Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for June 23rd, 2011

Response to Hindraf’s Uthaya

Xiaode addresses the honourable Mr P. Uthayakumar:

In the unlikely event you master the Chinese language hanzi and you turn to a Chinese newspaper, Kwong Wah for example, you won’t find the equivalent word for racism. The closest approximation you might find is this, 种族主义 which reads as zhongzuzhuyi, four syllable, single word. Broken up, the phrase translates literally as follows:

zhong = seed
zu = clan or group
zhu = master or host
yi = right conduct or righteous

Still, the script-set makes no intrinsic sense to the word ‘racism’, whether translated back to English or in the translated Chinese. This is because the Chinese have neither notional nor conceptual idea of ‘racism’, hence no character-word exist in the Chinese lexicon.

The Chinese mind sees culture not race. A Chinese-educated (not the Anglophile Hannah Yeohs) meeting a person of another ethnicity immediately sees differences in culture (language, customs and so on). But he can’t place those differences in any ranked order which is requisite in racism, skin colour being first and foremost. In, for example, apartheid South Africa, the class of white people is on top, black at the bottom, and the coloured in between.

For the ‘English-speaking groups’ – you actually mean Anglophiles – to call Hindraf racist, is perfectly natural in them for a number of reasons.

One, racism is a charge for which there is no defence: you’re guilty on the assertion alone.

Two, the imported culture of the Anglophiles (i.e. their acculturation) is European white, Anglo-Saxon being predominant, to whom racism is inherent in their consciousness. That is, conceptual notions of and ideas about racism is lodged deep in white culture, subsequently spread to the colonies, to Australia, USA and so on. The Judeo-Christian tradition is fundamental to this white culture: any other source of European civilization, says the German Jurgen Habermas, is just so much post-modern claptrap. Reflected in this tradition is, of course, the bible (followed by the Quran) which is full of racial inferences with ranked order of ethnic importance. (You ought to be familiar with white religion as an ethical source of law since you were trained in western jurisprudence.)

Three – and this flows from Points One and Two – the accusers themselves are racists. So, to deflect their racism is to point in your direction. This also explains how Malaysian First or Bangsa Malaysia is classic racism, first by projecting a new race and after that by ranking itself above being Chinese or Melayu or Indian whom the Anglophiles themselves denounce regularly. Push Malaysian First to its logical end, it is actually fascism – the not Indian, not Chinese Shay Adora Ram, claimed as gweilo by Hannah Yeoh and Ramachandran s/o Muniandy, members of this ‘English-speaking’ tribe, exemplifies the fascism in the flesh.

This latent fascism among Anglophiles contradicts your claim that English-speaking groups have ‘liberal credentials’.

You don’t have to be liberal to shout racist. In Europe a conservative is considered a liberal, the anarchist is an ultra-liberal, while in Germany the Greens are also liberals and in Australia the left (think Eli Wong and Mkini’s Prem Chandran) is liberal. All are liberals now; white people head the list, Anglophiles next. So the term is as confused as are Anglophiles themselves today, and we’ll skip that.

The point is this: liberals don’t necessarily eschew racism. So you see and hear about the Red-Green alliance in Europe in which the liberal left are marching alongside with – and this is no exaggeration – the Taliban sympathizers opposing American presence in the Middle-East.

Racism is today a morality sling you put to use. It’s not a political affiliation. This explains why you, more than many others, feel the sting of the accusation given especially the charge contradicts your work in Hindraf. You feel it because you are trained to be sensitive under white jurisprudential culture to which, if you recall, racism is inherent. Whether this morality is positioned in Christian or on Islamic terms does not negate the force and the design of its import: it’s supposed evil intent.

We return to the nature of racism.

White culture has racism in its guts. Importing it, Malaysian Anglophiles use racism as a propaganda weapon of choice against Barisan. This comes naturally to them, as naturally as George Bush sees Iraq as evil and Barack Obama (a black Anglophile) sees Libya as evil.

Pakatan political machinery considers itself as a force of good versus evil, and guess who is the ‘evil’? Where had this idea sprung from?

Hindraf is getting in the way of this Pakatan fight with Barisan, so it isn’t for Anwar’s troops and sympathizers to get out of the way of your work, to which you invoke the Tamil proverb: ‘If a person cannot help, he should not get in the way of those who are doing something about it‘. Don’t you see: they want you out of the way, not the other way around. Consequently you waste precious time and efforts hoping to solicit political deals from them.

The morality nature of the racism label also explains why the DAP and the PKR Anglophiles have brought in the churches into their electoral campaigns. Again, it comes naturally to Anglophiles. Whether it goes down well with the electorate is another matter. Predictably, PAS keeps quiet when Lim Guan Eng summons Jesus Christ during an election – both are after power not by different routes, fundamentally, but by the same dogma of an alien, Abrahamic religiosity.

There’s one more reason to hate Hindraf: you’re a reminder to the Anglophiles they are actually phoneys, copycats, buying into foreign political ideologies and religions and subsisting on moralities of other peoples. Recall their kind of morality in the super-Anglophile Petra Kamarudin who excuses his act of abandoning a son in a jail over a dodgy principle that boils down to, astonishingly, payment of money. It is perverse, but that’s Anglophiles for you.

More than ‘rights’, Hindraf stands for, and forgive xiaode for being presumptuous, believing in one’s individual, true self to deal with problems of the community. Associated concepts are, ‘independence’, ‘self-reliance’, ‘dignity’, and ‘self-esteem’. The Chinese sum these up in one word – virtue.

You see, Chinese culture is like that too, in case you didn’t know. This is why – and you probably don’t know this – they (again, not the Anglophiles) have admiration for your work.

Tamils have their proverbs; the Chinese have theirs, and this one is ancient: ‘Rescue the weak, lift up the fallen‘. Sun Yat-sen invoked that in this, the 三民主义 sanmin zhuyi (Three Principles of the People). It’ll be too much to go into the details – Anglophile readers here won’t understand anyway – but it’s a message which says there’s much in common among the great racial groups today, Hindraf, the Chinese chauvinists and Perkasa’s Melayus. You may call this the Three Principles of Three Peoples from which much work remains to be done.

Once he’s willing to leave Islam to the backburner, Perkasa’s Ibrahim Ali is a useful partner. How so? Gumption which, if you were to think it through, is very close to your kind. Another one: sincerity, even if dumb at times. He is the only Melayu who repeatedly calls the Chinese tionghua, and hua in huaren means ‘the accomplished people’. That’s an honour because it answers the MACC death question: ‘You orang Cina?’ But whether to align his Perkasa to the Chinese and the Hindus is Ibrahim’s call – it would be appropriate to begin with a Dewan speech delivered in hanyu pinyin.

For Ibrahim to ‘advise’ the Chinese to stay home – does he mean home in Malaysia or China? He doesn’t say that to your Hindus. Ibrahim is perceptive enough to understand the Chinese is circumspect about flaunting their feelings publicly, ‘perasaan‘ he says. He is right not to bother and wake up the dragon unnecessarily while the Ambiga Anglos might just be very sorry they did. But, the Chinese will stay home because they have more important things to do, for a rally such as this:

The native cultures of the Indians, the true Melayus and the Chinese are great. So you must keep to yours in your work. The Chinese happily leave the PAS/Anwar Malays to the Ibrahim Melayus. Anglophiles? They are a bit like cockroaches. What do you do when a cockroach runs in your direction? Leap out of its way?

Do what you must… swiftly, discreetly, if you will.

小弟

Read Full Post »