A few trends emerged over this week’s. This is separate to MJ’s powerful post, which is about a different framework altogether.
(1.) people are quick to blame racism for everything. In an age of no discrimination; people are going to select on intelligence, beauty and other such features.
(2.) BAME is rapidly being tagged with LGBT.
(3.) BAME runs the risk of being physically unattractive since anything goes.
(4.) White people are even prominent in BAME space so in a lot ways these new identities are more about attention for newer types of elite.
(5.) Elitism may not be about race but class and other selecting factors.
(6.) Utopian conversations is about a world “without an elite” are bs. We should rather have honest conversations about what the elite should be and to what extent should they be in control.
(7.) ego-trips are a thing in idealistic politics and being self-aware is important (thankfully I have V to keep me in check constantly).
(8.) Much like the Jews in the era of civil rights; Dharmic (model) minorities in the West are rapidly gaining control of the anti-establishment narrative in order to colorise the elite. It’s questionable once this batch of Indians, Chinese and other Asians are fully WASPified whether they will retain their sympathies for the next wave of coloured aspirants.
(9.) the contentions that White people and the West are hide-bound racists elides the narratives that we all have a “home back home.” The question as to why none of us want to resettle East is complex (colonialism ruined our countries, material and social opportunity in the West) but it’s a painful contradiction.
(10.) unlike the Aframs, Aboriginals and Native Americans; the West has very few “involuntary minorities.” So any criticism of the West have to tread a fine line and negotiation (hence why I’m suspect of immigrants who join anti-establishment parties).
It has been six months since I assumed office as the key student-facing sabbatical officer of the University of Cambridge Graduate Union, in my fourth stint as a student leader in the Cambridge University student unions. The role has involved campaigning on multiple fronts, including on rent, divestment, anti-racism and international student concerns, and I have enjoyed it thoroughly. In this period, I have proposed policy motions on three areas of focus: housing and living expenses, fair pay and support for teaching (and research) opportunities for students, and departmental welfare. I have also reformed the GU executive committee with the introduction of working groups for each part-time officer and the establishment of an intersectionality forum. The other major part of my period here has been representing postgraduate students in University committees. Be it the Graduate Tutors’ Committee, Environmental Sustainability Strategy Committee, Academic Standards and Enhancement Committee, University Research Ethics Committee, Societies Syndicate or even the Consultative Committee for Safety in the University of Cambridge, committees are where most of the administrative work of the University gets done with major stakeholders involved. They have had interesting topics discussed from apprenticeships for students to student finances and mental health in the various committees.
Important and interesting!
However, there are times when a certain other side comes through. A side so subtle that it may be missed in all the politeness and propriety that characterize certain formal and semi-formal interactions in the University. Notwithstanding that some of these meetings can be very technical, the committees address key points that require a student voice. That relate to the student experience. That need the perspective of those that consult and engage with students across the Collegiate University. In most meetings I have been quite active and vocal about concerns and points. People have been respectful and nice. Polite. Inclusive. Except when they have not. On paper and on the face of it, things have always been inclusive. The chairs have always given me a chance to speak. The members have listened. Yet, there have been times when in a room full of white people and myself being the only BAME person has struggled to feel included in the discussion, even if I had done as much work, if not more, and known as much about a certain topic. There have been times when I have felt the need to prove myself in the room when I needn’t have. There have been times when I have led a campaign for months and have a lot to share and build on, and a University official would look at my (white) colleagues and address them instead. Speaking on the points relevant to either what I was just saying or something related to a campaign I was helping build!
There are times when I have raised certain points, only for them to be side-lined and that too on flimsy reasons. There have been other times when the only time I was even addressed was when a very specific point was raised by me, after which the reference was taken for the same, and the discussion went right back to disregarding my presence. I could as well have worn an invisibility cloak, to come out for that point, and go right back into it, without anything or anyone being affected. There was a time when this reached a level where I left a semi-formal meeting simply because I could not bear it anymore. Not wanting to pin down any individual here, I felt like this is something that is important to share, important to talk about, important to stand up against. I would not go so far as to say that it is an entrenched racist bias in the system as much as there is still a need to have training on unconscious biases and cultural differences across the University. Last year when I saw and heard how racism even plays a role in student politics elections, on the campaign trail, and how it affected a certain election (a big part of that upset was blatant racism, that was not even subtle), I was disillusioned and yet hopeful. It seems the problem is deeper.
Racism on the surface is eradicated. Yet, there is unconscious bias at various places. Still at the very highest levels of the university, most positions are occupied by white men. I am sorry but I cannot mince any words here for political correctness. Recruitment of BAME academics, representation of BAME students and staff, and funding of BAME activities (slightly better with the University Diversity Fund) are still some of the places where a lot can be done. There are still instances when the cultural differences of BAME students are not appreciated to the level it could and should be, possibly because of lack of awareness of those differences. There is also a tendency to homogenize the needs, interests and views of the BAME community, both by those outside the community and even those who claim to represent the community. If one does not conform to some ideas and political ideologies to a certain extent (sorry but that has to be the hard Left in this case; I believe in socialism but not to the extent where anyone not conforming to my views is not allowed a chance to speak), one cannot be a `good BAME representative’. Apparently. The other-ing of people, even within the BAME community, is also a highly nuanced topic, best kept for another article. Even within campaigns such as the LGBTQ+ campaigns, the lack of BAME voices is troubling, as is the selective targeting of BAME members of campaigns (such as in the protests in the anti-Noah Carl campaign in St. Edmund’s College, when three BAME students were suspended even though they were a few of the many white and non-white participants), and that again is best left for another article. Prevent is a big issue still and a tool sometimes unfairly used.
Even among certain peers and colleagues, without disparaging or targeting anyone in particular, there are times when I have to work towards trying to be a part of the group or feel appreciated. Why should I? Why should I try to conform to archaic ideas of white-ness? Why should I stand on standards set by others? I am Indian and very proudly Indian. I am patriotic (and certain fairly white BAME individuals would have a problem with that too, tagging me as ‘ultranationalistic’) and proud of my heritage, culturally and socially. I have my set of ideas, ethics, values and views, and I would not on seven lives want to compromise on them to fit in. I do not want to fit in and do not need to fit in. And yet I am supposed to or there are those who would be all ears for my ‘concerns’ in the cold, impersonal way you would listen to a distant anecdote of Timbuktu. Why? I am not just a smiling face working away hours to please a person or to prove a point. Why should the abilities of a brown individual be questioned at every turn (even recently a member of the Cambridge University Hungarian Society asked me whether I was elected to my position!). I am as deserving as any other, if not more in some ways, to do what I currently do. And yet I am more than just my curriculum vitae, my credentials and my work. I am a human being with ideas, emotions, perspectives, and, most importantly, just my humanity. In today’s increasingly impersonal and capitalistic world, everyone is after something: proving a point, getting somewhere, achieving something. For what? We will all die and yet may not find either the theory of everything or become the richest person ever (for there can always be a beyond). And it is even worse when those standards of reaching somewhere are oriented around guidelines set by a certain community or people. I do not agree with that. I actively deny that and reject that. Period.
Even in the larger Cambridge town, there have been such disturbing cases. Only today, I was taking a knife for cutting bread to a garden party that the student unions were hosting and this van is passing by, and there is a man on the passenger seat who spits right in front of me (which I would like to believe he did, regardless of me) but his look and the way he kept looking back at me showed a certain paranoia, a certain suspicion that was baseless. I was reminded of the famous ‘I am Khan and I am not a terrorist’ line! Elsewhere, once while playing pool, I joined in with some guys at the WTS Sports club, and the club has a system of putting in coins for the light. Since I was just joining in and rather waiting for my real friend group to turn up, I did not contribute any cash. This white man who was also playing comes up to me and sarcastically asks whether I want to piggy-back on their money. As if! The gall! Such disrespect! It was not India that had piggy-backed on England for centuries but the other way around! Just putting that historical context in place. I moved away after saying that I have better things to do than that and later he seem to have mellowed down (and I could not care any less, for that).
We live in an age where colonialism is a distant memory and where the Enlightenment has hopefully made the rights and liberties of the individual a priority along with respecting the disparate identities and associated interests and concerns in society. If Cambridge must truly be inclusive and BAME friendly, we need to focus on these aspects. Not just have things on paper or in the front but back it up with training of students and staff, on cultural differences and sensitivity, and make the BAME members of the university feel more included, valued and respected.
Let us truly build an inclusive Cambridge (if we can)!
When a black female MP lies about her speeding ticket (which half the country does) she's humiliated and stripped of her seat. When a white male MP assaults a woman in full view; he's defended as a "hero."#MarkFieldAssault
One of the economists I follow is Rathin Roy [member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council.] India has several major long term growth challenges. One is geographic inequality in growth. South and West India are growing much faster and have much lower population growth rates than the rest of India, causing them to pay far higher taxes than they recieve in government spending benefits. Some believe this could cause long term Indian instability. My view is that the poor parts of India are likely to grow rapidly in the future. When measured in terms of human population I think STs, SCs, OBCs and poor conservative Sunni (non Sufi) Indians are likely to experience rapid economic growth, causing this issue to take care of itself over time.
Rathin Roy is optimistic about short term Indian economic growth but worries about India’s long term economic growth. He worries that India could enter the upper middle income country trap, similar to Brazil. Let us assume that income or Y depends on three inputs, K (Capital = tools or the sum total of all previous investments minus depreciation), L (Labor = total hours worked), A (technology, product development and process innovation, total factor productivity):
Y = F(AL, K)
dY/dL = marginal product of Labor = long term real wages on average
dY/dK = marginal product of Capital = long term real rate of return on investment
India has a reasonable savings rate which finances investment.
India has a long term challenge with A or technology. What are these challenges?:
Bengalis came together on 19th June 2019 in front of the statue of Mahatma Gandhi in Parliament Square, in front of the British Parliament, even as it rained. They were joined by Indians from across the country. The reason? They were there to express their concerns and protest against the atrocities taking place in West Bengal. Several participants shared their views and the collective group urged the Central Govt to take cognisance of the brutalities inflicted upon common people, besides the political murders, kidnappings and ransacking of property in West Bengal. The atrocities have spread to different sections of the society like the students and more recently doctors!
While I’m profoundly conservative I’ve been trying to find a space to channel my Social Justice Ghazi tendencies. I’m technically a co-founding trustee but my role is more administrative / organisational as opposed to creative.
I wanted to go more for “unheard voices” but as agreed it’s for anyone who “self-identifies” as a minority.
I’d written a response to @AnAn and included a quote from the Chuang Tzu’s chapter on Lord Wen-hui and what he learned from his Cook Ting, and wanted to throw in the following DoubleQuote — but graphics seem to be discouraged in the Comment sections here, so I’ve opened this post for the purpose:
The thing is, Lao Tzu offers us the ideal statement, formulated in terms of an impenetrable absence of space, and an absence of substance to the point of non-existence — while Chuang Tzu, peering over Lord Wen-hui’s shoulder right there in Cook Ting’s kitchen, offers us the same insight, couched in terms of there being “spaces between the joints” and his knife having “really no thickness” — Chuang Tzu’s measureless insight penetrates Lao Tzu’s impenetrable absolutes to show us there’s room for play there — “room — more than enough for the blade to play about in”.
If we bear these two versions of the same idea — formulated ideally and in practical terms by the two principle philosopher-poets of the Taoist school — in mind when our thoughts run up against the impracticality of an ideal, we may find, like Cook Ting, that we too have room enough room to play in.