Racism. Blaming the Victim and the Idea of Harmony

Racism.  Blaming the Victim and Chinese-style 'Harmony'

Calling out racism is an effort to get rid of it.  To allege that a person who calls it out as 'inciting hatred or ill will between races' first requires one to prove racism doesn't exist.  If not, such an allegation is an effort to perpetuate racism or turn a blind eye to it.

So were all those women who were calling for equality with men 'trying to incite hatred between genders or ill will between genders'?  Was the black civil rights movement in the US an organisation designed to 'incite hatred against white people'?  What nonsense.  

COMPLAIN so much for what?!

This 'blaming the victime' approach comes from the age-old chinese perspective that the people should not question the status quo but do their best within it, and leave the thinking to the professionals.  

Hence, they have a problem with 'complainers'.  The content of the complaint doesn't matter.  The fact that it is a complaint is the problem.  Hence, many a time one might encounter responses like, 'that's the way it is', 'the whole world also like that', 'if you don't like it, get out', 'don't think, just do', etc.  These are actually Freudian slips that indicates how one views one's place within a particular socio-political state of affairs.  Psychologically, this indicates a people whom are well-trained to leave the status quo as it is, and just do their best despite it.  In such a society, 'normative thought' or questioning the way things are, counterfactual thinking, '2nd guessing', etc, is not commonly practiced, or if practiced, only within specific tasks, or approved areas where it doesn't step on the toes of anyone in a position of authority, from the family to schools to employment to marriage.  

It is from here that the chinese brand of 'harmony' emerges, where harmony is not the eradication of evil, but getting along with each other despite it, and taking your alloted place within such a society.  You could say that the chinese brand of 'harmony' is leaving the overarching evils as is, and just managing your expectations, aspirations, self-perception, dignity, within it - which reminds me of a scene from Malcolm X where Malcolm X is told to aspire to nothing more than a carpenter because he is a 'nigger'.  Don't question the status quo, just take your place within it, do you best, and let's just all get along.  And it is from such a vantage that victims are frequently blamed for questioning the status quo.  And it is within such a status quo that racism is denied without investigation, for to investigate it is an effort to question the status quo.  If the government doesn't say it is a problem, it isn't a problem.  

This sort of approach is diametrically opposed to, for instance, the Indian way of things where questioning the status quo and addressing overarching evils is their basic, and pretty much quintessentially very human, approach to life.  It is similarly the case in the west.  

This is not about democracy, but about the natural human propensity to engage in counterfactual thought, to empathise, and to imagine beyond what is the custom to see if they missed anything out that might make more of their experience of life.  It is this that gives rise to greater democracy, and the consequential greater development of humankind.  That is a very human tendency, but which the chinese political has fought against since the ascent of Qin Shih Huang Ti in 220 b.c. and the subsequent burning of books of alternative thought and burial of its scholars in favour of a 'do it the emperor's way or else'.

Hence, the desire to maintain the status quo above all else, and reap whatever political advantages there is to be had is what leads to one ignorning the fact that at when one race is favoured, as is the case in singapore, that itself incites hatred - the government has said many a time that singapore must have a chinese majority, whilst using this as a reason to say that 'singapore is not ready for a non-chinese PM', which, hilariously and ironically, is itself an admission, or allegation, that the chinese are racists.  

It completely escapes them that calling it out is an effort to get rid of the racist foundations for such hatred.  The status quo is sacrosanct, not human dignity or rights.  Human dignity and rights is forced to be limited and defined with such an authoritarian and inhumane status quo, not vice versa.   And the reason why the status quo is sacrosanct is because it is brought about by their emperors, leaders, etc.  

To question the status quo is to question the assumed infallibility of their 'Tian Zi' or 'son of heaven' as is chinese-historically the term ascribed to their emperor.  To question the status quo is to challenge those different sectors of society whom are relatively more privileged by it, and whom it benefits to maintain the society as it is.  To question the status quo is to cast doubt on the infalliability of the 'professionals' whom the populace is supposed to leave the thinking to.  And finally, to question the status quo is to challenge the various means by which people try to do their best within it.  People in such a clime would rather hold on to their formulae to get around an evil than to make extra effort to get rid of said evil.  That is China for 2000 years.  And it is this that makes victims of people like Sangeetha. 

ILL WILL between races?

This is nothing but a racist action against this poor girl.  In fact, the language used hides much.  She is said to be causeing 'ill will BETWEEN races' as if her saying what she says causes the chinese and non-chinese to hate each other, which presents her as someone who just wants different races to hate each other.  It takes away attention from what she is highlighting - chinese advantage.  What causes ill will between races is racism, and efforts to get the disadvantaged to accept it as if they are 2nd class humans who deserve nothing more.  Instead of redressing what she addresses, they threaten and silence her.  That is what causes ill will.  Racism and apathy causes ill will, not efforts to get rid of it.  

Anyone with a modicum of adult intelligence will know that the first step toward eradicating 'ill will between races' is to get rid of the actual actions and policies that disadvantages one race over another, and NOT silencing the complaints about it by accusing them of creating ill will for complaining about why another race gets more than them.  That is just a perpetuation of discrimination and advantage of one sector over another.  Were all the freedom movements against colonialism, racism, male oppression, etc, all movements designed to 'create ill will' or to bring about equality?  

Sangeetha should be thanked for attempting to highlight all the factors that causes ill will between races, and attempting to bring about a harmony based on equality, instead of apathy and learned helplessness on the part of the discriminated.  Instead, the authorities chose to threaten her into silence for fear of bringing about ill will when one group is advantaged over another?  That 'ill will' is brought about by not doing anything about getting rid of it mate.

Pledge

You can either create harmony by getting rid of discrimination, or by silencing its victims.  The latter is subjugation, and leads to the degeneration of all regardless of race.  When you  disregard one race in favour of another, you are disregarding another way of looking at things, narrowing your way of looking at things, feeling, aspiring, developing, and which will finally lead you to be an underdevelped product of such a narrow scheme of things.  You may not aspire to more after that, but you will certainly not be able to escape its consequences in terms of the greater cost of living, to not being able to access greater intelligence, perspectives, creativity, to make less of your woes.   You have two choices.  One, you bring about harmony on the basis of people getting used to inequality, or base it on empathy and the institution of equality.  

The first paragraph of the singapore pledge states,

"We, the citizens of Singapore,

pledge ourselves as one united people regardless of race, language or religion,

to build a democratic society

based on justice and equality

so as to achieve happiness, prosperity

and progress for our nation."

Sangeetha has done much in buidling such a society on the basis of identifying the factors that compromises a 'democratic society based on justice and equality'.  In her remonstrance against racism, she has lived the spirit of the pledge.  Those who take issue with her abide, in spirit, by

"We the citizens of singapore,

pledge ourselves as one united people regardless of racism and discrimination,

to build a mutually alienated society

based on apathy and and ensuing inequality

so as to achieve as much happiness, prosperity

and progress for our nation as is possible when we do it despite each others interests."

My personal version is,

"We the citizens of singapore,

pledge ourselves as one united people,

in full appreciation of all races, language and religion,

to build a multicultural society,

based on ethics, love and respect,

so as to maximise the realisation of our humanity,

and thereby define and aspire to a more meaningful idea of prosperity and progress

for our nation and all humanity.

Amen."

S/he who speaks against the privilege of one race, in the final analysis, seeks the upliftment of the privileged race by getting them to respect other resources of knowledge and wisdom in the form of other races and cultures, and also seeks to uplift the disadvantaged race to make more of their own culture so as to have more to contribute to other races.  

ed X