Saturday, September 7, 2013


Can We Just Talk, Damn It!

 The saddest thing about minority groups in North America is the self-centeredness with which they see things. At the same time, they’d want to see issues in the way the mainstream society perceives and defines them. When these issues don’t work in the way they see them, they start to complain. 
And the mainstream (so-called) expects the minority groups to embrace their new home in terms the host country dictates. ‘We welcome what you bring but to a comfortable extent.’ Sound right, but hey, but careful!

We stick to our guns and flaunt our cultures and values ostentatiously without compromise yet we want to coexist. Sounds like stubbornness to me!
I’ve heard somewhere that doing something in the same manner over and over again and expecting a different result is madness. Yeah, this is sad. There has to be an appropriate way in which things should be defined to effect change; change discussed and acceptable to all!

Change is a sad and scary word to a strongly established system. Change only comes when the party that instituted the tenets of the society believes the change it for its benefit. However, the mainstream, as we always like to call it in North America, shouldn’t be expected to embrace change instantly. They have to get convinced that this is not only good change, but change that benefits everyone. And fortunately or unfortunately, the greater benefit has to go to the host if that change has to be effected. Sounds sad, but pragmatic and true!
Expecting others to just accept or believe what we want in the name of ‘we are human’ and ‘this is the 21st century’ isn’t only naïve, but also counter-productive to any forging of co-existence.

Pushing issues ahead blindly because we feel they are the ‘right’ thing to do should be put to the test.  The recent debate in Quebec about religious symbols in public workplaces doesn’t need castigation or unhelpful criticism. What is right is for both parties to amicably sit and discuss these issues…thoroughly. Well, that sounds utopian because we’re dealing with a party resisting change!
The mainstream Quebec society shouldn’t expect minorities who flaunt their religious symbols in almost all sectors of the society to just let go of them just because they’ve come to Canada. A Sikh, who uses a turban will have to stop applying for government jobs or remove it (turban). Yeah, I know this sounds exclusionary.

Well, minorities shouldn’t just expect the mainstream Quebec society to accept what they bring culturally just because ‘this is our human right.’ Even ‘good things’ need to be understood!
 As long as we stick to the same platitude of ‘oh this is discrimination!’ without explaining how any change is beneficial for, or destructive to, all parties to understand, we shouldn’t be upset or surprised when our world view is either challenged or rejected.

ON CULTURAL IDENTITY & BELONGING

Dear Melbournians, the South Sudanese people to be precise. Do you think we have seen it all? Do you think we have seen that: I mean in the aftermath of yesteryears, in regard to our culture and the notions around identity and belonging? Do you think we have seen the true reaping of what we sowed years ago? Do you really think so? After all, did we really sow anything like seeds and that there’s something to be reaped? Did we really live it out well to be seen today?

I am sorry to have bothered you, my potential readers, with questions regarding our social, economic, and political location in our host society: Australia. I think we have not seen it all and as a whole: The idea that people are bound by certain values and beliefs of significance to them. This requires cooperation and role-specific obligations on the roles of every man and woman across a given people and their society.

TOLERANCE & INCLUSION


While it is possible for us to racially discriminate or judge people we know, the chances of judging people we know diminish significantly the more we know them. An easy example of the importance of understanding others is the attitude people develop when they want to harm others or when they want to deny them something valuable. Essentially, before you fight someone, you insult them. Insults are attempts at diminishing the value of people, an attempt at estranging them, as Toni Morrison argued in The Origin of Others. It is easy to discriminate against strangers or make others strangers or dehumanized in order to discriminate against them.

Transformational Leadership, Inclusive Institutions and Service Provision

Leadership, given what is happening now in South Sudan, and generally in Africa, fascinates me. And it fascinates me not in a good way but because of the sociopolitical and socioeconomic ills facing the African continent and most of the so-called 'Third World.' To me, South Sudan, now, is a classic case.

Rebellion by disaffected politico-military leaders and repression by the government of South Sudan in Juba have stunted institutional development and leadership growth. This has made service provision almost irrelevant as political survival has taken primacy and supremacy. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

‘Black’ as an Identity Oversimplification and Mockery

Black as a universalized cultural identity of the African Person (AP)* is a residual effect of slave and colonial mentality; a racial/race paradigm. It is a malady I call, conservatively speaking, stuck-in-the-past syndrome of color constraints. Black could be an on-the-street ‘social identifier’ of race figures not a meaningful phenomenon of deep cultural identification on a universal scale.