In a lot of countries I've been to, the native language has a word that directly translates into English as "a black man." It doesn't necessarily have a negative or derogatory connotation. However it can, so quite often when dictionaries translate it, students learn the word that so many of us have been told from a young age should never be spoken. A word so steeped in the context of vitriol and prejudice that I've decided not to write it. But thanks to its practical use and also a familiarity with the word thanks to popular culture, specifically American rap culture, learners of English are never encouraged to break the habit and it can catch the native speaker extremely off guard. "I went to Africa for holiday. There are many n------s there." "Whoa! Mohammad (or Petra or Milos). You can't be saying that," is often the initial reaction but doesn't even come close to covering it. I've spent many a class hour trying to give some context to the word, and my higher level, more worldly students who can understand words like "extremely offensive" (and "context" for that matter) generally grasp it, but on many the concepts are lost. I've known some teachers who have at this point given lessons on the American civil rights movement to help the students wrap there head around it, but mostly, you just have to stress that it's a word that they should never say. "But teacher, 50 cent says..." " I know. I know. You're just gonna have to trust me." This of course supposes that the student in question doesn't want to use the term derogatorily.
For some reason when I lived in the states I never really thought about racism outside of the U.S. It might have been because I assumed it was an American problem. I thought that it was a product of ignorance and thought that our particular brand of ignorance was the worst anywhere, showing my own sense of "Amero-centrism." I thought about racism only in the context of slavery and immigration and never considered these or other factors and how they were at work in other countries. I knew that there were ethnic conflicts. I was aware of the wars in the former Yugoslavia, ethnic cleansing in Africa, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The way I conceptualized them had more to do with violence between nations, between peoples. I was aware of course of the Holocaust and of international anti-semitism, but again thought that this was for the most part a problem of the past or that it only remained for the extremely bigoted, neo-Nazis and the like. I never thought of racism within a country or society the way we have it in the states.
So naturally, when I was first confronted with racism abroad while in the Czech Republic, I was taken aback. From people who otherwise I found to be sweet, warm, friendly, caring, and highly intelligent I heard things about African and Arab immigrants that made me cringe. By far though, without question, the worst racism I bore witness to came in reference to Gypsies*. I heard what the American liberal inside me could only classify as hate-speech and what were at the very least gross negative generalizations. Things like, "Gypsies are bad people. They will rob you and beat you up. I hate all of them." Being an English teacher specializing in conversation, this of course gave me the opportunity to engage in long talks with my students to explore Czech as well as greater European roots of racism and to discuss their current environment. But my students were resistant to these discussions. They dismissed their claims not as racism, not as biased against a group of people based on their skin color or their heritage, but claimed them to be objective fact stated about a group of people, based on every experience they'd ever had with them. It made me call into question my own resistance to generalize.
"Asian people are good at math." This is a statement that I personally believe should not be said. It generalizes. It plays to a common stereotype. It, while not stating something negative about the people it generalizes, is negative in spirit because it assumes that everyone it speaks about is the same. This is what I was taught. I think that most Americans even if they believe this statement to be fact, know that it's still not something you should say, and at the very least not in public. Not to a boss, or someone you just met. We are on a basic level socialized to understand that generalizing is wrong. A very high percentage of people who I've met on my travels, however, when engaged in this very conversation, have absolutely no problem with this statement or ones like it. They compare it to their experience, it resonates, and they concur. A second thought is rarely given. In fact this exact statement is the measuring post that I've used to gauge someone's resistance to generalization and I've found that contrary to the belief I held before I went abroad, this resistance is decidedly American.
I've found myself forgiving people I've met abroad for not sharing this reluctance. I've even found myself not holding their more bigoted speech against them. I guess it's a combination of "well that's how they were raised", "that's their culture" and just not wanting to have to dislike a large number of the people I meet. I still have the conversations and explain what we're raised to believe in the States, but like in similar progressivist discussions I've had about gender roles, discrimination and the like, I've had my thoughts dismissed as American, as things that wouldn't work in their country. "Yea," I'm told, "things are changing. But this isn't America." People while being happy that the U.S. elected a man of African descent as it's commander-in-chief could in the same breath explain how that would never happen where they're from. This again took me aback. I'd always been exposed to the "America as a Beacon of Light" doctrine but I'd never subscribed to it. It suddenly started to have some weight behind it, at least in this respect, and even if ideas of equality aren't shared by everybody, which they most certainly are not, we still promote the ideal that they're the right ones, and have publicly made strides as a nation along those lines. And for this, I discovered, I'm quite proud. Who knew?
So now we've come to the discussion of racism in Saudi, which in itself can be difficult to nail down. It's hard to separate from a class system that seems so ingrained not only in mindset, but in the day-to-day activities of it's citizens and the foreigners who've come here for work. Slavery in the Kingdom wasn't abolished until 1962 and there is literally a social hierarchy that basically lines up step-for-step with with skin color. Saudis are of course at the top, followed by white Americans and then Brits. Next come other white Europeans. Following that I would say come non-white Westerners although coming from them it wouldn't surprise me if they feel like they're somewhat less respected. Next are other Arabs, with distinctive preferences and dislikes between nationalities that I have yet to fully grasp. After Arabs, again skin color can be seen coinciding with social status all the way-- Asians, then people of the Indian subcontinent, then Africans. Even for Saudis themselves, you're seen as being classier and more attractive the lighter your skin tone. Muslims are of course held in higher regard before God but in day to day dealings and interactions, your social status is much more important than your religion. All you have to do is be slow to move forward in the check-out line at the grocery store and see who steps in front of you. As a white Westerner, only Saudis step in front of me. Filipinos and Bangladeshis don't. Some people will even ask you to step in front of them.
So what part of racism can be attributed to culture, or to objective experience for that matter? If someone is raised to believe that a certain group of people are below them and their only interactions with those people are ones in which the second group assumes a subordinate role or in more extreme cases are criminals and drug addicts, can we blame the first group for feeling that way? Can we fault people in other countries for not holding themselves to the standards that we are socialized to promote? Conversely, can we forgive them for it? Is generalization along racial lines the same as racism? Is it wrong to generalize? Is it natural? What part of our condition tells us that on a basic level we are all human and have certain rights that should be respected as such? What tells some people that we aren't the same? These are the questions I find myself asking when confronting these issues abroad. It calls into question my own beliefs especially in the context of my own "Americanness". I know what I believe though, and I take a great deal of comfort in the fact that if I do err, it is at least on the side of humanity, on what I believe to be goodness. If I happen to be naive, then so be it, but I've seen what erring the other way can do, how it rears its ugly head. And while I don't expect the rest of the world to be on the same page as me, and I make no claims to a righteousness that should be forced on others, I do hope that with increased access to ideas will come increased understanding and with that, compassion.
* "Gypsy", while often being used pejoratively as a name to describe a group of people with a transient lifestyle who live outside of society, is in fact an ethnic group who refer to themselves as Roma or Romani. Originally believed to be from the Indian subcontinent they do have discernible ethnic characteristics and while being widely dispersed can be found primarily in Eastern and Central Europe.
For some reason when I lived in the states I never really thought about racism outside of the U.S. It might have been because I assumed it was an American problem. I thought that it was a product of ignorance and thought that our particular brand of ignorance was the worst anywhere, showing my own sense of "Amero-centrism." I thought about racism only in the context of slavery and immigration and never considered these or other factors and how they were at work in other countries. I knew that there were ethnic conflicts. I was aware of the wars in the former Yugoslavia, ethnic cleansing in Africa, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The way I conceptualized them had more to do with violence between nations, between peoples. I was aware of course of the Holocaust and of international anti-semitism, but again thought that this was for the most part a problem of the past or that it only remained for the extremely bigoted, neo-Nazis and the like. I never thought of racism within a country or society the way we have it in the states.
So naturally, when I was first confronted with racism abroad while in the Czech Republic, I was taken aback. From people who otherwise I found to be sweet, warm, friendly, caring, and highly intelligent I heard things about African and Arab immigrants that made me cringe. By far though, without question, the worst racism I bore witness to came in reference to Gypsies*. I heard what the American liberal inside me could only classify as hate-speech and what were at the very least gross negative generalizations. Things like, "Gypsies are bad people. They will rob you and beat you up. I hate all of them." Being an English teacher specializing in conversation, this of course gave me the opportunity to engage in long talks with my students to explore Czech as well as greater European roots of racism and to discuss their current environment. But my students were resistant to these discussions. They dismissed their claims not as racism, not as biased against a group of people based on their skin color or their heritage, but claimed them to be objective fact stated about a group of people, based on every experience they'd ever had with them. It made me call into question my own resistance to generalize.
"Asian people are good at math." This is a statement that I personally believe should not be said. It generalizes. It plays to a common stereotype. It, while not stating something negative about the people it generalizes, is negative in spirit because it assumes that everyone it speaks about is the same. This is what I was taught. I think that most Americans even if they believe this statement to be fact, know that it's still not something you should say, and at the very least not in public. Not to a boss, or someone you just met. We are on a basic level socialized to understand that generalizing is wrong. A very high percentage of people who I've met on my travels, however, when engaged in this very conversation, have absolutely no problem with this statement or ones like it. They compare it to their experience, it resonates, and they concur. A second thought is rarely given. In fact this exact statement is the measuring post that I've used to gauge someone's resistance to generalization and I've found that contrary to the belief I held before I went abroad, this resistance is decidedly American.
I've found myself forgiving people I've met abroad for not sharing this reluctance. I've even found myself not holding their more bigoted speech against them. I guess it's a combination of "well that's how they were raised", "that's their culture" and just not wanting to have to dislike a large number of the people I meet. I still have the conversations and explain what we're raised to believe in the States, but like in similar progressivist discussions I've had about gender roles, discrimination and the like, I've had my thoughts dismissed as American, as things that wouldn't work in their country. "Yea," I'm told, "things are changing. But this isn't America." People while being happy that the U.S. elected a man of African descent as it's commander-in-chief could in the same breath explain how that would never happen where they're from. This again took me aback. I'd always been exposed to the "America as a Beacon of Light" doctrine but I'd never subscribed to it. It suddenly started to have some weight behind it, at least in this respect, and even if ideas of equality aren't shared by everybody, which they most certainly are not, we still promote the ideal that they're the right ones, and have publicly made strides as a nation along those lines. And for this, I discovered, I'm quite proud. Who knew?
So now we've come to the discussion of racism in Saudi, which in itself can be difficult to nail down. It's hard to separate from a class system that seems so ingrained not only in mindset, but in the day-to-day activities of it's citizens and the foreigners who've come here for work. Slavery in the Kingdom wasn't abolished until 1962 and there is literally a social hierarchy that basically lines up step-for-step with with skin color. Saudis are of course at the top, followed by white Americans and then Brits. Next come other white Europeans. Following that I would say come non-white Westerners although coming from them it wouldn't surprise me if they feel like they're somewhat less respected. Next are other Arabs, with distinctive preferences and dislikes between nationalities that I have yet to fully grasp. After Arabs, again skin color can be seen coinciding with social status all the way-- Asians, then people of the Indian subcontinent, then Africans. Even for Saudis themselves, you're seen as being classier and more attractive the lighter your skin tone. Muslims are of course held in higher regard before God but in day to day dealings and interactions, your social status is much more important than your religion. All you have to do is be slow to move forward in the check-out line at the grocery store and see who steps in front of you. As a white Westerner, only Saudis step in front of me. Filipinos and Bangladeshis don't. Some people will even ask you to step in front of them.
So what part of racism can be attributed to culture, or to objective experience for that matter? If someone is raised to believe that a certain group of people are below them and their only interactions with those people are ones in which the second group assumes a subordinate role or in more extreme cases are criminals and drug addicts, can we blame the first group for feeling that way? Can we fault people in other countries for not holding themselves to the standards that we are socialized to promote? Conversely, can we forgive them for it? Is generalization along racial lines the same as racism? Is it wrong to generalize? Is it natural? What part of our condition tells us that on a basic level we are all human and have certain rights that should be respected as such? What tells some people that we aren't the same? These are the questions I find myself asking when confronting these issues abroad. It calls into question my own beliefs especially in the context of my own "Americanness". I know what I believe though, and I take a great deal of comfort in the fact that if I do err, it is at least on the side of humanity, on what I believe to be goodness. If I happen to be naive, then so be it, but I've seen what erring the other way can do, how it rears its ugly head. And while I don't expect the rest of the world to be on the same page as me, and I make no claims to a righteousness that should be forced on others, I do hope that with increased access to ideas will come increased understanding and with that, compassion.
* "Gypsy", while often being used pejoratively as a name to describe a group of people with a transient lifestyle who live outside of society, is in fact an ethnic group who refer to themselves as Roma or Romani. Originally believed to be from the Indian subcontinent they do have discernible ethnic characteristics and while being widely dispersed can be found primarily in Eastern and Central Europe.
No comments:
Post a Comment