Beyond Rhetoric: The Need to Tackle Racism and Discrimination

 The repercussions from the death of George Floyd in the United States, which triggered the subsequent anti-racism protests globally, has caused all of us to collectively reflect on the difficult truth that there is still not a level playing field in the world according to the colour of one’s skin. 

Whilst there is an academic argument about whether ‘race’ or ‘ethnicity’ or other words are ‘correct’, the fact of the matter is that these arguments stem from people and positions of privilege.  Regardless of whether it is scientifically proven that there is only one human race, the lived experience of people that ARE discriminated against based on perceived race, or ethnic origin, or physical ability, appearances, gender identities – is very real. People are discriminated against based on the layman’s understanding of race, ethnicity, colour, gender identities, and physical and mental abilities.

The humanitarian sector is not immune to these discussions, with calls for reflections about long-standing problems of overt, hidden or unconscious systemic racism, in addition to a wider discussion around ‘de-colonizing’ the humanitarian aid system. Anecdotes from the humanitarian sector point out the overt experiences of racial discrimination, everyday micro-aggressions and unsafe workplace cultures. Much has already been written around how racism and decolonization within the humanitarian sector is related to a legacy from the colonial-era systems and structures of ‘civilizing missions’ which humanitarian agencies, often from the same countries as the colonial powers, still perpetuate.

In addressing racism as humanitarians, both our narrative and our actions matter.  If we are speaking on issues such as diversity and inclusion, we need to ask ourselves these questions: “Can all people see themselves represented here? Does our organizational culture speak to the very real experiences of people?”. Furthermore, our narrative must support our actions, starting with developing an equity-based understanding of humanitarian action which advocates for ‘adapting humanitarian work to each individual’s needs and background [to ensure] those affected are being treated equitably’.  This means understanding the intersectionality of oppression.  Racism is rooted in power hierarchies that often do not operate alone but intersect with gender, religion, socio-economic status, geography, sexual orientation, and numerous other social markers, creating layers of oppression that are inextricably intertwined.

Crucial to this conversation within the humanitarian sector has to be one on decolonising Eurocentric knowledge systems and tools, and their role in challenging the enduring effects of colonialism (and racism).  Hence, we need to break the ‘white gaze’ in our work as we question whose expertise we value, who we listen to, who holds the levers of power, who sits at the table and who gets a vote. 

A decolonisation of the narrative illustrates the need to reflect that we can no longer use the humanitarian principles “as a shield” to prevent more difficult reflections on our institutional biases and inequality.  For example, whilst the principle of impartiality remains the driving force towards genuine inclusion and diversity in the humanitarian sector, it is important to remember that the demand that humanitarians make no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions extends to who we are as much as whom we serve.   

We must also recognise that “neutrality does not mean staying silent”, in the face of racism and violence.  It means speaking out and transitioning from a passive stance of not directly engaging in racist behaviours (i.e. not acknowledging differences and not actively addressing systems of oppression) to fighting and dismantling the systemic racism and other forms of inequity leading to systemic oppression and subordination.  We have to become anti-racist to challenge the passive approach towards the institutionalization of racism that creates systems and structures in organizations that ‘maintain privilege for some groups or individuals while restricting the rights and privileges of others’.

As the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement, we also need to ask ourselves serious and difficult questions about the issues of racism and related discrimination and power imbalances that are and could be present in our institutions at every level.  We have to move beyond just statements.  Whilst our Fundamental Principles dictate our actions, and our values motivate our compassion with local communities, we cannot hide behind the fact that we are products of our own contexts and environments and, as a consequence, we can be influenced by the related thinking and attitudes.  We need to be conscious that our history, our principles and our work does not make us immune to perceptions, misperceptions, power imbalances, privilege, racism, and discrimination.

At the 33rd International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 2019, we recognised that trust was the most critical currency for the future of principled humanitarian action as we seek to systematically engage with and be accountable to the communities we serve.  Moreover, the Movement Statement on Integrity adopted at the 2019 Council of Delegates reaffirmed our commitment as a Movement to these communities by ensuring that our workplaces are safe for all and that the dignity and integrity of our staff and volunteers is preserved, safeguarded and promoted.  Building a supportive, safe and inclusive environment is a commitment we need to make to continue fostering honest conversations around racism and discrimination. At the same time, we must also encourage difficult questions that help to improve trust between each other, respect and acceptance of each other’s diversity, and enable an understanding and support for better practices within the Movement. In turn, this will also allow everyone to have their voices heard and respected.

There are no boundaries in terms of where we can go based on our Fundamental Principles and what we should do as individuals and organisations.  The fundamental argument for the fight for diversity, equity and inclusion is a moral one.  We need to DO better and we need to BE better -not because it is the good thing to do, but because it is the right thing to do –  and to treat people with dignity, respect, and humanity.  This is our moral responsibility.

This originally appeared here

The Hypocrisy of Black Lives Matter in South Asia

 Over the last few days, one could not have escaped the incredible #BlackLIvesMatter (BLM) movement spreading across the US and parts of the world.

BLM is a campaign around shining a light on the injustices that Afro Carribeans and members of the Black community have faced in America over the last few decades. Despite the advances of the Civil Rights Movement from the 1960s, people of black colour are more likely to be stopped and searched by police; are more likely to be incarcerated and if not arrested, to be shot. The number of stories of innocent Black people being shot by police or others has become more prominent because of the proliferation of social media highlighting a problem that has been there since the Rodney King incident of the nineties. The BLM movement is really about campaigning for the rights of Black people to be treated with dignity, justice and equality and also about safety: stopping the unlawful and unnecessary killing of Black people. Unfortunately it has also come to symbolise where people of colour have been seen to be suspicious or more likely treated roughly by law enforcement.

South Asia has been no stranger to this affinity and shows of support. The movement has gathered its supporters with many Bollywood celebrities also endorsing the campaign and recently in Sri Lanka, pro BLM protestors being arrested (for violating Covid-19 regulations) and many declaring support on social media.

Yet what is really interesting in these declarations of support largely from an English speaking middle and upper class, supported by celebrities, is its hypocrisy. In declaring an affinity with BLM, there is strangely a glossing over of internal filters of racism and discrimination within these communities.

Many Bollywood celebrities who have expressed their public support have been rightly called out for their endorsement of whitening creams that are deemed to make people fairer. The mere fact that there is a market in India, Sri Lanka and other parts of South Asia for such products depicts an unhealthy obsession with being fair or against those who have dark skin. The litmus test for this is when it comes to seeking arrangements for marriage as is common in South Asia where often advertisements in papers seek ‘fair’ partners. In some cases, those with a darker complexion often are from different ethnicities / minorities or from different castes / socio economic statuses which compounds the discrimination. This desire to be ‘fair’, a reverse type of ‘cultural’ appropriation in my opinion, remains one of the hangovers from the colonial period where our colonised psyche has become ingrained with the image that the ‘white man’ is somehow more superior and better, whereas the image of the ‘blackface’ is one of ridicule and horror. Many South Asian countries have their own ‘black’ communities who are either descendants of the indigenous communities that originally inhabited the land or remnants of the colonial slave trade who somehow ended up in these countries destined to be forgotten and turned into some folklore that is trotted out at national days or for tourists as a superficial ‘celebration’ of the diversity we have in South Asia. Rest of the time they are reduced to the shadows of society with no representation and agency.

Our South Asian psyche has somehow become wired to the fact that ‘dark skinned’ are bad and that the ‘fair skinned’ are to be trusted. We cannot help it. My best friend’s mother, a sweet unassuming woman, once told me that “if she saw a black man driving a Mercedes Benz, he must be a drug dealer. There’s no way that he could have earned that legitimately”. This is not the opinion of some nationalist bigot but of someone who is mainstream, educated and tolerant (as far as I know her), yet capable of holding such a view.

This is a paradox. If history is to be understood and learnt from, it was actually the fair skinned colonial invaders who were not to be trusted, stealing the resources and manipulating the internal politics of the countries they invaded. The litmus test once again is marriage, that most sacred of personal institutions within South Asian culture, religion and traditions. Contrast the backlash that would come if a South Asian brought home a Caucasian partner as opposed to someone from the Afro Caribbean community as their prospective marriage partner!

The irony is that there would be as much if not more backlash if someone brought home a partner from the same country but of a different caste / socio economic status / ethnicity / religion. This is the second part of the hypocrisy of those supporting BLM from South Asia.

World over, BLM has become a poster child for the indignity and mistreatment that members of minority communities feel in their own countries. For many minorities, they identify with the BLM movement because in their countries they are the ‘black’ community in terms of how they are treated and perceived. Currently, South Asia has been rocked by violence and xenophobic rhetoric against minorities at a level that has largely been unprecedented. For example, in countries like India and Sri Lanka the rhetoric and violence, often with state complicity, against the Muslim community over the last year has been well documented. COVID-19 added another layer of complexity where mainstream media was used to blame a community for its spread. As such, the rise in Islamophobia in these two countries is at an all-time high. Yet what has been deafening has been the silence of those celebrities and other BLM supporters who either are complicit in their support for what has happened at their doorsteps or are not bothered because it is not trendy. The same has to be said in Pakistan and Bangladesh for the treatment of their Hindu and Christian minorities.

This hypocrisy needs to be called out: if you support BLM because of the injustice faced by the black community in Europe and North America, then you need to speak out against what is happening to the Muslim and other minority communities in your own countries. That is the message and the lesson of BLM--not to appear on social media with a statement. That hypocrisy will be called out.

Seventy plus years after ‘independence’ in South Asia we are somehow still in need of decolonisation of our minds, away from the attraction of the ‘white’ skin and mind. This decolonisation of the mind posits the notion that diversity in our countries is a fact. We have always had them and they have always strengthened us, despite what our colonial masters taught us. If diversity is a fact, then inclusion is an act. This is ultimately what BLM stands for. This is what, if we are sincere about it, we need to push for in South Asia.

This originally appeared here on New World Order

Unpacking ‘Who do You think You are?” and “Where do You Come From?”

 I must admit to being initially being apprehensive about answering the questions posed because it always is a tough one for me.

How do you define yourself? Do you talk about where you were born, your family background, your faith?

In recent weeks that question of who do you think you are has resonated widely in many parts of the world. As people of colour have questioned the role of key icons within their countries in promoting racism, slavery and others, they have been questioned as to their allegiances and asked to go back to where they came from. This us and them attitude has meant in many countries like the UK and USA, people of colour are still not seen equally as rightful people of the land. I have hated having that question thrown to me.

When people ask where do you come from? I Say British. But this isn’t enough. Where do you come from? I come from Kent, the garden of England. No that’s not good enough. Where do you really come from? Then I get it, I can’t be British because I am not white and my name is Arabic sounding.

But that doesn’t take away who I am or where I come from: I am British but I have Sri Lankan heritage as my parents are Sri Lankan; I was born in Nigeria and grew up in Ethiopia so I embrace my East and West African Influence. I currently live in Switzerland so have come to accept the Swiss nuances. I am also proudly Muslim in my spirituality, my code of conduct, my outlook on life.

Identity in my opinion and experience has became a conglomerate of 5 things: defining where you came from, who you are, what makes you tick; what makes you do what you do & why you do all that you do

These 5 components mean that identity is not fixed or static and in fact is very dynamic and evolving. One can have multiple identities which are not limiting in their nature. Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen’s premise in his book ‘Identity and Violence’ is that the key to good citizenship and social cohesion is the encouragement and retention of multiple identities. People have several enriching identities: nationality, gender, disability, age and parental background, religious or professional affiliation. They identify with different ethnic groups and races, towns or villages they call home, sometimes football teams; they speak different languages, which they hope their children will retain, and love different parts of their countries. It is the recognition of this plurality and the searching for commonalities within this pluralism that will lead to greater respect and ultimately understanding and acceptance.

Thus ‘who do you think you are?’ or ‘where do you come from’ ultimately is about having and recognizing these multiple identities which allows us to to live together as the global tribe we have become. Hence for me it is not about who I am per se but what I do with who I am? If we were born with some privilege (whether it is education, wealth, colour, gender, ability, age, health), then how did we use that benefit to be able to help those who did not share the same opportunities as us?

This is what we will ultimately be judged on now and in the Hereafter!!

This originally appeared on Medium