Still On Representation

From BBC.co.uk

This past weekend, I saw Stick Fly, a play produced by Alicia Keys, featuring Dule Hill, Mekhi Phifer, and Tracie Thoms. I can't say that I loved it, or that I even thought it was *good*, but I am absolutely glad I got to see it. Out of the literally hundreds of shows on Broadway, there are about *three* featuring (or written by) PoC.

As I mentioned, I wasn't crazy about some of the things in this play (for a show about family, I would have included mothers on the stage, and I would not have silenced a woman for speaking truth, but that's just me), but I truly appreciated this writer's humor, characterization, psychological depth, and frank dialogue on race dynamics, class, and colorism among the African-American elite. It's her perspective, her contribution, and I can respect that.

As I thought about it later, I wondered again, what it would be like to see more representations of PoC, in all our myriad expressions, on center screen, on the main stage, in the spotlight. How differently would we navigate life? What new possibilities would we conjure up? What new opportunities would we see that now elude us?

Even after multiple shining reviews in other cities, Stick Fly took almost six years to make it to Broadway for lack of funding and support. I thought about how many wonderful, brilliant stories there are out there that will never see the light of day because there is no financial backing for them. This story was not how I would have written a story about family, but it was a good story that deserved to be on stage -- on Broadway -- nonetheless. How many others are out there just like it, waiting for a producer's approval, an editor's nod, a bookstore's/reviewer's stamp? And how many will never get that nod because the person reading/viewing the story doesn't relate to it, or simply can't see themselves in it?

And then, this morning, I read this post on Zoetrope, about the "dead girl" look on some YA book covers, and I was reminded, once again, that the struggle for representation continues on all fronts.

But I was heartened by this BBC article about Indian youth wanting to see their own faces on stage. Whereas before, the preference was for white faces on the stage, young Indians now want to see their own images and values reflected back to them, in all their unique beauty and complexity. And the result is a uniquely Indian sound, exploding onto the Indie music scene.

History has shown us that independent thinkers/musicians/artists have paved the way for sweeping social and cultural change. I think we're in the midst of some of that same sweeping change here, too, with the balance of power shifting. It's exciting...like we're on the cusp of something very significant, very important. It's slow going, yes, but I'm in it for the long haul.

Food, Freedom, Control, and Profit

This link was posted on Facebook and I had to share it here. Jason Taylor is over on Vimeo with a video series about food, freedom, control and farming (hence, the title of this post - clever, huh?). I saw three of the short pieces and was duly impressed. Unfortunately, my connection slowed, so I was frustrated and couldn't watch the rest, but I'll be sure to be back on Jason's channel as soon as I get another chance. Check out the videos - they're really interesting.

Here's one that shows the Golden Temple's langar ritual. Langar is the communal meal served at all Sikh temples. Anyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, class, whatever is given a free meal - it's one of the basic tenets of Sikhism, and one I whole-heartedly agree with. No one should go hungry.

Roy on Obama's Visit to India & Globalization

Here's an interesting clip from acclaimed Indian author, Arundhati Roy (GOD OF SMALL THINGS), on Obama's recent visit to India.

Roy has been an outspoken activist against corporate greed and globalization for years. She has made some controversial statements and has ardent fans as well as staunch critics. Personally, I love listening to her. Besides the fact that she's beautiful, I love that this creative mind, and acclaimed novelist, has become a voice for the poor--who often have no voice in the face of political and corporate power.

On Terminology

I've seen the word "Caucasian" used to describe white people often enough that I feel compelled to do a post on it.

First off, here is the term as defined by dictionary.reference.com:

"Anthropology. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by fair to dark skin, straight to tightly curled hair, and light to very dark eyes, and originally inhabiting Europe, parts of North Africa, western Asia, and India: no longer in technical use."

The above definition, and this one on wiki which corroborates it, would mean that I would, technically, be considered Caucasian. As would Morrocans, Algerians, Iranians, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Indians, and many other peoples of colour. It's obvious to me that most of the references I've seen to "Caucasian" are not intended to include myself, or any other people of colour. My guess is that in these instances, the writer actually means to say "white folks". This seems to be a very North American usage of the term. If you read the above-linked wiki entry, and any other info on the topic, really, you'll get a sense for why the term "Caucasian" is problematic, and how it has been rooted in racist and racially-motivated designations (that have nothing to do with reality).

The term irks me, in particular, because I am always reminded of the United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind case whenever I see/hear it. As anyone who has ever taken an Asian Studies class probably knows, this was the case of Bhagat Singh Thind, a Punjabi Sikh man, who argued with the US courts that, because he was technically Caucasian and Aryan, he was entitled to become a naturalized citizen of the US, according to the 1790 statute governing naturalization.*

As you might imagine, this threw the courts in a tizzy and all kinds of new findings were brought about, and stuff was re-worded to make it abundantly clear that when the word "Caucasian" was used in the 1790 statute, the writers WERE NOT referring to brown people. According to wiki, "The Court found that the authors of the 1790 statute probably ascribed to 'the Adamite theory of creation' and understood 'white people' in its popular, and not scientific, sense."

After the Thind decision, not only was he not allowed to become a naturalized citizen, all Indian-Americans who had become citizens before that point had their status retroactively revoked. They were stripped of their land, rights, and citizenship. More than half of the Indian-Americans, who had settled on US soil as land-owning citizens, at that point left the US.

So, the term is a loaded one, and dotted with racial/racist history. I know many folks use the term "Caucasian" to mean white people, particularly here in the US. I don't know if it's supposed to be more polite than saying "white" or if it somehow sounds more like a technical (therefore, more valid?) term, akin to "African-American" or "Asian-American" (but then why not "European-American"?), but it is one that I, personally, cringe at every single time I read it or hear it.

*The complexities of why he should choose to argue this at all is for another post.

Thoughts on Mumbai

Like most South Asians, I've been thinking a lot about the Mumbai blasts and I'd be a complete twit not to post some of my thoughts here.

In India, this attack has been called the "Indian 9/11." Through various listservs I'm on, I've had the chance to read about people's reactions and they vary greatly. Some are outraged, rightly so, and glad most of the perpetrators (all but one, I believe) were gunned down. Some are shocked and dismayed at the Indian government's slow (or lack of) response to the situation and the subsequent chaos that ensued on a political level.

All of this does, indeed, remind me of 9/11 here in the U.S. Bush's slow response to the crisis, then the "bomb everything to find weapons of mass destruction" brigade. The response of "kill them all" is a frightening one in what is supposed to be a civilized society. I understand the fury, the outrage, frustration, and pain behind this cry. But the actions we take after terror tactics is most important if we're to avoid further terror attacks. And no, I don't believe the answer is to "kill them all." Because, really, the terrorists who carry out the attacks are the foot soldiers, not the generals. The ones getting shot and killed during the terror attacks are not the ones giving out the orders or planning the attacks or carefully building ideologies. And so far, none of the masterminds behind these "terrorism" tactics have been caught and brought to justice.

Why would this be the case? After all the attacks over the years, why haven't any of the heads or leaders of these attacks been captured and brought to trial? I can't be the only one who's thinking this might be a good plan of action. And the terrorists -- are they really that much smarter than our elected officials and military leaders?

What's most remarkable are some of the comments I've read on South Asian listservs and blogs. The discussion invariably comes down to religion. Hindus throw out the fact that Hindus live in poverty in India, too, and Muslims don't really have it that bad, and "Look, Hindus aren't out there terrorizing innocent people!" Muslims condemn the attacks and throw out reminders that Islam is truly a religion about peace.

And we're back to square one.

Religion is supposed to help us connect with a larger life force. It is supposed to offer us guidelines and methods to live our lives fully and in harmony with those around us. Religion is supposed to teach us about ourselves and about Life.

What I am seeing is true spirituality being hijacked by a few who are crazed with power-mongering and greed. They are good planners, they are great manipulators. And they are empty and hungry, using other people's children to fulfill their missions. They are using a true desire in good folks -- the desire to connect with that larger life force and to receive guidance about themselves and Life -- to manipulate young, spiritually hungry people (mostly young men) into committing egregious acts.

And I'm not just talking about Muslim terrorists or Sikh terrorists or Irish terrorists. Terrorists come in all colors, backgrounds, and political affiliations because greed and power-hunger come in all colors, backgrounds, and political affiliations.

Long ago, there were huge, elaborate temples and churches built to honor the spirit. Many of these are still standing. They are some of the most stunning architecture and wondrous beauty created by humankind on this planet. Today, we do not build these structures to spirit. The temples constructed today are temples to consumerism. Is it any wonder that so many young men and women are desperate for something more real? Something that will nurture a spiritual emptiness created by a world that reveres materialism?