Africans were able to "use Orientalism to their advantage" similar to our prior discussion of Bengali merchants and Black people who were able to pass for South Asian. And again we return to the idea that the only way a certain minority can increase its position in the "Racial Hierarchy" is through the slander and oppression of another minority group.

While stereotype often portrays all Latine people as faithful Catholics, this is not absolute fact. There are many Muslim Latine people, existing not only in our modern day but existing in the Historical Record as well. After the Reconquista, many Moriscos (Spanish subjects who were, or expected to be, Muslim) emigrated from Iberia and the influence of the Inquisition to the Americas. These Muslims lived and established communities in the Americas, despite pressure from the Inquisition and Spanish/Portuguese thrones, leaving an unmistakable impact on histories, cultures, and nations. It would be a disservice to leave these people out of the historical record.

That said, in an effort to hide their "Muslimness" from their Catholic Governments and Neighbors, many of the practices and overt Islamic affiliations of these Moriscos were greatly subdued and hidden. This was merely done as an act of survival. The repercussions this has today, however, is that it leaves many modern Latine people without their connection to these Moriscos, and leaves the 'indigenous practices' of American Islam 'warped'. For Latine people seeking an Islamic community, whether because of suspected familial ties, general interest, or because they felt that Islam will be a source of strength and comfort, they would often seek out International Muslims, for belief that their more orthodox practices are also more "pure", and because their Islamic Identity is far more rooted and tangible. This could lead to Latine people seeking to reject some parts of their identities and adopt new ones, as in the case of Addison Gilmo Rodez attempting to pass as South Asian, to more snuggly fit into their adopted Islamic community.

Often, Islamic communities in the United States are designed specifically for one subset of Islamic identities, e.g. a community for Black-American Muslims and another for International Muslims. Latine people frequently found themselves split between these two extremes, not being "black enough" for the specifics of a Black-American community to ring true for them and yet "too American" for the International community to feel right. This eventually led to efforts from Latine Muslims to foster their own communities, built to acknowledge their own specific heritage and circumstances. Coupled with increased historical research into the lives of Moriscos, these communities have found more firm rooting in their historical basises, alluding to the idea that many Latine "conversions" to Islam are actually more like a "reversion" to their original faith.

The Lie of integration has so much room to be analyzed, tore down, and debunked. Not only does integration ask someone to strip themselves of their cultural identity just to conform to the societal norm but often it asks the same individual to condemn their original identities and views. Majority cultures, especially European cultures but most especially the British, love to flaunt how 'accepting' and 'educated' they are of/on the diaspora of minority (conquered) cultures that were present in the British Empire, and then in the same breath condemn multiculturalism and promote the systematic condemnation and destruction of these cultures within Britain. It is not just a 'cultural conversion' that is pressed onto melancholic migrants but the active condemnation of their mother culture, once 'cultural conversion' has been completed society seeks to implicate the melancholic migrant in the destruction of their old identities. All of this, just to never truly be accepted by the Majority as a "proper British bloke".

In a far less literal sense than the example of Black American Veterans that you gave, "Integration" seeks to enlist the migrant/minority population in a war against their own communities. "Multiculturalism" is dead only because the societal Majority is too lazy or ignorant to seek an understanding with its minority populations. Every mention of "seeking understanding through 'shared values'" makes me laugh and cringe, knowing that the real intention behind those words is 'British values'.

I think that's a very good point being made, one that goes back to the idea of the "triple gaze" we've mentioned so often since our discussion on Race and Class. The identity of marginalized peoples tends to matter less than what their 'perceived identities' are, they are often being defined by how a white society views them.

This can be the case for someone seen as Black, Asian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, or any other minority group. How someone truly identifies doesn't matter to the white majority, who just make assumptions and assign a minority's labels for them. If assigning someone as a 'Scary Black Man' is racist, so too should be the assigning of someone as a 'Scary Muslim Man'.

In this world, where "White" is far too often equated with "Normal", it can be exceptionally difficult for someone who is White to perceive how this world's societies and structures have all been built up specifically in their interests. It is hard to look at something built to serve Whites and see it as such, because it is simply marked as "the norm" and something that doesn't need to be examined further. Whenever something is constructed to serve the interests of any racialized peoples, suddenly there becomes a need to label it as "unusual", "out of the norm", something to be scrutinized. The phrase, "Look, a white!" Is a gift, posits Yancy, because it allows White people to look at the world through a gaze that is not their own and recognize that the whole of this world is built on racialized structures and ideals. It is a phrase that seeks to cut through the ignorance of the White race, to serve as a marker to be reflected upon and called up whenever one recognizes that something is serving White people, when that thought might be overlooked prior. It allows a White person to view the world for what it really is, as opposed to the warped and ignorant view that they have been taught by society and its structures.

This is why Baldwin asks his Nephew to accept White people "with love". He asks his Nephew to understand the ignorance of the White people, to recognize it and to abolish it out of love. "Integration" as Baldwin talks about it is not the colonial understanding of assimilation, where a minor culture is consumed and erased by the major one, but rather the opposite: the opening of a dominant culture's eyes by the instruction of a minor culture. The integration Balwin talks about, the message he sends to his Nephew, is to share the gift of "Look, a White!" With those Whites who need the capability for this kind of reflection. Baldwin wishes for White people to experience the third and final part of the triple gaze: for White people to see themselves as the racialized view them.

What really catches my attention is your penultimate paragraph where you discuss how the shifting connotation of "exotics" has changed over time. It was never the case that whites truly treated Indians better than they treated Black people, but more so that they pandered towards their 'idea' of what an Indian was. An Indian person could not simply go about their life as usual and expect preferential treatment, they had to explicitly put on the show of being "shrewd, graceful, and handsome", an act of being 'exotic'. In the case of Black people using these stereotypes to "gain a greater level of freedom", they weren't truly gaining anything, just being forced to live out a different ethnic stereotype.

It is interesting, however, to think about how the beloved stereotype of an Indian has come to be one countered by mistrust today. I can't help but wonder how that transition must have taken place. Perhaps it was easier for White people to ignore the agency and personhood of Indians so long as they "kept their place" and acted out the white-fantastical stereotype of an Indian person. Thus, when Indian people inevitably decided they didn't like being treated as toys and began to speak up for greater rights and representation, White people decided that they were not to be trusted. Certainly interesting how Whites find it easier to "play nice" with a toy as opposed to a real human person.

After reading Fanon's "The Fact of Blackness" and listening to Kendrick Lamar's "The Blacker the Berry", I found myself grappling with the similarities in the ways these men perceive and handle their "blackness". Both men speak at length about the hate they receive simply due to the nature of their skin. They are oppressed, discriminated against, feared, just for being black, due to the abhorrent assumption that black people are uncivilized, dangerous, and brutish. They talk about how they are being perceived by white society, how they are expected to act "thuggish" and how their every move and motive is being combed over by the Whites around them. Both of these men know that they are confined by their race, that all judgements made about them are made at the instant they are seen, and that at present there is no way to avoid these unjust and racist stereotypes. They both talk about giving in, truly being a black man, but Kendrick Lamar's ideas here seem to diverge from Fanon's.

When Fanon comes to the conclusion that he will always be known for his race first, he realizes that attempting to go unnoticed and be invisible is both an impossible task and also one that doesn't actually benefit him or other black people at all. He must stand as a black man, and do his best to dispel the myths of the black savage. Kendrick Lamar similarly understands that attempting to avoid being seen as a black man is an impossible task, but instead of talking about dispelling mythos he instead speaks on how these myths perpetuate themselves in black communities, how some black people allow themselves to (or are forced to, more accurately) become the very black devilish caricature that white society wishes for them to be. This is why he calls himself "...the biggest hypocrite of 2015" at the beginning of every verse, because while he discusses how society has demonized and forced the black man to assume a violent, aggressive persona and how this is obviously a detrimental form of oppression on the black community, he himself acknowledges that he plays this caricature himself in the way he walks, talks, carries himself and presents himself to the world. He laments the oppression that killed Trayvon Martin while he himself helps to perpetuate this society of violence.