I don't see how, at least as far as the transit visa issue is concerned. You, Inoc, Ruchir and I are of the same race. Yet, you and Ruchir would get a different treatment from me and Inoc. Clearly, the discrimination is not based on race then? The transit visas are not the discretion of the clerk at the counter ... but hard coded into the rules based on nationalities, so they can't excuse the white Indian. A *rule rather than a personal prejudice*, that differentiates between white and dark skin is illegal and cannot be there.
My point was that even within the realm of same citizenship, there exists substrata of treatment based on ethnicity or race.
When that happens, while the law applies to all of the same citizenship, the differences in treatment (under the same law) show up. So, all may be required to stay at the airport but perhaps the conditions of such stay vary --the white is allowed a few more amenities to make it more comfy for him --just as an example.
But this discussion of substratum ignores a more basic question. Why in the first place do many of these nations have immigration rules that have traditionally been open to white immigrants and non welcoming to darker skinned immigrants
Why did the US for long refuse citizenship or status to Japanese or Chinese immigrants --those that arrived in the US almost 200 years ago ? Why did the US (substitute most European nations here for US) have open immigration policies as long as the immigration wave involved members from Western Europe, Mediterranean, and Eastern Europe (in order of preference and chronology), yet started tightening immigration procedures the moment the immigration dynamics changed to Asian countries in the 60's /70's ?
Why did the criteria for such immigration change from open immigration to strict "skilled labor" based immigration ?
Its because a higher standard or a filtering net needed to be set once the demographics changed, lest the majority mix be altered too much. A mix which was distingusihable by color, and all the connotations that it signified (however erroneous such connotative inferences are in reality).
That is the crux or at the bottom of the majority of the policies set by these countries. So when they claim immigration issues prevent extending a courtesy to Indian passport holders, this is what is the origin of that policy. Undesirables from a poor country = profiled to be high flight risk (illegal immigrant risk). Desirables from a poor country (read Eastern Europe) are not subject to similar immigration rules because they are not profiled thus --because ultimately they are a desirable.
The American passport holder who is not desirable enjoys inevitable rights by virtue of the American passport (law) but fails to elicit the courtesy extended to his white countrymen many a times just like the Indian passport holder who is desirable does not enjoy the rights by virtue of law, yet is fortunate enough to enjoy common courtesises that his less desirable brethren doesnt.
The key is in the origin of the rule -- immigration or terrorism (how many white Irish guys did you see getting profiled after the worst act of domestic terrorism committed by Timothy McVeigh when he blew up the Murray federal Building in Oklahoma City, and killing hundreds --many children, included ?) !!
(And this was, I believe, the initial confusion in this thread. When you talked about institutionalized racism, I believe that others including me interpreted that to mean institutionalized in the legal system, which of course sounded ridiculous. With more of your posts, it appeared that you meant that racism at some point had initialized certain incongruities between the races that persist to this day, even though the source has been removed. I was not aware that this is called institutionalized racism, but of course I agree with the concept)
While your basic understanding of what I alluded to is alright, it does appear that you are of the opinion that there is a clear delineation between acts perpetrated by individuals and acts perpetrated by the govt.
Who do you think is the govt ? Every policy within the govt is implemented by individuals, who have their own biases which can and does play out in implementation. Consider the case where certain facilities are available to you by law. You go to the govt office whereby you are given either the run around or told that you dont meet the requirements. Except that for people who dont qualify, there may be a way around which helps them get some or the same benefits. Your handler tells you you dont qualify, but fails to mention the alternative to you, information that is however passed on to your white friend.
Assuming you find out, you can claim that this is illegal but who complains ? And when you complain, when is it heard and by whom ? Assuming you find a sympathetic ear (again subject to the human element and prejudices thereof), you would still need to prove your case.
The perpetrator on the other hand can just claim ignorance, being busy, forgetful, or straightaway deny your version and escape your charges. The burden of proof ultimately is on you.
Thats one example of institutional racism where uneven human judgment influneced by prejudice creates a system (a govt system, no less) that sanctions and furthers discrimination.
Example -- the GI Bill benefits. Starting in the early 50's, America's GI Bill and its offshoots effectively created the largest entitlement / affirmative action program ever.
In a bid to integrate the American soldiers into the economic life in a civilian society, they were eligible for low interest / free school loans, educational help, subsidized housing and loan rates, business start up & investment loans, job openings where military service was openly used (and accepted) as a promotional tool, priority acceptance into jobs and at higher positions. Govt encouraged mass development of new housing investments which could be bought by American soldiers.
All American soldiers were eligible for such benefits -- deliberate, unchecked, unaccounted and widescale prejducial disbursement of this program meant that white Americans were able to take advantage of such programs while minorities (mostly Black) were overwhelmingly rejected through bureacratic hassles, misinformation, lying, and pure race based obstructionism. Whites benefitted even as minorities were refused and ironically enough the whites flourished by competing in a field depleted by lesser competition -- the entire minority population.
The US govt knew and looked the other way as this systemic and institutional discrimination continued for 20 plus years, and in the process --from the ruins of the Great Depression, built "The great American Middle Class" -- rephrased, government policy built the Great American White Middle Class even as it actively allowed the development of the Black under class.
Want a more recent example of institutionalized racism in action ? One sanctioned by government policy ?-- Look at the War on Drugs and its focus on Supply Side enforcement which goes hand in hand with mandatory minimum drug sentences.
Read up on that (if you have not already), and then ask yourself why --
when 80%+ of drug usage in the US is recreational,
when close to 90% of such recreational drug users are white and well to do
Why does government policy focus on arresting and subjecting to mandatory minimum sentencing guys who act as the middleman between the rich supplier and the rich end user ?
I could carry on and on -- but I wanted to say this because I wasnt quite comfortable with your blak and white interpretation of my comment wrt institutionalized prejudice.
To a'nswer your question, I am sure there is some though this would be denied officially of course. And I would hope that there is some racial profiling. I think I made a similar point earlier in the thread about interviews. I know many of you would disagree with me on this, and all I can say is it does not terribly affect my moral sensibilities ... though I recognize that there is something bad about it. I think it is a necessary evil.
No, it isnt. And no, I dont agree with either of your blandwashing this practice.
Ever wondered why there is one "norm" (the white norm) ? And why everyone else is "raced" when compared to the norm ?
That is what creates a situation whereby you or I as a minority become a "representative" of our race. Think about it -- do you speak for your entire race or the entire behavior of 1 billion Indians ? Do I ?
Why do you have to answer for your fellow Indian even as your white colleagues bring up their anecdotal experiences with Indians or examples of Indians in the news ? Do they bear the responsibility or even are made to feel that they bear the weight of expectation / representation / explanation for all the things that happen in the world that are done by white people ?
'
No, because the "norm" has set up a culture whereby the "raced" individual is always a representative of his / her race. And because you or me as an individual are a representative of our race, therefore the characteristics that you as an individual demonstrate are therefore representative of your race -- hence your behavior is the basis for the generalization of your race.
When somebody generalizes or stereotypes or profiles you or me, he or she is "racing" you whereby you characterize your race or someone of your race characterizes you -- similarity by virtue of membership.
When you get painted by the template made from another Indian or I get painted by the template made from you, that is where the problem starts. Our rationalizing yet ignorant acquisence is precisely the problem in this scenario.
Just like you or anyone else, I have nothing to hide and neither do I have anything to hide. But the question is deeper and more important (and surprisingly enough, it has tangible results) -- why should I have to face extra layers of scrutiny compared to others ?
Why should I accept this anyways when I know (contrary to what you might hold in your mind) that every extra layer of scrutiny makes many employers less willing to hire the person. You do not even have to be equally matched with the next candidate --you can lose out despite being the superior candidate because your prospective employer is operating under the assumption that you lie (representative of your race --profiled) or because your prospective employer has the doubt that you might lie and therefore needs extra scrutiny, a hassle he is unwilling to get into. This happens in the employment world -- more often that one would guess.
And then assume that you are actually hired for the position after undergoing this extra scrutiny predicated on the possibility that you lie since Indians lie and you are but a representative of your race --
What happens when an issue comes about where it is your word against someone elses -- who do you think is trusted ? Who do you think gets the benefit of the doubt ? Who is deemed trustworthy ? loyalist ?
Who do you think gets promoted ?
When your boss is asked, he would say that among two equally matched candidates, the one with the better intangibles was promoted.
And your boss might actually honestly believe this because his internalized prejudice about Indians and by extension you, has allowed for a decision which he belives is fair (but is unfair to the extreme, in reality).
And that completes the cycle from internalization to Institutionalism.
To have Indian guys buy into the majority culture's definition of "norm" and "raced" is deeply disheartening to say the least. To have Indians be washed and immersed in this type of misguided thinking -- without introspection, questioning, or accountability is doing the bidding of others to the detriment of oneself. The same rules we agree to and support have the potential to be used against us.
Agreement does not confer immunity against discrimination. Internalizing majority attitudes does not make one a member of the majority --even a racehorse is put to death once it outlives its utility.
AuthorTopic: Harsha Bhogle: The rise of cricket, the rise of India (Read 4191 times)
