Mysteries of Vita

The Reluctant Fundamentalist.

My father suggested I read it and so I went on to whip it out on the warm summer mornings and evenings in the bus, tube or car on the way to new days in the office for the few weeks I lived in London. The reasonably sized text and chapters encouraged me to cover quite a bit of ground quite quickly...for once. The layout was intriguing, switching back and forth between past and present, but I never got far enough to read what I saw in the movie. Maybe it was the marvellous direction or the actors, but whatever it was, it proved to be moving.

It got me thinking about the price of life. Although most people you ask would say that we are equal, is that really the case? The line that I will never forget from studying Animal Farm (George Orwell) for GCSE English is "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS". To understand the context, you'd have to take a read or a watch but the novel echoed a dystopian society, where a utopia was intended, but greed corrupted it. When I first heard the pig in the movie squealing this phrase I laughed for ages. How ironic, how oxymoronic! The two phrases, all are equal but others are not, cannot exist simultaneously. Which is it? The leaders were now making exceptions for themselves, to excuse themselves from tasks that 'less equal' animals had to do etc. Anyone who has read a bit of George Orwell, knows that he creates metaphors to prove a point, hence, I believe he is implying that the state says or acts as if everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others.

The Lost Sheep

Tying this to the storyline of The Reluctant Fundamentalist, towards the end, the protagonists asks if the extraction of one life, an American life, is worth injuring or killing the lives of many others, Pakistanis. The author also focuses on the impact of 9/11 on the life of the Protagonist, how at first, all he wanted was to live the American dream, until America began to reject and resent him, for his religion and his race, after the disaster. Here, the protagonist felt torn, experiencing an identity crisis. On one hand, he was disgusted at the terrorist act, along with the American people, yet on the other, he felt they deserved it because of the volume of Pakistani lives that had been taken away at the hands of Americans, 10,000 he quoted. Whether there is truth to this, or not, it comes to show that sometimes, the state may not see outsiders as people.

Although it is fair to say that states should only be responsible for their citizens and when one is kidnapped or taken hostage, the lost sheep, then they should go find it. But to what lengths? Yes, they, 2, 3, 4, 1000 of them took your citizen. Yes, your citizen should be taken back, physically safe and sound (emotionally and mentally may be slightly difficult). But to what extent should force be proportionate? I'm not too sure where I stand in this regard, I suppose it depends on how dangerous the captivators are. Yet, that is the key word, 'captivators'. I believe that no innocent person should suffer. Of course, no one is truly innocent, except children arguably, everyone has acted or thought in a way that makes them fall short of perfection. If you are Christian (not sure about other religions), then you know that we were all supposed to die for our sins, but Jesus took our place. However, by innocent here, I refer to individuals who were in no way involved in the capture of the captive. The force used to retrieve the lost sheep, in my moral compass, should not be used on innocent citizens.

The Price of Life

In one of my favourite books, Cupcakes and Kalashnikovs (written by all female journalists), one author puts focus on war crimes; when American soldiers physically and sexually abused locals in 2005 (or around there I believe). I don't remember the specifics except that it was for the purpose of their entertainment, and that I was sickened to the depths of my stomach, by what they had done and the images that were shown in the book. If they were back in their own country, would they abuse and torture their own innocent citizens? Yet in another another country, 2nd or 3rd world, it suddenly becomes okay? You could argue that they're country has wronged ours, therefore, everyone deserves to be dehumanised. But put patriotism and nationalism aside. Our brains, bodies, experiences are all the same, the things that make us human. Therefore, those who have done no wrong, should also not be punished, as all life is equal. Generally, one normal heart cannot be much more expensive than another normal heart.

Nonetheless, even in our own countries, some lives are more 'valuable' than others, meaning they are 'more equal'. Not too much needs to be said on racial tension and 'Black Lives Matter' in America. Whether you are pro 'All lives Matter', White, Black, Asian or Hispanic lives matter, it is clear that America has a problem with murder at the hands of police brutality. Moreover, even in the justice system, I am sure most would agree, that some lives are treated as less important than others because of bias, stereotypes, etc.

This may be the case with class or capitalist systems all over the world. The richer you are, the more important your life is because you are smarter or worked harder, may be the opinion that some take. When a celebrity commits suicide, the whole world is in dismay whereas if an ordinary or homeless person did, it barely makes news. This may be because we look up to celebrities and expect that they should be happy with the amazing cars, house, partners. Or that if we wrote about every person that ended their lives, the world would be a super depressing place. But it is the same even in regards to treatment. In the documentary 'Black is the new Black' on BBC, a black priest explained how he got stopped and searched by the police for now reason. He was trying to find out why from the policeman but would not get an answer. Yet, when the policeman realised that he was a man of extreme importance, he apologised to the priest and let him on his way. What if that was your father, husband, brother, son, boyfriend? They wouldn't get an explanation or an apology because they are ordinary people.

Some lives can be more equal than others through country of origin. Being an immigrant, 95% of the people I associate with are also immigrants. But I consider myself to be British for reasons I'll explain when I touch on identity. My accent is very English, so much so that if you could not see me, you'd think I was White. British people, including myself in the past, struggle with accents that are... different... foreign, so to speak. Therefore, when one speaks, an impression is immediately gained and if they're accent is not 'British', thoughts such as lack of intelligence or inability to understand may cross your mind, meaning their lives may be valued as less than.

Therefore, the state and human beings on an individual level do not explicitly admit to some lives being of higher value than others, but it is fairly clear in our conduct. Will we ever get to a stage where the price of life is the same?

Animal Farm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGzRf0Ow1qU

(DISCLAIMER: The following is an explanation of my opinions and I did not undertake extensive research to write it. In no way am spreading hate, or assigning blame, simply analysing, so please do not take offence. The show was based in Wilcannia.)

Today I was caught off guard whilst watching "Reggie Yates: A Hidden Australia" whilst my mother told me about the way the Aboriginal people were treated by the white man (not to be taken offensively) when they came to colonise. I suppose I had previously given little thought to the whole history of the indigenous Australians and presumed that it had been done in the way that they colonised other countries. Except, I did not know much about Aboriginals as I did Africans, Indians and various other colonised peoples who had somehow managed to retain a strong sense of cultural identity; they know who they are, where they came from and this helped them plan where they are going.

The Problem

Conversely, I was horrified to hear that Aboriginals were given drugs, alcohol, petrol (used for sniffing as one stated on the programme) as mechanisms for the white man to oppress and take over without opposition. Dr. Gideon Polya wrote that the population of Aboriginal dropped from 1 million to 0.1 million, 123 years after the arrival of the British and that by 1911, 90% of the population had been wiped out. This is due to the repulsive fact that they were murdered but the British. Whole Islands were wiped out and equivalents of concentration camps were made to racially cleanse. The Aboriginal adults that were left, were placed on reserves whilst children known as the 'Stolen Generation' were separated from their families and placed in schools and forced to adopt the British culture, and Christianity. As a result, they lost their heritage and traditions whilst their parents were being doped by the white man.

Firstly, take note of the use of religion to dominate and justify abhorrent behaviour. It is not a surprising concept as the white man had used the tactic during the slave trade, quoting scripture such as Peter 2:18: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” To the slaves who had grown up in Africa and had strong belief in their religion and gods, it'd be easy to ignore the twisted truths that 'Massa' would be preaching each Sunday. But think about the following generations, the first African Americans, whose African identity was being watered down further and further down the line. They grew up believing in the God that their masters introduced them to. Although a warped version of him, this God was amazing, helped them through their struggles and kept their spirit strong. Yet, their masters suggested that this God believed that some were less equal than others and that a good slave was a good christian. It would be more difficult for them to block out such messages, as it came from the same Bible that said God is love. Note also, Hitler. Part of his logic for the Holocaust is that the Jews killed Jesus, therefore, should be exterminated. Hence, using religion to justify.

Secondly, I would argue that although the Transatlantic slave trade and the Holocaust were indisputably horrid events, the impact on what was done to the Aboriginal people may be worse than comparatively, due to the long term impact.

After the Holocaust, arrests were made, treaties and reparations given, as much as nothing could be done to replace 6 million lives, there as an acknowledgement that what was done was utterly wrong. Moreover, Jews are not as stigmatised and live in freedom.

Following the Transatlantic slave trade, it is known to everyone that racial tension followed and still follows today. Not to mention the 'missing father' stereotype that stems from a damaged culture of African Americans and Caribbeans. Could it be that when fathers were sold off to different plantations and ripped away from their families, that they started new ones, and they cycle would continue? From this, it could have created generations where the man did not need to stick around, although initially he could not because he was sold off, eventually, he chose not to, because, well...his father had walked out on him and so forth. However, this is just a stereotype, but stereotypes do not come from nowhere. It would only explain why there are broken families in those cultures, but not every family dynamic is broken.

I believe the lasting impact on colonisation of Aboriginals has affected many of their lives. In the programme, statistics stated that less than 50% are in employment and most of indigenous people started drinking from 7am till the early hours of the next day. They threw constant parties and were continually wasted. It may sound like fun for some, but this lifestyle, 24/7, 365 days a year breeds lack of focus, which leads to lack of purpose. Therefore, the suicide rate is high, according to the programme. Moreover, although they only make up 2% of the population, they make up 1 in 3 persons in jail. I stumbled across an article that said some MP's support the incarceration of young Aboriginal because it keeps them out of trouble. It stops them drinking, they get fed three square meals a day and they are much healthier. Controversially, the also said that they get to be with their family members which already implies that there may be a bias in the Australian judicial system. On one hand, what they say does make sense, that the quality of life in jail, may be better than in the outside world. Yet the law student in me, argues that this test is completely subjective. It will be the judge or jury who decide whether they would be better off in jail or not. But what about the offender themselves? What's more is that taking this viewpoint encourages the judicial system to incarcerate the offender, meaning they may not receive a fair trial like their white counterparts. This, at least in England (I have no idea about the nuts and bolts of Australian Law), is a violation of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 which is 'The Right to a Fair Trial'. As shown, there may be discrimination in the courts regarding Aboriginals but from the show, both indigenous and white Australians accepted that there was a divide between them, which was created during Colonialism. One lady stated that Aboriginals were not part of the census in Australia until after the 1967 Australian referendum She laid out that they were not treated as people and not respected for a long time, hence, white Australians and indigenous people find it challenging to relate to each other. To an extent, they are looked down upon, as suggested in "I'm Aboriginal but I'm not..." by Buzzfeed and the comic "Coz I'm Aboriginal (One Direction, What Makes You Beautiful Parody)". Though the latter is humorous, it was clearly made to mock a stereotype that white Australians think Aboriginals will steal. Furthermore, 20 hours ago, Ken Wyatt became Australias first Aboriginal minister. In 2017! It is Ludicrous in my opinion and I do not know the logistics behind why it has taken so long for this to happen, but if does have links to discrimination, then this is just one example of the long term impact of their mistreatment 200 years ago. Not even England or America is this backward, there are many people of colour in power.

However, one thing that the Aboriginals did seem to have was strong family units, regardless of the fact that families were separated from each other during colonisation.

Identity

I titled this essay 'Bandaids' because of a pivotal statement that an Aboriginal lady made, regarding the town of Wilcannia. It opened my eyes so much, to even the struggles of humanity and the way that we try to soothe our deep rooted issues, that I had to write about it. In summary, she that the constant partying and drinking is a way to cover up the pain caused by their identity crisis. Once the drugs and drink were deliberately introduced to them by white colonists, they became a weaker nation. The strong sense of self as a people, disappeared and life became less meaningful. Either, to add salt to the wound or seasoning to the chicken, my mother said that it is hard enough to struggle with your identity at a personal level, but when your whole racial group struggles to identify who they are, it can make life very bleak. The lady said that in Wilcannia, they party hard to symbolise freedom; that no longer can anyone come on their land and take possession of it, or them, or their children. Yet, this does not make up for their lost traditions and customs. Though many interested in maintaining or gaining back culture, it does not take away from the fact that they suffered a treacherous injustice, which could have been avoided.

In conclusion, though the programme may not reflect the situation of all indigenous people, all over Australia, it does give an insight as to problems they face. Some may advocate that their solution is...substandard, but the injustice done to them has led to high suicide rates, discrimination as well as loss of purpose. These are all issues which are painful to have on a personal level, but even worse in a whole community. You may wonder what the big deal is about loss of identity, I hope to tackle that in my next reflection. Despite the fact that a 'National Sorry Day' was made in 1998 to commemorate the mistreatment of the country's indigenous population, a simple sorry cannot heal the wounds carved by the ancestors. What else is Australia doing to bridge the gap?

Take a look for yourself:

Mysteries of Vita

Sunday, 22 January 2017

The Lost Sheep

Wednesday, 18 January 2017

Bandaids