Archive for the 'Society' Category



11
Feb

Colliding Freedoms: The Adhan in Oxford

The city of Oxford, England is currently embroiled in a controversy. The question: should the muezzin (sort of Muslim equivalent of a Christian sexton) of a local mosque be permitted to broadcast the Adhan (Islamic call to prayer) three times daily over a loudspeaker? The debate has heated up in the United Kingdom itself and abroad. In the minds of some individuals, the public call to prayer is part of Muslims’ freedom of worship. Others - including one Jewish columnist - claim instead that it amounts to an unacceptable imposition on Britain’s majority Christian culture. The matter is now before Oxford’s City Council.

I would probably oppose the Adhan on purely aesthetic grounds. Loud, overpowering human voices bother me. This has nothing to do with Islam per se: as a practising Christian I find street corner evangelists shouting “Repent and be saved” at the top of their lungs equally irritating. The difference is that beyond some one hundred metres the sound of street preachers tends to fade into nothingness, whereas the voice of a muezzin on an amplifier would be heard over a much wider radius, including areas like residential neighbourhoods where Christian preachers generally do not operate.

People on both sides of the issue have compared the muezzin’s call to the chiming of Christian church bells. Though this may be a matter of personal taste, I don’t find church bells particularly intrusive. In fact, in downtown Toronto the bells from the nearby cathedrals often play some rather pretty tunes, in my opinion. Of course over my nearly forty years in Canada I’ve become attuned to the sound of such chimes; perhaps I might regard them as mere noise pollution if I were moving here from a non-Christian majority country.

The argument that the Adhan should not be allowed because Britain is a “Christian” country strikes me as less convincing. True, the UK is a Christian nation in that the bulk of its inhabitants identify at least nominally with Christianity, albeit with different denominations. Britain has a state religion, the Church of England (Anglican). However, freedom of worship is guaranteed by British law, and in this respect Anglicans and Christians in general enjoy no advantage over followers of other faiths. It also seems somewhat ironic that some commentators speak of Muslims “imposing” themselves on Britain when as a former colonial power that nation did not hesitate to foist its customs on the peoples it conquered. (Here I’m not singling out Britain; most other Western European countries, such as my father’s native Italy, have a history of colonialism as well.)

On the other hand, freedom of religion has its limits; it cannot infringe on the rights of others. Courts in the United States, for instance, have on occasion stepped in when Christian Scientists have attempted to deny their children medical care on religious grounds. The situation in Oxford is not quite as dramatic, but it might be argued that if the muezzin’s call is overly loud and disturbs residents’ right to peace and quiet, it should not be permitted. Hopefully the City Council of Oxford, in consultation with the citizens, will make a good decision.

29
Jan

Toronto School Board Approves Black-Focused Schools

The seemingly unthinkable has been approved in the center of the universe:

Tuesday night, the Toronto District School Board said yes to so-called Black-focused schools.

Tuesday’s vote actually capped months of heated back-and-forth involving parents, students, teachers and trustees, the end result of which was the board throwing its support behind “four innovative strategies for improving the success of Black students.”

The approved strategies include:

  • Establishing a Program Area Review Team to recommend the program and operational model for an Africentric Alternative School opening in September 2009;
  • Establishing a pilot program in three existing schools integrating the histories, cultures, experiences and contributions of people of African descent and other racialized groups into curriculum, teaching practices and school environment;
  • Establishing a Staff Development, Research and Innovation Centre in collaboration with post-secondary institutions and community agencies to assess best practices for improving the success of marginalized and vulnerable students; and
  • Developing an action plan for addressing underachievement for all marginalized and vulnerable students.

Talking Points:

  1. Poor black performance in school is a consequence of poor black performance in life. Canada is largely to blame, since the nation decided in the 1970’s to limit the number of Caribbean students (read: people with the facilities to deal with discimination) in favour of cheap labour. Some of the cheap labour who arrived were considered trash even back in the Caribbean (as upper class Caribbeans will attest - in private) and there is little cultural influence compelling them to change their violent/non-academic ways here. Imagine Saudi Arabia emptying the trailer parks of Canada for cheap labour in the oil fields, only to complain later about their unwillingness to adapt to the humility of Islam. “What do you expect?” would be our likely response. Based on this pattern, Portuguese and Latino schools can’t be far away.
  2. Anyone who saw the board meeting on TV no doubt noticed the proponents were utterly classless during the proceeding. On more than one occasion the chair requested that there be NO APPLAUSE OR HECKLING after board members speak. The parents ignored requests for civility, bursting out in spasms of applause or hissing after every monologue like they were at a methodist church. They also rudely accosted a black trustee after the vote for daring to oppose the proposal. Is it any wonder so many children in the inner city have disciplinary problems? Look at their role models!
  3. Africentric schools are going be reform schools for the simple fact that they cannot afford to have the same dropout rate as other high schools without being declared failures. Since the proponents themselves are targeting kids that have dropped out of school, the curriculum will have to be dumbed down so the homies can keep up. Expect few A and B students at these schools, as no black student with serious post-secondary aspirations wants to submit an academic record showing graduation from “the ghetto school”.
  4. Where were the Africans during the Africentric debates?  Barely a Somali or Ethiopian in sight.
  5. The most entertaining part of the blog dialog (diablog?) was watching certain conservative websites invoke the ghost of Martin Luther King to oppose the “segregation” of Africentric schools. Virtually any other discourse they engage in involving blacks inevitably leads to discussions over black intellectual inferiority, ridicule of black culture or poorly-veiled fears of miscegenation. Wasn’t white flight from Toronto about escaping darkie? (and slanty and dotty, and..) Of course supporting this school would amount to supporting the transfer of government funds to initiatives favoured by rival liberals/socialists - hence the opposition.
  6. Sandy (a dissenting conservative who cannot in any way be classed with those described in #5) has her work cut out for her. I wish her all the best and hope that one day such schools will no longer appeal to so many people. We are one society, whether we like it or not.
22
Jan

Black-Focused Schools: Are they the Answer?

The subject of Black-focused schools has once again come into the limelight. The Toronto District School Board is presently debating the issue, with some individuals arguing for the idea and others against it. The purpose of these schools, say the former, is to help lower the high dropout rate among Black youths by providing them with an educational environment that emphasizes the history and culture of African and African-descended peoples, like the majority of inhabitants of the Caribbean region. Because the mainstream school system does not affirm Black students’ heritage, many of them feel alienated from and eventually abandon formal education. Opponents on the other hand call Black-focused schools a return to the “separate but equal” days of segregation. Others, such as the National Post, openly state that the causes of African-Canadian adolescents’ high dropout rate lie not in the school but in the home: fatherless families, teen pregnancy, and welfare dependency among other things.

Personally I find some of the arguments of both parties a little extreme. Case in point: the charge of “segregation.” Surely no African-Canadian student would be forced to go to a Black-focused school, and non-Blacks would be welcome to attend too, although it’s hard to imagine many White or Asian families choosing to send their children to a Black-focused school. Nonetheless, as much as the “con” side’s statements strike me as overly alarmist, those of the pros appear even more dubious in some respects. For example, while Canadian public schools are hardly “Asian-focused,” Chinese, Koreans and East Indians are along with Jews the highest-achieving students in them. So the lack of emphasis on their heritage cannot be the only reason for Black teens’ elevated rate of school abandonment.

Some say that Black-focused schools will give the impression that African-Canadian students can’t “make it” in the mainstream academic world. Again, this fear appears rather exaggerated. On the other hand, with celebrities like James Watson and Philippe Rushton claiming that Blacks are genetically inferior to Whites, perhaps the establishment of such schools might in the minds of some people reinforce the notion that Blacks need “special” classes the way children with Down syndrome do. I admit it would bother me if my sister enrolled her two sons – who are biracial; their father is African-American – in a Black-focused school. It might lead me to think she did not consider them “good enough” for the mainstream system (my nephews are A students, by the way).

With all my ambivalence about Black-focused schools, though, I do believe they may be worth a try if African-Canadian parents really want them. They might help at least some students improve their grades and stay in school. I also feel that mainstream schools should teach children of all ethnic backgrounds, including Whites, about non-European histories and cultures. But in the end Black-focused schools are not the most effective solution to African-Canadians’ high dropout rate.

18
Jan

The Hijab: What does it Mean for Women?

The hijab (headscarf worn by Muslim women) has been getting a great deal of attention lately. A father in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada killed his teenage daughter for allegedly refusing to wear the scarf. Halfway across the world, fifteen students at an all-female school in Saudi Arabia burned to death in a fire after the country’s religious police did not let them leave the building because their heads were uncovered. However, the hijab has its proponents. A Muslim-American (female) writer wonders why many Americans see the veil as a sign of oppression when their own countrywomen are starving their bodies for the sake of “looking good.” One Western woman who converted to Islam and started covering her hair enjoyed the fact that construction workers no longer catcalled at her. So is the hijab a tool of women’s oppression or an instrument of their liberation? The answer, in my view, is more complicated than both the veil’s defenders and opponents are willing to admit.

What some Muslim women claim the hijab makes them feel free – free from sexual harassment, free from pressure to be “beautiful” in the eyes of others, free, in a sense, from being objectified as women by society in general and by men in particular. For example, a former “all-American girl” who converted to Islam wrote some years ago in the now-defunct Sassy Magazine that the veil led people to see her as a full human being rather than a sexual plaything. And most of these women emphasize that the hijab is a choice. One such woman is Faten Hijazi, a computer engineering student and former president of the Muslim Student Association at San Jose State University. She explains that the veil cannot be forced on an individual and that Islam prescribes modesty for both men and women. In her opinion, the hijab also protects women from obsessing over their appearance to the point of, in some cases, falling victim to eating disorders.

The stories in the first paragraph of this essay have forced me to look at the issue of the hijab from the perspective of a non-Muslim woman. On one hand, as a fairly modest dresser myself I identify to some extent with the above-mentioned women. At present my active wardrobe consists of several pairs of long loose pants and a few calf-length skirts. My even remotely sexy dresses, which in any event come down just to the knee, have been collecting dust at the back of my closet because wearing them would make it awkward for me to breastfeed my eight-month-old daughter. And forget Britney Spears-type outfits, which would be a little unseemly due to my visible caesarean scar. I also understand the wish to avoid catcalls from men. I remember agonizing almost weekly as an eleven-year-old undergoing early puberty when the boys in my class teased me about posing for Playboy. While looking back now my primary school travails seem almost humorous, I have to wonder whether the boys would have subjected me to their needling had I been wearing a veil.

Nonetheless, I have a few problems with some of the arguments put forth by hijab defenders. I think first of the woman who said once she started covering her hair men stopped whistling at her. In my view a woman who dresses like Madonna shouldn’t be too shocked if men catcall at and/or make suggestive comments to her (though of course no actual touching should be tolerated). But is it necessary to wear the hijab, or in some cases the niqab (a veil that leaves only the eyes uncovered) or full-body burqa, to prevent harassment? Some men will catcall at women no matter how the latter dress. It furthermore seems somewhat disconcerting to imply that women should expect to be sexually harassed if they don’t conform to Islamic standards of modesty. One Arab website, for instance, suggests that one reason for the rape of Filipina domestics in the Gulf States is the women’s attire. On the site is a picture of two Filipinas in short-sleeved blouses and skirts cut just below the knee. These women struck me as no more immodestly dressed than most out-of-habit Catholic nuns and as much more modestly attired than the average Western woman today. In addition, one has to wonder, judging by that particular website, whether the concern for women’s welfare Muslim commentators frequently attribute to Islam applies to all women or just to those deemed “virtuous” enough.

I now want to address the hijab from the perspective of a practising Christian. Christianity, at least in its mainstream version, does not possess any dress codes for women, or men for that matter. Of course most people would agree that going into a church in a microskirt is both socially inappropriate and disrespectful to the religion itself. However, I have to question the concept that one, particularly a woman, has to dress in a certain manner in order to be considered a faithful member of a religion (note: some Muslims say that the Koran does not specifically require women to veil themselves; I don’t know enough about Islam to provide an expert opinion on this). I tend to see faith as more of an internal than external matter. I’m not saying that women who do wear the hijab are trying to broadcast to the world “Look at what a good Muslim I am!” But as one Muslim woman – actually, Sara Balabagan, the Filipina domestic worker who was acquitted of murdering her employer after he tried to rape her – put it, what use is it to wear a veil if one does not follow Islam’s teachings.

The biggest problem I have with hijab defenders is their implication that to veil or not to veil is always a free decision on the part of the woman in question. For women in some Islamic countries, like Saudi Arabia, it is not: they are required to cover their heads when out in public. One might argue that the students burned at the above-mentioned school in that country died from a lack of choice.

This brings me to another matter: should Muslim girls be allowed to wear the hijab in public secular schools? The issue became the subject of an intense debate in France. The authorities there answered the question in the negative. While this decision was applauded by French conservatives and endorsed by some Canadian conservatives, like National Post columnist Barbara Kay, the left’s reaction was more ambiguous. The Nation columnist Katha Pollitt spoke of an acquaintance of hers, a forward-thinking (female) academic who at first supported the French Muslim girls’ “right” to wear the veil to class as an expression of their religion and culture. Pollitt’s friend changed her mind, however, upon hearing some of the girls themselves say they appreciated the French authorities’ ban on the hijab because otherwise their parents would have forced them to wear it. I on one hand don’t necessarily share Barbara Kay’s view that a similar ban in Canadian schools would have saved the life of Aqsa Parvez, the Mississauga girl killed by her father for supposedly refusing to put on the veil. On the other hand, Kay is right to state that the hijab can’t be equated to a Christian cross worn by a female high school student (I also suspect some schoolgirls wear a cross not to show their faith but to emulate their idol Madonna, who uses the crucifix in her stage acts).

The hijab is a complex issue, for which there are no easy answers. But to regard it as a sure sign of either women’s oppression or liberation appears somewhat extreme in both cases.

07
Jan

Mixed-Race Scandinavians

One day last December I was shopping at Toronto’s Kensington Market and saw a car with a sticker of the Danish flag on the back. As I stopped to look more closely, a young mulatto girl came up to me and asked, “Can I help you?”

Curious to know what her connection to Denmark might be, I said, “I noticed you have a sticker of the Danish flag on the back of your car.”

“My mom’s Danish,” she replied.

“Oh, I’m of Norwegian descent. Our flag is just like yours except that it has a blue cross.” (Denmark’s flag is red with a white cross, Norway’s red with a blue cross outlined in white.)

Just then an older White woman who had apparently been listening to the conversation walked over, smiled, and started talking to me in what must have been Danish (Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are so similar they’re often called the dialects of the Scandinavian language). I apologized and told her I didn’t speak Norwegian.

I wished a Merry Christmas to the mother and daughter, and we parted ways. I felt somewhat ashamed of myself for automatically presuming that the girl was NOT Danish. After all, thanks to some Italian and Irish ancestry I’m hardly the typical blond-haired blue-eyed Scandinavian. But as I pondered the matter further, I realized there were a number of mixed-race Scandinavians in my midst. A children’s group to which I once brought my daughter included a small and very pretty mulatto girl with a Swedish mother. My best friend on a summer exchange program to Quebec was a young woman whose mother was from Sweden and father from Egypt (for the purpose of this essay, I’ll go by the Canadian government’s current classification of Arabs as non-White, even if some of them are physically indistinguishable from Greeks or Southern Italians). My family is no stranger to interracial relationships either. A cousin of mine married a Black American man and has two biracial sons. My own daughter is part Native American on her Nicaraguan father’s side, though like most Latin Americans he has Spanish ancestry as well.

Scandinavia boasts several well-known individuals of mixed heritage in its ranks. Among them are singer Neneh Cherry (Swedish mother, African father), Kersti Bowser (a Black-Swedish model who joked she went to tanning salons to “keep her Swedish side in check”); and Rikke Roenholt (Danish mother, Ghanaian father), a runner who will be representing Denmark in the 2008 Olympics. Famous White Scandinavians who have been involved in interracial unions include Icelandic singer Bjork (had a relationship with a Black man named Goldie which caused an anti-miscegenation fan of hers to commit suicide on videotape), Swedish actress May Britt (wife of musician Sammy Davis Jr.), Swedish actor Dolph Lundgren (ex-lover of Grace Jones), and Denmark’s Prince Joachim (formerly married to a woman of Austrian and Chinese descent).

Any discussion on mixed-race Scandinavians would be incomplete without a mention of Greenland. An overseas territory of Denmark, Greenland was colonized by that nation in the 1700s. Most Greenlanders are of mixed Danish and Inuit descent. Recent genetic studies have shown that as with Latin America, Greenland’s present population resulted from unions of European men with native women. However, while colonization in Latin America led to an almost complete Westernization of that region (most Latin American mestizos, like my daughter’s father, speak Spanish as their first language and don’t identify at all as Indian), Greenlanders have kept much more of their original culture. For example, Greenlandic, an Inuit language, is the mother tongue of most Greenlanders, though many know Danish too. On the other hand, the bulk of Greenland’s population belongs to the Lutheran Church, as does Denmark’s.

At an individual level, the degree to which mixed-race Scandinavians retain their culture varies. My above-mentioned friend in Quebec, for instance, spent long periods of time as a child in Sweden and spoke fluent Swedish. In contrast, my grandmother, whose family came from Norway, married a non-Scandinavian man and didn’t teach Norwegian to my mother, so I am unfortunately unable to pass the language on to my daughter and any other children I may have in future.

One “marker” of Scandinavian heritage is Lutheranism, even if not all Scandinavians are Lutheran and many of those who are are not particularly religious. Here again, families differ. Though her father was Muslim, my Swedish-Egyptian friend was raised Lutheran. However, a Finnish-Canadian colleague married to a Filipino woman was bringing up his children in his wife’s Catholic faith. I myself have had my daughter baptized in the Lutheran Church. While the principal reason for doing so is to share my personal faith with her, an added bonus is the “link” it provides to her Scandinavian ancestors.

On my kitchen wall is a picture of a girl in traditional Norwegian dress. My mother remarked that she might make a similar costume so that my daughter could be a “little Norwegian girl” for Halloween.

“But she’s already a little Norwegian girl!” I protested.

“With those big brown eyes [courtesy of her father]?” my mom responded, and we both laughed. Speaking of whom, here is the most recent picture of my “little Norwegian girl.”

egirl.jpg

Now I would like to include an interview with a real-life mixed-race Scandinavian – writer Heidi Durrow, author of the book Light-skinned-ed Girl. Check out her website at www.heidiwdurrow.com – and read her answers to my questions.

Q: From what I understand, your mother is Danish and your father African-American. How and where did your parents meet?
A: My parents (my mother is from Herning, Denmark and my father was originally from Texas) met on an American Air Force base in Germany. My mom was working as a nanny to an American family – she wanted to practice her English while she earned some money to go back to school.
Q: Where were you born?
A: I was born in Seattle, WA at the Swedish Hospital . Both my brothers (one older and one younger) were born in Herning. I am jealous of this to this day – but tease them that they cannot ever be President of the US because they were born on foreign soil. Silly, right?
Q: Do you speak Danish fluently? If so, is it your first language (meaning the first language you learned as a child)?
A: Yes, I would say I’m fluent in Danish – though each time I’ve gone back as an adult I hear more of an accent developing –an unintelligible one at that—a strange mixture of American and ???? Also, my language is kind of dated and I sound like my mother from forty years ago – I haven’t updated my slang-and I haven’t updated my accent to go with the Copenhageners –but they are kind to me when I go and don’t make fun of me –heee hee.
Q: Have you spent long periods of time in Denmark?
A: As a child we spent long summers and holidays there. Recently, I received a grant from the American Scandinavian Foundation to do research for a book I’m writing. I spent a month in Copenhagen in a little apartment I rented. I spent time at the libraries and doing interviews and also with my family. It was an amazing experience to be part of Danish life for so long as an adult on my own terms.
Q: Would you say that when growing up your father’s or your mother’s background had the greatest influence in your home?
A: My mother’s background was the most important. We spoke only Danish with my mother until I was about 11 or 12. When my dad would come home from work, we would speak English around him but if he wasn’t in the room it was Danish again. We ate Danish food, celebrated holidays the Danish way – and I think were raised with a Danish sensibility – the bad part: Janteloven – but also something more intangible that I think people here would say is European but to me seems specifically Danish.
Q: Were you raised in the Church of Denmark (the Lutheran Church, that is)?
A: I was christened Lutheran, but did not have a confirmation. It was a great wish to have one as a child, but by the time I was 14, we were in the US and it would be another several years before we could AFFORD for me to travel to Denmark again.
Q: How do you identify ethnically now?
A: My ethnic identification has gone through many changes. For the last long while, I have embraced saying that I am biracial and bicultural – African-American and Danish. I think this specificity annoys some people – some who think, get over it you’re black since you don’t look white and also those who think: but you’re American and that whole Danish thing is just quaint. I am tired of thinking what they are thinking and just say what is the truth now.
Q: Do you find that racism is widespread in Denmark? Have you ever encountered racism in that country?
A: I feel lucky not have experienced racism in Denmark. I was either too ignorant to recognize it or I have been shielded from it. That is not to say that I haven’t been privy to people making comments about me. Comments like “there are more and more of THOSE people coming” – an overhead remark when I had lunch with a cousin – I assume they thought I was Arab? Turkish? A foreigner who was now living in Denmark? There is a lot of discrimination against them. It’s disturbing. My brothers have experienced racism, I think – but those are their own stories. I think ignorance about racial difference is widespread in Denmark, unfortunately. It’s a small land and for a long time they haven’t had contact with “others” - but I think it is changing. There are more and more mixed-race Danes who are in the media and I think that makes it all less strange.
Q: In the past few years the Danish government made news because it tightened its immigration laws, making it more difficult to obtain political asylum and bring foreign-born spouses to that country. As a person of part non-European ancestry, what did you think of these new laws?
A: The new anti-immigrant laws are disturbing and not at all Danish – Danes have always been and I believe will again be free-spirited and forward-thinking in regards to race. That’s my belief.

21
Dec

Names

About two decades or so ago the Black community in the United States became embroiled in a debate over what to call themselves. Some suggested that the term “African American” replace “Black,” which itself had succeeded “Negro” (now considered somewhat offensive by some Blacks, even though talk show host Oprah Winfrey once used it in the 1980s). Others objected on the grounds that their connection to Africa was rather tenuous since most American Black families had lived in the United States for generations. In a letter to the magazine Ebony, one reader pointed out as well that many American Blacks traced their ancestry to other places in addition to Africa. A Black in the US could be of mixed African, Irish, and Italian heritage (real-life example: singer Alicia Keys). The matter remains as yet unresolved; the media tends to use “Black” and “African American” interchangeably.

The business of naming – whether of a baby, a place or an institution – is more often than not fraught with difficulty, conflict and self-doubt. Perhaps no decision is more controversial, though, than what to name a community of people; i.e. an ethnic group. The “Black/African American” dilemma is just one example. While the White community has not experienced as intense a debate, terms like “European-American” (or “Euro-American”) and “Anglo” have of late become virtually synonymous with White in many circles. I have reservations about both, albeit for different reasons. With regard to the first, as with American Blacks and Africa, most US Whites’ links to Europe are fairly remote. For instance, I would have a hard time describing my mother, whose family has been in North America for up to four generations and who only visited Europe for the first time in her thirties, as “European.” Anglo on the other hand seems to exclude the many US Whites (like my mom) with no Anglo-Saxon ancestry whatsoever. And if one argues that these Whites are nonetheless culturally Anglo-Saxon by dint of living in the US, would not the same be true of nearly all American Blacks?

A less heated exchange has taken place in the Latino/Hispanic community. Some members believe that the former designation should be employed instead of the latter because many Latin Americans, being of Native American and/or African descent, lack any ancestral ties to Spain (the Latin word for which, Hispania, gave rise to “Hispanic”). In contrast, the name “Latino” ties them to “Latin” America – though ultimately the word “Latin” derives from another place in Europe, the Italian region of Latium (present-day Lazio) where the Latin language first emerged. Meanwhile some Hispanic/Latino groups have adopted names to describe their particular community. Mexican Americans, for instance, use the word “Chicano,” a contraction of “Mexicano.” Perhaps less familiar is Puerto Ricans’ description of themselves as “Boricuas” from “Boriquen” (“land of the great and valiant lord”), the name the island’s original inhabitants the Taino Indians gave it.

In other cases groups have sought to replace a name imposed on them by outsiders with one of their own choosing. For example, the reindeer-herding people of Northern Scandinavia reject the term “Lapp” in favour of “Sami.” Most inhabitants of the Canadian and American Far North similarly prefer to be called “Inuit” (“the people”) to “Eskimo,” a Cree word meaning “eaters of raw meat” on account of their habit of not fully cooking some of their food in order to preserve the nutrients. But not all: the Yupiks of Alaska still insist on the name “Eskimo.”

Some groups have gone a step further and deliberately taken on a formerly derogatory name as a sign of empowerment, just as some gays and lesbians have reclaimed the terms “queer” and “dyke.” For instance, the people of East Timor adopted the word “Maubere” which their Portuguese colonizers used to express scorn for them, as a term of pride.

Of course not all name changes are politically driven. A “Filipino,” for example, once referred to a descendent of Spaniards who was born in the Philippines, a former Spanish colony, in contrast to the natives of the islands, who were known as “indios” (Indians), like those of the New World. Eventually however “Filipino” came to designate a native inhabitant of the Philippines. In the naming of ethnic groups, we see how race, politics and history intertwine.

18
Dec

The Turban Versus the Hijab

Last week the Canadian media was abuzz with the story of Aqsa Parvez. Ms. Parvez was the Mississauga, Ontario teen killed by her father for reportedly refusing to wear a hijab, the headscarf worn by some Muslim women as a sign of their religious faith. Commentary was swift to follow. Barbara Kay of the conservative National Post speculated that if Canada had prohibited religious paraphernalia like hijabs in schools as France does, Parvez’s life might have been spared. The Globe and Mail’s Sheema Khan, a hijab-wearing Muslim herself, portrayed Parvez’s demise as one of a series of recent incidents of violence against women, including the victims of serial killer Robert Picton and a Windsor, Ontario nurse murdered by her former husband. I have questions about both Kay’s and Khan’s analyses. In the first case, even if such a law against hijabs in Canadian schools existed, it might not have prevented Mr. Parvez from killing his daughter for not wearing it outside the classroom. Khan on the other hand seemed to lump three very diverse phenomena together: of note, neither Robert Picton nor the nurse’s ex used religion as a motive for their deeds.

Nonetheless, the death of Aqsa Parvez eventually turned into a discussion about Islam and the hijab. Is Islam inherently oppressive to women? Is the hijab a sign of women’s subordination in that religion? Can Muslim immigrants integrate successfully into Canadian and other Western societies? Interestingly, this is not the first debate about religious headgear in Canada. The early 1990s saw the controversy over the right of Sikh members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to wear turbans on the job. While Sikhs claimed that wearing a turban at all times was an essential part of their religious faith, opponents insisted that all Mounties be obliged to wear the traditional Stetson hat.

I personally didn’t have strong feelings on the issue either way. If someone were going to protect me from crime, I thought, at the end of the day it didn’t really matter what he or she wore on his or her head. On the other hand I wasn’t so emotionally or philosophically invested in the concept of religious rights that I would have automatically demanded that the RCMP permit turbans on duty. Eventually the Canadian federal government ruled in the Sikhs’ favour, and the controversy more or less died down.

However, the turban as a whole does not generate the strong emotion that the hijab does in Western society, for several reasons. First is the fact that the turban doesn’t involve gender issues. While some Sikh women wear the turban, it is not mandated for them as it is for Sikh men. Those Sikh women who don turbans do so for the same reason as their male coreligionists: to show their commitment to their faith. According to the article “Why Sikhs Wear a Turban” Sikhs originally adopted the headgear as a rejection of India’s Hindu caste system, wherein only the “higher-ups” (kings, nobles, etcetera) wore it. By requiring all its members to put on a turban, Sikhism demonstrated in a visual way that all of them were equal.

The hijab in contrast was instituted for Muslim women to ensure their modesty, “modesty” not in the sense of being humble and not flashing fancy hairdos but rather in the sense of not being sexually suggestive. Of course this requirement may be interpreted in two manners. Some women who actually wear the hijab like it because they say it protects them from being regarded as “sex objects” by men. On the other hand, one Western feminist states that the concept of the hijab is inherently sexist because it posits women, or their hair, as “enticing” and places the burden on them to avoid “tempting” men.

In addition, most Westerners do not associate Sikhism with terrorism as they do Islam, despite the fact that Sikh extremists exist. In 1985 Canadians’ attention was riveted on the bombing of an Air India jet returning to Canada by Sikh militants. White Westerners nevertheless do not think of Sikh terrorism as a threat to them personally – indeed, the Canadian government was criticized for not promptly investigating the Air India disaster because the victims were not White. Sikh radicals’ target remains India, not the West, though the language they use to describe that country resembles that of the Islamic militants in some respects. For instance, just as the latter call the United States the “Great Satan,” a Sikh-Canadian paper once showed a scene in which a Sikh protestor against the Indian government carried a sign with the words “India – Democracy or Demon-cracy?” The majority of White Canadians did not view the Air India bombing in the same way as 9/11 or the subway attacks in London and Madrid.

Outside the terrorist realm, Sikhism as a religion fails to evoke the visceral reactions in most Whites that Islam does. There is no equivalent of “Islamophobia” to describe the fear or hatred of Sikhs, for example. This might stem from the fact that in contrast to Muslims, Europeans’ contact with Sikhs has been much less extensive. Sikhism originated and was practised in a small corner of Pakistan and Northern India far from Europe, whereas Islamic territory lay immediately to the south and east of what was once known as Christendom. Even the British Raj did not lead to anything like the Crusades between the Sikhs and their European overlords.

Nor did Sikhism acquire the same political connotations in the West that Islam did. While a few Westerners have converted to Sikhism, either on their own initiative or through marriage to a Sikh, there has been no mass movement towards the religion as happened when throngs of American Blacks embraced Islam in the 1960s and ‘70s as a means of rejecting the West. Conservatives wary of if not downright hostile to Islam tend to look at Sikhism with a more neutral eye. For example, the above-mentioned Barbara Kay warns readers not to place the hijab in the same category as the Christian cross or Sikh kirpan (a ceremonial dagger carried for religious purposes).

This is why I believe that the turban has not become the burning issue the hijab has.




Further Research




Categories


Archives