Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Prime Minister Mayawati? Is the Obama Factor already taking effect?

Finally, a blog post on the topic of India. Yes, South Asia is also covered by this blog.

India is an ancient country which, whether Indians want to acknowledge it or not, is plagued by caste based racism. India's political and (especially) business leadership is largely headed by members of the upper castes. Meanwhile, those from lower castes or dalits (formerly 'untouchables,' and not even warranting a caste they are considered to be so low) tend to be more represented in menial jobs than their percentage of the population would suggest. As in all countries with racism--which is all of them--racial prejudice and discrimination are at the highest levels in the rural and less developed regions of the country.

Which makes it all the more surprising that Uttar Pradesh, the poorest state in India, has elected into the state government a dalit. And not only that, but that dalit leader, Mayawati, is being tipped by some as the next prime minister (which in India is the top political position) of all India.

Kanpur is the largest city in the Northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh.

Mayawati has risen to power rapidly in the state, and her Bahujan Samaj is making headway in other Indian states, too. So, does Mayawati stand a chance of becoming Indian Prime Minister?

There are several things in Mayawati's support. For one, Mayawati is a shrewd and intelligent politician, and should not be underestimated on that account alone. Furthermore, Mayawati, according to the British Broadcasting Corporation, tends to increase in power during times of turmoil. If the current semi-crises in high oil and food prices don't abate, India will have plenty of turmoil.

Then there is the question of the 'Obama Factor.' The United States, for the first time in that country's history, has a 'black' man as a major contender for the Presidency. As 'blacks' are generally to the United States what dalits are to India--at least from a historical point of view--the United States, via Obama, could be taking the lead in changing nations' perceptions of their downtrodden racial groups.

Now the fact should be pointed out that Mayawati rose to power in Uttar Pradesh before Obama became big and popular on a global scale. However, the Indian politician's success across India has come more recently.
LINKS

In any case, if the United States has to have Obama as President, then changing attitudes to 'race' could be one advantage an Obama Presidency would bring. Ushering in a new era where 'even' a dalit, an untouchable, can become the preeminent politician in India.

Tag this post with:
Delicious Logo Delicious Digg Logo Digg Technorati Logo Technorati reddit Logo reddit Facebook Logo Facebook Stumble Upon Toolbar StumbleUpon Furl Logo Furl Digg Logo blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Austronesian vs. Australoid.

There is a misconception in some quarters about the definition of the words Austronesian and Australoid (or Australian) chiefly that they are synonymous and interchangeable or that they are related to each other. In actuality, they are both distinct words.

So, to start off, their definitions:

Austronesian: of, relating to, or constituting a family of languages spoken in the area extending from Madagascar eastward through the Malay Peninsula and Archipelago to Hawaii and Easter Island and including practically all the native languages of the Pacific islands with the exception of the Australian and Papuan languages. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

Australoid: of or relating to a racial group including the Australian aborigines and other peoples of southern Asia and Pacific islands (Merriam-Webster Dictionary; there wasn't a Britannica entry for Australoid).

Etymologically, term 'Austronesian' would translate into south island [adjective/noun], from austro- (south) nes (island) -ian (suffix forming an adjective or noun). Meanwhile, 'Australoid' would translate into southern, from Austra(lia)- (south) -oid (suffix forming an adjective). Australoid is essentially synonymous with Australian (Australia is 'south continent/land'), but is used to distinguish a 'racial' categorization from the nationality (which is primarily 'racially' Caucasoid). It is also used for people with physical traits similar to that of Australian Aborigines.

As words, Austronesian is no more related to Australoid than South Korea is related to South Carolina or South Africa being related to South Island (New Zealand). They both contain 'austr,' which is 'south.' They share this with Austria ('south country'), Austro-Asiatic ('south Asian'), among other words.

Confusion arises due to the belief by some that Austronesians and Australoid peoples are of the same 'race.' While this will be elaborated soon, it should be pointed out that the origin of the Austronesian ethnicities are traced to the island of Taiwan, while Australian Aborigines are from Australia. The proto-Austronesians are considered to have their origin in what is now the South Chinese mainland, and the civilization is noted for the cultivation of rice and taro, the domestication of pigs, dogs, and chickens, the making of pottery and textiles, along with their considerable seafaring capabilities with their outrigger canoes and navigation by stars. In contrast, the Australian Aborigines were a 'landlubbing' people until the arrival of Europeans in Australia.

The misunderstanding is compounded by many Austronesian peoples having either Melanesian or Melanesoid blood. Melanesians have physical characteristics that (to at least Western eyes) tend to look similar to Australian Aborigines. It should be pointed out though, that the evidence seems to show that the colonization of Australia was a one-way process. That is, highly dark skinned people with tightly curly hair colonized Australia from Asia, but the dark skinned, tightly curly haired people who make up a minority in countries such as the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Cambodia are not the descendants of Australian Aborigines. Orang Aslia/Aeta/Negrito type peoples and Australian Aborigines are considered to have been separated millennia ago, as the end of the Ice Age caused land bridges to become submerged. This division of peoples is comparable to that of Europeans, Africans, Asians, and Amerindians. The island of New Guinea also separated from Australia a few millennia ago, as did Tasmania.

It is quite conceivable that the average Malay has a small trace of Orang Asli/Aeta blood, while Polynesians have Melanesian (New Guinean) genes--and Malagasy in Madagascar have plenty of African genes. However, the typical Malay is still overwhelmingly closer genetically to Asian 'races' such as the Chinese or Vietnamese than they are to Orang Asli/Aetas. Malays in the Philippines, Malaysia, and western Indonesia would not have Melanesian blood. Neither Malays, Polynesians, nor Malagasy would be any more of Australian Aboriginal descent than Nordics or Mayans.

In conclusion, the confusion between 'Austronesian' and 'Australoid' arises primarily due to the semantic similarity between these uncommon, infrequently-used terms, along with bigotry which suggests a (apparently unflattering) genetic link between Australian Aborigines and Malayo-Polynesians.

Neither Austronesians nor Australoids nor any human 'race' in the human race deserves that.

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries.

Tag this post with:
Delicious Logo Delicious Digg Logo Digg Technorati Logo Technorati reddit Logo reddit Facebook Logo Facebook Stumble Upon Toolbar StumbleUpon Furl Logo Furl Digg Logo blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

Monday, June 16, 2008

Review of "Are Asians Racist?"

Although quite dated (1999), this Australian Broadcasting Corporation transcript of a speech titled, "Are Asians Racist?" is in general a superb first overview of East Asian racism for those unfamiliar with the subject, though it--as the speaker acknowledges--only scratches the surface on racism in Asia.

The piece accurately points out that racism is more endemic in Northeast Asia, referred to as North Asia in the piece. Also picked up on is that Japan and Korea especially can be singled out for having large levels of racism that pervades their societies. China is also mentioned in this group, but the criticism is less pointed.

In contrast, Southeast Asia is considered, in the speech, to be less racist than Northeast Asia, but also more communalist; that is, there is a fair amount of discrimination along culturally ethnic lines, rather than genetically racial ones. Malaysia is depicted as the major communalist country in the region, while Singapore, the Philippines, and Thailand are portrayed as somewhat less prejudiced about ethnicity.

The speech makes note of the fact that across East Asia the group facing the most racism is that of 'blacks,' who are subject--to varying degrees--in both Northeast and Southeast Asia.

There are a few, relatively minor, inaccuracies, however. For instance, pointing to massacres of ethnic Chinese in the Philippines as being a case of communalism. While some were due to resentment of the Chinese' relative economic success (as a group) in the Philippines, a huge number of those ethnic Chinese massacred were killed because of Chinese uprising against Spanish rule (the Philippines was a Spanish possession from the 1500s to 1898). Although the ethnic Chinese might have been directly killed by Filipinos, it was on orders from Spanish officers and the Spanish colonial government. Nor were those particular massacres borne of nativist resentment against the ethnic 'foreigners,' but were the military response to insurrections which occasionally flared up in the ethnic Chinese community.

Overall, the speech was excellent, and ended on an extremely pertinent point: Asians are human, and all human groups have difficulties surrounding the concept of racism. Asians, Africans, Europeans, Amerindians, etc. all share with each other both their virtues and their disgraces.


--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries.

Tag this post with:
Delicious Logo Delicious Digg Logo Digg Technorati Logo Technorati reddit Logo reddit Facebook Logo Facebook Stumble Upon Toolbar StumbleUpon Furl Logo Furl Digg Logo blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.