Relationshipolitik

FYI: This is gonna be a departure from my more “traditional” politically-oriented writespeak. But as I always say, politics are everywhere!

Romantic relationships have always occupied a unique place in American society. Endless rom-com TV shows, movies, and novels have been written about finding that “one true love” and in what context (marriage, tragedy, adultery, comedy–in no particular order). What’s funny is that there seems to be a real reluctance to politicize this stuff–to look at and criticize the realm of romantic attachment as a unique social and cultural contract, ever changing and always controversial.

Case in point: As a twenty-something who came of age in the post- dot com/millenial (apparently that’s what its called now) era, the hookup culture is a huge part of our social scene.  The NY Times recently published a commentary on the “Demise of Dating”. It suggests that the “hookup” (i.e. two people having a brief, seemingly random romantic attachment, which may or may not involve sex) has completely replaced dating–the requisite going out to dinner, lunch, or movie–as the context for romantic relationships.

So is this really the case? Is the hookup culture universal? And what does it really mean, anyway?

I’m not going to argue that the folks at NYT were completely off the mark. They aren’t. But it speaks to a subset of our society, and ignores the many cultural, social, and political factors that play into phenomenon. Take the gender binary, for example (I’m going to go with the straight-person perspective here). The way we as young people perceive relationships has a lot do with the gender equity and the balance of power between men and women.

If anything, I think that this sort of culture downplays emotional connection, trust, and mutual respect. The current status quo, heavily favors the dude side of things. Yes, there are women who believe that the playing field has been equalized to some degree, but I would argue that what has happened instead is a lowering of expectations. Young women no longer expect to be treated respectfully and have their companionship treated as a privilege. Men as absolved of any responsibility towards earning a woman’s trust before anything further happens. And whether you believe that marriage the stable nexus around to which raise a family: stable, lasting relationships are. I really don’t think our current culture is conducive to that.

Secondly, I would argue that the hookup culture is far from universal. America is a rapidly diversifying nation. People come from all sorts of religious, cultural, and native traditions that teach different attitudes with regards to marriage, sex, etc. Take Islam, for example, which stresses the marriage contract as the basis for male-female romantic relationships. As a result, young Muslims raised in the U.S. are exposed to radically different conceptualizations of how men and women should relate: through a traditional marriage framework based on religion, and the dating/hookup scene. Whether or not you agree one is more “right” than the other is a moot point. The reality is, we end up with some strange in-between. People date/hookup/etc at school or away from home, and among family they prescribe to tradition. What does this mean for our future? I really can’t say.

So what does our culture of romantic relationships say about our generation in general? I’ve given my opinion, but the discussion is far from over. Only the future will tell.

My thoughts on Mumbai: Part I

By now, many of you have been inundated with coverage of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai.  India, with all of its complicated communal, religious, and cultural conflicts was reduced to the America-like binary: the good citizens of India and the crazy Islamic Terrorists. A simple script for everyone here to digest; in fact many went as far as to call it “India’s 9/11″ ( bullshit comparison, as very convincingly argued in this well written editorial piece in the UK Guardian.

I can’t even begin to start on how simplistic and erroneous that perspective is. And as a Muslim of South Indian ancestry, I feel that I have to tell a side of the story that has been rather conveniently neglected by the media.

So what do we need to know?

Firstly, that India is home to about 151 million Muslims- the second largest population in the world, after Indonesia. That was a much larger number before the Partition of India and Pakistan, though those who remain form India’s largest minority group and nearly 15%. Secondly, Indian Muslims have traditionally been adherents of a moderate, progressive and Sufi-oriented (Islamic mysticism) strand of Islam. And lastly: the Indian Muslims of today are disproportionately poorer, less educated, most segregated and systematically oppressed group in all levels of society in India today.Don’t believe me? Read the Sachar Report, an objective analysis of the status of India’s Muslims by the Indian Parliament.

OK, so why does this matter you ask? especially since the “terrorists” were from Pakistan anyway?

Well here’s the kicker: it really doesn’t matter. The politics of communalism (i.e. ethnic and religious politics) run so deep in India that in the end, right-wing Hindutva (Hindu extremist) parties point their finger at the easiest target in their backyard: Indian Muslims. And in a place like South Asia, this isn’t some tame political issue. People actually die in mass ethnic violence and large-scale genocide. Actually, Muslims end up dying 9 times out of 10, and get blamed for attacks like those in Mumbai whether they were actually involved or not.

It makes me wonder. We’ve gone out of our way to apologize for the actions of “Muslim” terrorists who attacked Mumbai (In what way they represent Islam to any degree? not at ALL). We’ve held marches and prominent religious groups like Deoband seminary and Jamaat-ul-Hind have all issued repudiations of terrorism. But why does it seem like we’re the only ones apologizing?

Where are the Hindus apologizing for the inhumane massacre of over three thousand Muslims in Gujarat by Hindu extremists? (which by the way, happened only seven years ago?) Extending that line of thought: where are the Christians apologizing for George Bush’s shenanigans in Iraq that have left countless thousands of innocent Iraqis dead? Do I see any Jews apologizing for the shit conditions the Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip have to live in every day?

This is not to diminish the horror of what happened in Mumbai. What those men did morally defunct and showed an utter disrespect for human life. But until I see some equanimity: i.e. everyone else being taken to task, namely Hindutva extremists in India and the others listed above for the murders committed in the name of religion, there will be no true justice. In the mind of many in the Muslim world, our lives are seemingly worthless, for when thousands of us die–whether in Iraq, India, what have you–no one blinks an eye, and no one feels compelled to make us an apology. Meanwhile, every time some whack-ass nutjob commits a murder ostensibly in the name of Islam, all of us have to apologize for that person.

That’s it for now. I’m gonna continue in Pt. II, so stay tuned.

Past is Prologue

History is a funny thing.

We like to think that past is past–that the present and future are entities of their own, unknown and new, divorced from bygone mistakes, misfortunes, successes and triumphs. Human beings are an optimistic species–forward looking, if you will.

However, history has a way of winding its way into the here and now. And often, echoes of past events–traumatic, joyful or otherwise–sound more loudly in the present than they did at their inception.

This election year is a case in point. Barack Obama’s campaign has led to the unearthing of a whole century’s worth of racial tension and conflict. Between McCain rally-goers chanting “Obama bin Laden” and young white supremacists being arrested for murder plots and the wanks on FOX boasting about “lynching Michelle Obama” one is amazed at just how close Jim-Crow era hatred runs under the surface of American society.  I could write a whole book on just this piece of the picture, but I won’t.

Rather, what I find most fascinating is how the threads of past events weave into the present. Obama himself is the product of his parents, and of the sixties–of that massive time of upheaval that redefined the boundaries of race and ethnicity. His father, a Kenyan, fled the upheaval of his homeland to come to a United States in the throes of change. Little would he know that his son would be campaigning for the highest public office in the land, in a point of history also fraught with change. In this campaign year, the echoes of Obama’s past, of our past, reverbrate strongly with us.

Every one of us is a product of a particular past, a history, a chronology of events that provides a prologue for our actions and thoughts. My own family is of Indian Muslim background from the former princely state of Hyderabad. Those distant events–the Partition of the Subcontinent, the divestment of India’s Muslims, the fading legacy of the Islamic nobility are woven into our history. Their ramifications, have shaped my personal attitudes to a surprising degree. The way that I conceptualize myself as a part (or not a part) of Indian-American society is shaped by the experiences of my family, how those experiences were communicated to me.

In the end, history is something always being made. But in order to truly appreciate who we are, we must know where we came from–and why.

On Religiousity

First, my apologies for the long absence–this thing called real life interfered. That, and I had college graduation (thank you, thank you And I wasn’t really inspired to write anything until today anyways.

I had an interesting convo with a good friend of mine a few days ago. The girl was a card-carrying, ultra-liberal, North Face-fleece wearing Seattlelite, and we were discussing (what else?) politics. In particular, the topic that is on everyone’s minds: the 2008 Presidential Election and Obama’s chances of winning (which seem pretty good at the moment–barring any Swift-boating).

There was an article a few days back about Obama’s tenous relationship with the American Muslim electorate, specifically the incident where two headscarf (Hijaab) wearing women were barred from appearing behind Barack at a campaign rally. It became a huge snafu with many Muslim organizations protesting, and Obama eventually called the two ladies to apologize. My take on the whole incident was that it was a) More the product of Obama’s hypersensitive campaign managers, not wanting to associate the candidate with anything “Muslim”, and less a directive from the man himself and b) Not unexpected, as just saying the word “Muslim” is tantamount to a slur. Bullshit, no doubt, but we know by now that the Americans who elected Bush aren’t that adept at detecting Bull when they smell it!

Anyway…it got me thinking on the subject of religiousity. Going back to my conversation with my fellow Seattlelite friend, at one point religion came up. Namely, her dislike of organized religion, and “wacko religious people” in general, like the ones who support Bush and smear Barack by saying he’s Muslim (ha)…and that made me stop for a second.  Well, mainly because of that first part. It’s interesting that a lot people seem to assume that just because you are a tolerant, pragmatic liberal or moderate, that you have to be necessarily agnostic, atheist, or non-religious. Or that belief in an organized or major religion is somehow incompatible with being a “progressive” (for lack of a better term).

I consider myself a fairly religious person, I adhere to a fair number of religious practices at a personal level, which skew toward the conservative side. My feeling is that my relationship with God (Allah SWT) is a fairly personal one as well, and prayer has helped me deal with difficult situations in the past.  But I consider my practice and beliefs to be an intensely individual thing–Namely, that I NEVER push my religion on other people. My creed has been the golden rule: I will respect your right to live in the way you please if you respect mine, end of story.  In that way, my beliefs are compatible with being a liberal-minded person–that everyone makes their own choices and lives in the way they feel is right.

Mainly, I think its important that people understand that being religious or spiritual does not go hand-in-hand with being holy-book thumping conservative Republican. That one can believe in an organized religion and respect others’ individuality. Not to say that it isn’t difficult at times, but I think that the assumption that religious people are close-minded is a falsehood.

That’s my take. But if you have concerns, comments, a counter-argument…do share!

 

Beauty Politic Update: VOGUE Italia steps up!

For all of you who read my Beauty Politic post, a triumphant update!

“Black is Finally in Fashion at Vogue”- The Independent, UK: Headline:
“A counterattack to the racism of the fashion industry is coming from an unlikely source: Vogue Italia. The July issue of the fearsomely cutting-edge quarterly will feature black models almost exclusively, shot by the photographer Steven Meisel…”

And the best quote of all, from Franca Sozzani-Editor in Chief of Vogue Italia:

Franca Sozzani, editor-in-chief of Vogue Italia, told The Independent on Sunday: Asked why she had decided to do this, she said: “Because nobody is using black girls. I see so many beautiful girls and they were complaining that they are not used enough.” Ms Sozzani admitted the issue could yet prove to be unpopular among some in Italy: “Maybe in our country it is not the best idea. But I don’t care. I think it is not my problem if they don’t like it – it’s their problem.”

All I have to say: FINALLY! Now if only Vogue Italia did a follow-up with all Asian models. just kidding, but seriously this is a monumental step forward for the fashion industry. If only American Vogue and other fashion magazines had editors like Sozzani, who had the balls to take the racism of the fashion world head-on! Score one for the Brown girls…

Beauty Politic

At the airport, en route a couple of days back, I found myself with only two pieces of reading material: Elle and Vogue. Believe it or not, I am actually a regular reader of fashion magazines, Vogue in particular…for the fashion photo spreads (some of which can be cool and edgy–such as the one featuring Japanese designer Rei Kawakubo in August 2006, one of my favorites). The artistry and self-expression in fashion is what I find compelling.

But I digress.

The isolation/boredom of being alone in an airport can lead to all sorts of interesting epiphanies. I was flipping through Elle (which, coincidentally, had Rihanna on the cover) and had a thought: let’s say hypothetically, aliens landed on Earth, and through some radical coincidence they got their hands on an internationally syndicated fashion magazine like Elle…and they read it from cover to cover, including fashion spreads and ads. What conclusion would they come to? 1) Everyone on Earth is a Size 0- and 2) We are a globe dominated by white people.

Why? Because almost EVERY single model in those pages would be Caucasian, (and a total twig). OK, you might think, everyone knows that. What I think is more interesting is what that says about what is being marketed to us as beautiful. Beauty is more than what is aesthetically pleasing to the eye (even that is not as objective as you think). Beauty has a whole host of political and cultural meanings: what is valued, what is “good”, what is treasured, desired and admired by men and women alike around the globe. For women especially, it is central to our self-confidence (for good or worse). How many young girls read magazines like Vogue and aspire to be more like the women in its pages?

But say you’re a Brown girl, Black, or any mixed caramel in between.  Say you don’t have those nordic features, that blond straight hair, light skin and light eyes.  YOU are not reflected in those pages…like a big, giant YOU DON’T BELONG sign, you are not beautiful by our standards.  A sprinkle of “exotic” is okay, maybe. But not too much… hence the popularity of mixed race models. And even these are primarily those mixed with white. Again, the history of blatant racism in the modelling industry is no surprise: Tyson Beckford, Naomi Campbell, Tyra Banks and others have spoken out about it.

Rather, what I find most disturbing about the almost total absence of people of color from the runways is the global reach of the white-as-beautiful mantra. One can argue that yes, there are local magazines in non-European countries that promote their own ideals of beauty. But I argue that it is definitely not an equal playing field, Vogue, Elle, Cosmopolitan, etc etc have a massive, dominant and widespread audience. And secondly, even “brown/black” oriented women’s mags fall into the trap of promoting Caucasian oriented standards of beauty, light skin/straight hair/colored eyes et cetra.

This is not to say that white women aren’t beautiful. But I will say that for the longest time–and certainly now, they are perceived at the top of the proverbial heap when it comes to beauty. Too be “other”, brown/black/dark was too be uglier, less desired, less MARKETABLE. Even though humankind is infinitely more diverse, extreme, and different than Elle and Vogue would suggest…they simply DON’T reflect the world we live in. And as beauty is the standard by which our society judges women to a large degree, what is considered beautiful affects which women are valued and put up on a pedestal, and which ones are not.

I’ll leave you with this pic, which had me simultaneouly outraged and in stiches. This is Vogue India’s inaugural cover, with two dark, gorgeous indian models/actresses…and a white model plunked in the middle, ’cause you know how light-skinned Europeans totally reflect what the average South Asian female looks like (dripping with sarcasm, of course. ha)

 

WTF?