Please do not interpret it as anything else.

Thank you

Smoulderingjin, somewhatdisgusted and undergroundview please keep it up. I hope that Dr. Pradeep Jeganathan will continue to provide his perspective on what is being discussed. However Suren Raghavan is very conspicuous by his absence in a thread started by himself.

I have noticed that with the exception of Dr Devanasan Nesiah, Dayan Jayatilleka and probably a few others the majority of writers shy away from discussing their own articles. This brings to question the motive behind what they write.

Disgusted>
As a person living in a state that has apparently successfully integrated a multitude of races into a cohesive problem free society could you enlighten us on the policies adopted in Singapore on..
1) Land
2) Housing, State & Private (with special reference to any govt funded schemes)
3) Language
4) Judicial review process
5) Education (Govt as well as Private)
6) Equality
7) Power sharing
Access to free Medical Care
9) Media Freedom

Thank You

I feel you are being quite charitable I understand that you are trying to make the discussion progress and will follow your cue.

I was intending to address some points you had raised for quite a while. I fear my reply is extremely verbose and I hope you will bear with its great length. First of all though, let me say that I too share the concerns you have raised in your last few posts and would like to discuss them further so as to decide my own stance on it.

You said: “without the foundation of individual racism, the whole racist edifice that’s built upon it can begin to crumble.”

I very sincerely believe this also. Like you, I do not intend to defend Sinhalese racism nor Tamil racism. I hope this has always been clear. My main goal was to show that racialism on all sides is a significant problem and I personally believe that Tamil racialism is getting inadequate attention and/or is dismissed as being “ineffective”. Instead, I believe it is a significant factor that has stalled progress on this issue almost completely. The most militant manifestation of Tamil nationalism, the LTTE, stands as open testimony to the fact.

We see that the LTTE clearly had the power to hold over 1/3 of the country hostage to their ideology for 30 years. So why the nationalism that feeds it is not considered a problem by “Disgusted”, I am unable to fathom. This is why I stressed on the fact that, if the intent is to create a just and egalitarian society, the fight should be for equal rights. The fact that the fight is instead, for a separate racial la-la-land, I believe is clearly indicative of something. I think I’ve made it clear what I think that something is

With regard to the following statement: ” Sinhalese community, society, government or whatever is “institutionally racist” and oppressed the Tamil community, which clearly lacks the power to oppress in return, and thus is clearly not “institutionally” racist.”

I agree with the statement that the Sinhalese certainly have a greater capacity for institutional racism, as has been demonstrated in the past. I should be clear that I’ve never attempted to defend it and find it despicable. However, to use institutional racism in order to rationalize one’s own racialism is, in my opinion, disingenuous. But this is what I see happening most of the time. The racialism of the Tamil nationalist gets a free-ride by pointing to the racialism of others. In a truly vampiric fashion, it promotes racial disharmony in order to perpetuate itself. It portrays ethnic differences as primordial in order to justify itself.

Consider this statement by “Disgusted”: Sinhalese are not only a dominant community in SL, they are an overwhelming majority. So to allow them to settle everywhere without placing any ethnic limits would mean that they will in actuality be forming Sinhalese ghettos all over the country, and getting all the benefits of that (support from the community, the ability to dominate and dictate district needs) while the minorities will get no chance to do so.

The above statement clearly stems from racial paranoia rather than actual fact. The facts are as follows. 40% of Colombo, the financial hub of Sri Lanka, is Tamil. The Sinhalese themselves are a minority in Colombo. Tamils hold key positions in Sri Lankan society. The northern and eastern districts are Tamil dominated. Other ethnicities have since been ethnically cleansed from those areas by the LTTE. Many areas in the hill-country are Tamil dominated. Tamil culture is doing fine as evidenced by the multitude of Kovils etc. spread throughout the island. In fact, there are several Kovils surrounding the Temple of the Tooth, the most holy shrine of the much maligned and “racist” Sinhala Buddhists. So “Disgusted”s claims are naught but pure racial paranoia, much similar to the Sinhalese fear of identity loss due to regional insignificance, which led them to be characterized as “the majority with a minority complex”. Both these attitudes are reflective of mindsets that, even if the intentions are not malevolent, are still hard to differentiate from that of racialists IMO. The effects and external manifestation of such thinking eventually ends up being racist. “Disgusted’s” basic stance could probably be summed up as “I cannot live with the Sinhalese in the fear that they will dominate me through pure numbers, destroy my culture and therefore I must form my own racial ghetto. It is merely an act of resisting majority domination”. Would it be wrong to characterize that as racialism?

I have no disagreement whatsoever with making sure adequate steps are taken to preserve each person’s culture. But I do *not* agree with refusing to live or integrate with others on account of race. This is taking ethnic differences to a primordial level and I believe it is morally and logically unsound. I do not buy “Disgusted”‘s argument that cultural domination by another ethnic group will cause him/her to lose his/her own culture, as a moral one. Actually, I believe it is immoral to refuse to live together with other human beings on account of race.

I also think the concept is logically unsound. As we’ve discussed earlier, such thinking would automatically imply a mini-Eelam for each race. Taken further to preserve intra-racial differences, and to put it irreverently, we would have to further sub-divide ad-infinitum until each individual is left standing on a 10×10 foot Eelam, scratching their heads in puzzlement but nevertheless blissfully shielded from the irksome influence of the “other”. Just to illustrate the point of how intra-racial differences can come into play, we should recall that the Kandyan elites were the first to come up with a separatist agenda in 1925 through the Kandyan National Assembly. Imagine the ensuing merriment if they too had proven as persistent as the Tamil nationalists.

Getting back to the issue of racism, “Disgusted” claims that no attempts have been made to correct institutional racism. This is incorrect. We all know that the Sinhalese polity has in fact relented and made many attempts to correct these imbalances. What then, has completely halted progress on correcting any remaining problems? Shouldn’t a significant portion of the blame fall on the uncompromising Tamil nationalists and their quest for Eelam?

I do understand that largely, this nationalism has gained a dynamic of its own thanks to the LTTE. But let’s not forget who’s funding the LTTE and who’s fueling its international propaganda machine. As long as their ideology remains alive and they keep rabble-rousing in Sri Lanka, I do not expect this problem to fade away soon.

You said: “There’s the discussion of whether Tamil secession implies a mono-ethnic homeland, and whether (if so) that’s a racist policy. Or whether advocating a less “pure” but still Tamil-dominated state or region with (therefore) a Sinhalese minority is a racist policy – or just a pragmatic reaction to a Sinhalese-dominated state which has failed (quite badly at times) to protect Tamil rights.”

A good question and something I too would like to see discussed extensively. While the former claim of a mono-ethnic homeland is probably not defensible at all in a 21st century context, the latter claim seems more justified, at least on the face of it. Saying that the Sinhalese dominated state has failed quite badly on multiple occasions to protect Tamil civilians is putting it gently I can understand why people who faced ethnic violence may quickly gravitate towards such a solution as a reasonable one, with the unfortunate side-effect of giving the racialism of the Tamil nationalist a free ride in the process, a thought I find quite odious. Odious or not, we need to rationally evaluate ethnicity based partitions. I would like to throw in a few points for consideration.

1. I do not see how ethnicity based partitioning of any form can be morally or logically justified. I’ve mentioned why above. But if it’s touted as pragmatic, I have some reservations about that also, which I’ll mention next.

2. It’s not clear to me how ethnicity based partitioning solves an equality problem. If there is no equality for Tamils in the southern Sinhala dominated areas, how does creating an ethnic enclave in the North provide that missing equality in the South?

3. What about the other races? Are Tamils the only race suffering from an equality problem? Shouldn’t whatever solution that’s put into place provide equality for other races as well? Does this imply multiple ethnicity based partitions?

4. Cementing of ethnic divisions constitutionally may actually serve to widen ethnic rifts than unite us as a country.

5. In the final analysis, ethnic partitioning is a victory for racialism, regardless of
who started it or who perpetuated it. I believe it’s a shameful failure on the part of both the Sinhalese and Tamil intelligentsia to throw in the towel and revert things back to such a medieval state of affairs. If there’s anything worth fighting for, that is to fight for equality, not for the constitutionalization of racism.

I would be glad to hear your critique on this.

You also asked a question early on:
– it’s racist to advocate a Sinhalese-dominated unitary state,
– it’s racist to advocate splitting such a state on racial lines.

I hope my view is evident from my previous posts. I believe both are racist. This country should not be “Sinhala-dominated”. Not should it be split along racial lines. The ideal we must reach for seems clear to me, a just, egalitarian society.
One thing worth mentioning however, is that there is no way to change ethno-racial demographics. The fact of the matter is that there are more Sinhalese than Tamils. This should not be confused with structural racism. It is not a fault of the Sinhalese that they are more numerous in numbers and it seems to me to be pure racialism to quake in ones boots at the thought of not being a numerical majority in one’s own right. However, it is perfectly reasonable to ask that adequate provisions be provided to protect one’s own culture in order to combat any actual structural racism. This is what happens in any plural society.

As for structural racism itself. There maybe certain structural elements remaining that need to be addressed and I’m certainly open to knowing what they are and how they can be fixed. Unfortunately, many people point to problems in the past, which have long since been rectified and do not point to what the problems right now are. I personally have an uncharitable explanation for why that is. Nevertheless, I think this is something that needs to be openly discussed so that there is proper awareness on what the outstanding issues are and how they can be solved.

So… breathe deeply, and step back from the argument…

It seems that we have been talking about different things, even if we both referred to them as racism.

I’m sorry if you thought I had any animosity towards the Tamil community or Tamils as individuals – I have not, and it was not my intention to convey any such feelings. Nor do I have any animosity towards the Sinhalese community when I criticise the government, the camps, the rule of law, or aspects of culture. Occasionally I get irritated if I think I’m being misrepresented – sorry if I offended you.

Nor am I trying to brush any issues under the carpet, or pretend race or ethnicity is not a factor.

Structural racism is an important issue that needs to be understood. Sometimes “colour-blind” policies, which seem quite fair on the surface, but which ignore deep racial problems, can perpetuate the problem (if only by failing to address it). Consider whether a policy of treating all animals equally would help prevent extinction of the Panda or (careful now) the Tiger or the Lion? And sometimes there is no pretence that policies are fair, or that fairness matters.

Even where there is agreement that inequality exists, there is debate to what extent it is either practically helpful, morally fair, or even counter-productive to treat individuals unfairly in order to rectify statistical, historical or communal imbalances. All of this is important.

But I don’t think structural racism exists in a moral or intellectual vacuum. It seems clear that it is often created, nourished and sustained by individual, personal racism . Not just by racism it’s true (there are many reasons to resist change) – but to a considerable extent sustained by racism. Sure, in its turn that racism can be promoted by governments as a means to keep power, or distract the people from what they themselves are up to… but without the foundation of individual racism, the whole racist edifice that’s built upon it can begin to crumble.

Which is one reason I think it can be misleading to restrict debate purely to structural issues, ignoring the individual – or to debate it in terms that can be misunderstood as a sweeping attack on individuals, especially when any such misunderstanding will be strongly resented. It’s bad enough when people resent what one IS saying – but it’s worse if they resent what one is NOT actually saying. We saw that here, I think.

I’m sorry for any role I may have played in our misunderstanding. I suspect it may have gone somewhat like this (and apologies in advance for any “shorthand” or over simplification – I’m trying to give a flavour and will no doubt omit some of the complexities):

You SAID something rather like: Sinhalese society is racist, and Tamil society is not.

You seem to have MEANT: Sinhalese community, society, government or whatever is “institutionally racist” and oppressed the Tamil community, which clearly lacks the power to oppress in return, and thus is clearly not “institutionally” racist.

That was initially HEARD (I think by both Somewhat Disgusted and by me) as: Sinhalese are racist [in motivation and outlook] and Tamils are not.

You may appreciate that this could seem unfair, and I wondered whether it was likely to be true of the whole groups.

Then you said: Racism only makes sense in structural terms (or power relationships, or something along those lines).

You seem to have meant: “I am using the term in a specialised sense favoured by sociologists, because I want to talk about institutional racism, rather than get caught up in a discussion of motivations.”

At the time I HEARD: “I am redefining the term with the result [or intention?] that I get to call “them” racist and deny that “we” are.”

That is almost certainly NOT what you intended – but see how easily assumptions can drag a debate into a misunderstanding.

I replied that this terminology was unhelpful to the discussion, incomplete, and misleading, for several reasons. I may have been quite robust.

Perhaps you HEARD: “he’s trying to suppress discussion of problems experienced by Tamils, or to pretend that race is not a factor.”

There are big issues with racism, and they need to be discussed. But I worry that by using the term in a way that positively begs to be misunderstood (as it was, and not just by me), in a place where that misunderstanding will effectively forestall any dialogue (as it has done for too many postings), then we do the cause we advocate a disservice.

Thanks for listening.

I have followed your discussions with much interest and appreciate your engagement. It is by far the closest thing I have seen on this forum that actually engages with the issues at hand. So thank you. I am sure there are others who have followed what is a difficult discussion through so far.

I hope the discussion would continue further, despite the frustrations and misunderstandings, which are inevitable with issues such as this. It is the pointless invective and insults that are destructive. Genuine engagement that is difficult, frustrating, and at times infuriating…that I think is the only way people can discuss things!

There are some points I would like to respond to,…but I will keep that for tomorrow.

You said: ‘Perhaps you are using a term of art – some specialised definition from a particular academic discourse, which evacuates any concept of attitude and motivation, and deals only with power structures – in which case I wonder how you expected to have a sensible conversation on racism with a community that uses the term in the conventional sense. I am happy to discuss both – but I object to a discourse that claims only one “matters”.’

I explained quite painstakingly my own definition of racism as referring to “structural racism”, and explicitly pointed out that I was not using the usual definitions, that this was where I was coming from.The community I was speaking with knew very well that I was working with another definition, but wanted to topple that definition by pitting it against another, more conventional definition–and with no particular object at hand that I could see.

I know that you object to a discourse where only structural racism matters. Good for you. That’s your business. But my object here was to discuss the sharing of power with ethnic minorities. In that context, ONLY structural racism is relevant, in particular, the expression of racial domination through political mechanisms, and the rectifying of that. One does not consider the private unorganized racisms (intentions, motivations, etc) or lack of them by all the individuals involved in this negotiation and by the general population.

You said: “Maybe I need to point this out again, to forestall misunderstanding. The Sinhalese-dominated Sri Lankan state has a very poor record of respecting minority rights – and the resentment some felt at the equal rights provisions of the failed peace process illustrates those attitudes. And they need to be held to account for that – but you cannot do that from a holier-than-thou position where you claim that the only racism that “counts” is theirs.”

On principle, a state is not supposed to practice structural racism, and that is what negotiations for national power sharing should address. That makes Sinhalese-dominated state racism the only relevant racism that needs to be addressed. As far as I know, Tamils have not been and are now not in a position to practice structural racism (unless you are referring to that of the LTTE–which is no more). You suggest that one “should see the potential for oppression of minorities in a putative Tamil state – or remember the treatment of Muslims by the LTTE.” Fair enough, and I would hope that the negotiations for power sharing would anticipate such possibilities and put legal measures in place to stop any group in power from oppressing another.

Considering that the Tamils are now disarmed and generally defeated, the only group whose private racist attitudes could scuttle any state attempts for power sharing is that of the Sinhalese group.

You said, “if your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. If your only tool of analysis is race-discourse, then perhaps all oppression starts to look like racism?”

To say that the SL situation is not about racial politics would be disingenuous. There is class politics here too, but it has been subsumed into that of race by the powers that be.

The first of these three is hard to deny, at least using any reasonable dictionary definition of racism. The second is clearly true. The third I have never claimed and don’t believe – yet you seem convinced I hold it. I’m not sure whence comes this fixed idea that I support, advocate, or condone racism, through which you seem to filter everything I write.

Perhaps you are using a term of art – some specialised definition from a particular academic discourse, which evacuates any concept of attitude and motivation, and deals only with power structures – in which case I wonder how you expected to have a sensible conversation on racism with a community that uses the term in the conventional sense.

I am happy to discuss both – but I object to a discourse that claims only one “matters”. That fails, as I said before, to engage with real people and the real world. It sets you up, as you must realise, to be misunderstood, and thus written off.

It seems I also need to explain “there is no oppressor like the oppressed”. It’s an observation of many historical and social scenarios. Consider this “ha ha, only serious” definition of capitalism and communism. “Under Capitalism, man oppresses his fellow man – under Communism it’s the other way round”. Consider that after many revolutions, from the French onward, there has been a period of intense repression. Consider how all too often those who were abused as children become abusers as adults. Consider the treatment the abused Kapos in Nazi concentration camps in turn meted out to the other prisoners under their authority.

I’m not saying that because Tamils are oppressed, then they are necessarily oppressors, now or in the future. I thought that was clear, but maybe not (Perhaps, if you suspend the search for hidden racism in all you meet, it may be easier to understand that). On the other hand, perhaps you can see the potential for oppression of minorities in a putative Tamil state – or remember the treatment of Muslims by the LTTE?

Maybe I need to point this out again, to forestall misunderstanding. The Sinhalese-dominated Sri Lankan state has a very poor record of respecting minority rights – and the resentment some felt at the equal rights provisions of the failed peace process illustrates those attitudes. And they need to be held to account for that – but you cannot do that from a holier-than-thou position where you claim that the only racism that “counts” is theirs.

“What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” does not mean that both sides are identical. But it does mean that you cannot in fairness highlight racism on one side, while pretending it does not exist (or attempting to define it out of existence) on the other. If it’s racism in an Anglo-saxon colonialist, or in an American white person, or in a Sinhalese nationalist, to tar all of another race or ethnic group with the same brush – then it must also be racist when blacks in America, or Tamils in Sri Lanka think the same way (whether or not they have the means at their disposal to discriminate or oppress).

I probably need to say, before you assume I think the opposite, that groups and cultures vary, and individuals cannot be judged as though they were part of a monolithic bloc (whether Tamil, Sinhalese, or other). People can have complex, layered, mixed identities.

I should also say that there IS racism in the US, as in Sri Lanka, Britain, and the rest of the world. And this racism can be both structural and internalised. But not all disadvantage is explained solely by racism. To pretend that is so, is to ignore other factors that can bring about real change.

I hesitate before introducing another metaphor, but it has been said that if your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. If your only tool of analysis is race-discourse, then perhaps all oppression starts to look like racism? And if that’s what racism is, then what victims do and feel must be something else, no?

Even the oppressed are not immune from similar motivations and attitudes to their oppressors. We are all human.

So what am I supposed to conclude from this? What I conclude is that even though you accept that “people with more power have greater scope for indulging their racism,” you nevertheless do not think it is “fair” to hold them more to account. In effect, you’re saying the two groups’ racisms are equal.

And you did not “mention a cultural emphasis on education in some Asian migrant cultures in the US, that stands them in better stead,” as you claim. I did that. I pointed out that you needed to take Asian migrant histories into consideration. What you actually said was “Interestingly, Asian communities seem to do rather well in the US. Something to do with a commitment to education, perhaps?” You said this within a context of comparing these Asian communities to the American poor black and poor white communities.

I find it interesting too that you raise the question of whether Blacks are an oppressed racial minority in America. You must be aware that there are all sorts of statistics and studies that back this claim of Black racial oppression. Yet, you don’t seem to believe it. Instead, you say there are white oppressed minorities too, as if class oppression gives the lie to race oppression. And although Obama did say that there is a cultural phenomenon of Blacks blaming “one of their own” as “acting white” if they try to improve themselves, I doubt he was saying that accounted in any significant way for the lack of Black progress. Obama is trying his level best to identify and tackle psychological and cultural impediments to Black progress (for eg, talking about their record of broken families) so as to help them that way. But he knows very well that structural racism is the more crucial impediment, and that this impacts on Black culture and psychology. And great applause to his ingenuity in breaking through that glass ceiling. He needed several times the talent of the other white candidates to make that breakthrough. But then, America is a country that accepts citizen equality, at least on principle. Sri Lanka does not.

I am not making “utterly imaginary inferences”. I follow your discourse very carefully, and consider the implications of what you say and the contradictions in your posts. With both African-Americans and with SL Tamils, both oppressed minority groups, you prefer to look at their “attitudes” rather than the structural forces at play in their oppression. I think it is a fair question to ask whether you have problems with accepting that there are oppressed racial minorities in the world, that structural racism does happen, and that it has happened and is happening in Sri Lanka.

BTW, it has not escaped my attention that you have not explained this statement of yours: ““This truth is summed up in the saying that there is no oppressor like the oppressed.”

All this while, you have kept targetting me for not wanting to admit to faults from the Tamil side (while, throughout, adopting this holier-than-thou attitude). Yet when those identifying as Sinhalese make exactly the same points as I am making, and even question your position, you don’t comment on their posts. So, hey, Mr or Ms “Halo around my head for being utterly free of racism”, is my view not acceptable solely because of the ethnic group to which I belong? Why should I have to tone down my expression while Heshan presumably doesn’t? Am I not allowed to make certain oobservations and claims simply because I am Tamil? You can’t trust Tamils, they’re always trying to get the upper hand–is that it? Have you been discounting my views because you have been reading “hidden perspectives” on my part (because of my ethnicity)?

How honest is it for you to vilify me for openly declaring that I am reading what lies underneath people’s perspectives while you use your own undeclared presumptions of others’ bad intentions to paint them into a moral corner? Hmmm, don’t you think we should come to the reconciliation table with good faith? (Remember that line?)

Here’s Heshan’s post, which says exactly what I have been saying, except he’s a self-declared Sinhalese. He starts by quoting you, and then responds to it:

Your quote–’On the other hand, it might remove some of the heat from this discussion if you felt able to concede that there HAS in fact been racism on the part of the LTTE, and on the part of “ordinary Tamils” — not just on the part of the majority community and the state.

Heshan’s response: “Sinhalese ran the Government, Sinhalese came up with 2 Constitutions (both of which were failures), Sinhalese were in charge of economic policy, Sinhalese controlled the military…

The list is endless. Anyone can see that Sinhalese ran the show. When you run the show for 60 years, and you fail miserably, there’s no point putting the blame on others, whom you treated as 2nd class anyway.”

You have every right to – this is a place of free debate – but it will not lead to constructive discussion. Sooner or later even your closest ally will fail to spot some preconceived suspicion you hold, and will be “revealed” as someone who conspires, with all the rest of them, against truth and right. It’s a lonely furrow you’ll be ploughing.

You scattered accusations rather widely, so I’ll just deal with a couple of the oddest misunderstandings:

You said: “But to consider an oppressed group to be more oppressive in its racism than the group that perpetrated the racial oppression in the first place–that really dents your credibility.”

You’ve said that a couple of times, but that’s almost the exact opposite of what I actually said. Go back and read where I said: “I don’t want you to say both groups are equally guilty of racism…. Clearly people with more power have greater scope for indulging their racism.”

Then you said: “At any rate, the comment you made about Asians doing better in America because of their belief in education already showed me that you believe in the concept of ‘race’ itself. I don’t. I think race is a fiction, something that people conjure up and imagine–it doesn’t actually exist as a real thing. Racism however is real.”

The concept of race as preached by racists everywhere is a nonsense. We’re all one species, and the differences within any racial group are vastly greater than any possible differences between some utterly irrelevant mid-point or average of one race vs another.

What I do believe in is culture. Culture can help individuals and societies, or it can hold them back. President Obama referred to a cultural phenomenon of some African Americans labelling “one of their own” as “acting white” if they try to improve themselves. That’s not a helpful attitude. I mentioned a cultural emphasis on education in some Asian migrant cultures in the US, that stands them in better stead. Japanese businesses look for long term relationships. Americans and Chinese businesses can tend to take a shorter term view. You may have noticed a culture of “grab what you can for yourself” that some in Sri Lanka show. Judge for yourself how helpful that is to society.

If you believe these difference are forced by our genes, you’re deluded. If you think that’s what I believe, you’re not paying attention – or jumping to conclusions.

And that’s why it’s good not to go looking for hidden perspectives that might be influencing the utterly imaginary inference you made up all on your own.

On the other hand, maybe I am an evil arrogant racist ogre, pretending to be all reasonable just to wind you up! And the sky could be green.

You said: “That may well be. But it is NOT a logical fallacy to explore the implications of someone’s argument, to link it to a certain politics, and thereby dismiss the argument. Please don’t mis-represent what I am doing, and spare me the sophomoric argument.”

Just FYI, it’s an Ad hominem circumstantial fallacy to claim such a thing. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
Calling into question the motives of the person making the argument does not render the argument itself fallacious. The argument offered was on why racialism cannot be justified. Claiming that “undergroundview” made that argument because he/she stands to gain by it, possibly by belonging to the majority community, cannot be used to falsify the argument. So no, I really haven’t misrepresented anything. In any case, why not directly attack the point instead of attacking the person? Considering how convinced you are of the logical soundness of your position, this should not be difficult.

You said: “There isn’t a chance that I will re-consider my position. ”

That sums up my experience with you also If you had said so from the start, perhaps we could have both saved ourselves the trouble of listening to your monologue. Finally, not being able to defend your position, you choose instead to make ad-hominem attacks, throw up red-herrings, justify resorting to violence and terrorism and thereafter unilaterally declare the other as recalcitrant. Reminds me of a certain faction indeed. I’ve not been so amused in a long while

This statement of yours is patently false: “When the group in power will not own up to the obvious fact that it has an unfair hold on power, and thereby shows no intention of rectifying that monopoly, then there is nothing else to be done. ”

The entire history of Sri Lanka has ample evidence of people bending over backwards to rectify that monopoly. What you want is to create your own monopoly.

Good luck with that.

It’s all about standing up for your convictions. Paying taxes to a rogue government is not something I would.

Cheers.

That may well be. But it is NOT a logical fallacy to explore the implications of someone’s argument, to link it to a certain politics, and thereby dismiss the argument. Please don’t mis-represent what I am doing, and spare me the sophomoric argument.

There isn’t a chance that I will re-consider my position. Also, if you guys want to talk about racism at the micro and personal level of prejudices, attitudes, motives, etc, do go on ahead without me. I find that to be a piddling matter, hardly crucial in discussing the SL political situation. Racism at that level is very easily extinguished by education. I’m only interested in discussing structural or institutional racism as that has direct bearing in talk about the distribution of power. Nor am I persuaded by liberal ‘colour-blind’ approaches to the sharing of power in pluralistic societies, but by a genuine multiculturalism, where the different ethnic groups are given national recognition and have equal access to power and to economic opportunity.

I have found this entire discussion to be frustrating. I am beginning to understand now why the Tigers took up arms and why they insisted on a Tamil Eelam. When the group in power will not own up to the obvious fact that it has an unfair hold on power, and thereby shows no intention of rectifying that monopoly, then there is nothing else to be done. Sixty years, and an awful lot of waste of life on all sides has not changed your recalcitrance. You’re just finding new ways to continue with that monopoly, new disguises like wanting to get rid of ethnic politics. Unless you guys plan to talk about the need to share power and how this can be done, please don’t bother to engage me in discussion.

Disgusted >>

It’s a logical fallacy to question someone’s motives in order to dismiss his/her argument. You need to address the argument, and not (accidentally) throw up red-herring fallacies which serve no purpose in advancing the discussion. “Undergroundview” has mentioned several key points as to why racialism cannot be dismissed (nor justified) due to a relative lack of power. You need to address those points if you want to convince others that there is some merit to your argument and if not, probably reconsider your own position.

Also, I will address the rest of the points you raised in a later post. I believe I should address some of the points raised by Undergroundviews first as I did not have an opportunity to do so for a while.

Undergroundview >>

Thank you for sticking with this debate. I’m indeed happy to read your perspectives on the conflict and would like to compliment you for maintaining a rational and balanced viewpoint. It’s a rare difference from the usual forceful and strident tones adopted by many on this forum, something to which I too confess to be guilty of at times. It’s an extremely welcome difference from the single-sided, black & white perspectives presented by many.

You said: “What we act on is perception – what we THINK happened.”

I agree. Even academic accounts tend to be somewhat biased because this is a very human/emotional issue for many, there’s way too much propaganda and the historical roots themselves go back beyond living memory. That’s why I believe that, regardless of who started it or who continued it, this is a humanitarian crisis and any solution to this must be based on a firm logical and moral foundation, resulting in a consistent world view that cannot be falsified by any party. The stance I believe is rational to adopt is that racialism of any kind should not be tolerated. Anything else simply flies in the face of all logic and all moral advancement we’ve made to date. The racialism that “Disgusted” is justifying as necessary in order to preserve Tamil culture, can IMO, be easily falsified and therefore cannot form the basis for a consistent worldview. Nor can the racialism of the likes of Gen. Sarath Fonseka, who fancy that Sri Lanka belongs mainly to the Sinhalese, be justified.

You’ve raised some additional questions that I too would like to see discussed in order to gain alternative insights, particularly the one about whether or not ethnic partitioning constitutes racism. I’ve unfortunately only composed half a reply on my own viewpoint and will post the full one when complete.

That says everything to me with regard to your hidden perspectives. I suspect your perspective may be hidden even from you. Please contemplate what you meant by that statement.

At any rate, the comment you made about Asians doing better in America because of their belief in education already showed me that you believe in the concept of ‘race’ itself. I don’t. I think race is a fiction, something that people conjure up and imagine–it doesn’t actually exist as a real thing. Racism however is real.

Since I don’t want to quote you out of context, here are your following lines where you explain your above comment:
“Sometimes when the shoe is on the other foot, the same human tribalist, group dynamic, communalist attitudes cause the same behaviour in reverse.”

I have no problems with that. Racism breeds racism. It can breed nothing else–that is the problem with it. But to consider an oppressed group to be more oppressive in its racism than the group that perpetrated the racial oppression in the first place–that really dents your credibility.

Let me also say that it is sheer arrogance for you to assume that the SL Tamil group should come to the reconciliation table with good faith, given what they have had as a population to endure for the past 60 years, given too that they are now in IDP camps, guilty of being war victims, that even those not in the camps need passes to travel anywhere in the country. For these past 60 years, only one thing kept them alive–money from abroad; not from their gracious fellow citizens. On what grounds do you justify your demand for good faith from them?

I will no longer trouble myself to share contemporary race theory with you. You can look it up yourself. Just click on ‘racism wikipedia’–that will bring you up to date on how racism has been thought about and theorised since the 1960s . Take a good look at where your concept of “motivation” features in racism theory.

Perhaps you’d like to tell me too on what basis the Sri Lankan demand to break away from the British empire was not racist, whereas presumably the Tamil desire to secede from Sri Lanka is racist.

I don’t want you to say both groups are equally guilty of racism. It might be better to say that [too many?] members of both groups are guilty, in various ways, of racism. And it’s hardly just those two groups.

Again, I’m not equating the racist actions of members of both communities in numerical terms or in severity of effect. Clearly people with more power have greater scope for indulging their racism.

Finally, a word of advice. Don’t go looking for hidden political intent behind every difference of perspective. If we can’t assume good faith (if only as a working theory) in a risk-free forum like this, then what chance is there for reconciliation in the country?

Your view of racism does not annoy me – I don’t often get annoyed by differences of opinion or perspective. But I believe you are wrong. I don’t think that word means what you think it does.

I’m aware of the academic and populist opinion that ties racism so closely to power, but it seems to me that you can only sustain such a claim by totally externalising racism – and that seems to evacuate the core meaning of the term. Maybe agenda is clouding analysis.

You cannot divorce racism from attitudes, motivations, prejudices, and intolerance. If you want a term that simply means actions that harm another [racial] group, you’ll need to come up with a different word for it. This one is taken.

You say: “Racism is (and must be) defined in terms of access to power if it is to have any analytical cache. Any community that has the reins to power, the ability to impact on another community is the one with the capacity for racism.”

No. You can analyse motivations and attitudes as well as behaviour – and there are a number of well constructed experiments in the social sciences that attempt just that. And in the case of racism, there is value in understanding both how it is worked out in a power play, and what psychological and social landscape underlies it.

Nor can you limit the capacity for racism to a community with the reins to power. You hinted at that yourself when you mentioned power relationships on a smaller scale. Power is not a unitary concept. There are many sorts of power, and people participate in a myriad of power relationships. Nobody is always and only the victim, or always and only the perpetrator of racial discrimination. It’s not like “Asimov’s laws of robotics”, whereby every robot must put his safety before that of any human. It’s complex.

This truth is summed up in the saying that there is no oppressor like the oppressed. Sometimes when the shoe is on the other foot, the same human tribalist, group dynamic, communalist attitudes cause the same behaviour in reverse.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If it’s racism when a person in a position of power makes blanket derogatory generalisations about a whole race and, because of their intolerance, acts or speaks against individuals or the group — then it must be racism when a person not in a position of power also makes similar unwarranted generalisations, and displays intolerance.

The proposition that it’s only racism when the powerful do it fails.

It fails linguistically – the dictionary (any dictionary) includes attitudes in the definition of racism.

It fails in fairness. If it is racism to make unwarranted derogatory generalisations about whole racial groups, then it doesn’t matter whether it’s an employer saying “you can’t trust a Tamil” or a potential employee saying “you can’t trust the Sinhalese” – the attitudes are the same.

Perhaps most seriously it fails pragmatically and rhetorically – there can be no meeting of the minds and no real dialogue if one community insists that its racist attitudes somehow “don’t count”, because of a relative lack of power.

You cannot expect someone to agree that they are fully wrong and you are fully right, when there are manifest faults on both sides. And what conflict has ever had fault on only one side? Such agenda-led analysis can only hold back dialogue and understanding.

It’s wrong morally, as well as factually.

A majority community which refuses to employ members of the minority is being racist–it is using its dominant numbers to exercise racial power, to deprive minorities of jobs in a way that would cripple them, given the disparity in number. But minority communities hiring only their own kind are not being racist because they can’t dent the majority community’s access to jobs. They are merely attempting to redress their own group’s marginalization.

The Tamil demand (separate from LTTE) to secede in order to escape domination by a powerful ethnic group is not in itself a racist demand (although it is based on race)–though it might well be an unwise demand. The majority community’s demand that they have control of the entire polity, and that all the land should come under their control is most definitely about attaining racial power at the expense of other groups–and is thus racist. If they show intent to share power (in a real way), then it would not be racist.

The LTTE demand for a Tamil Eelam however is racist because here a minority group was using military power and violence to enforce their will on another group. Obviously a minority gang beating up members of a majority group is being racist.

So that’s why I say racism must always be defined in relation to the possession of power and the intent to dominate.

But yes, as you note, there are class issues too. In the US, there are oppressed whites–oppressed by class. But that does not mean that Black oppression does not take place on a racial dimension–even the Black elite have relatively less political power. With affirmative action programmes and progressive education, however, this situation has been improving.

You can verify whether there is racial oppression in a country (for eg, between American Blacks and Whites) by comparing rates of performance between the groups, their rate of political representation, representation on the cultural scene, access to good education and other facilities, etc. You can also verify it through their representations in the media. For eg, Rev. White, the black pastor, was villified for saying that 9/11 was God’s punishment on Anglo American society and their imperialism. Yet for many years, white preachers had been saying exactly the same thing in those terms without being decried by their society. (In fact, Rev. White had been quoting a white preacher in his speech but that attribution was edited out in the media representations). Why the dissimilarity in response and treatment?

You don’t want to consider race (and racism) as a determinant of a group’s performance, yet you suggest that Asians fare better in US because they believe in education. Are you saying all Asians believe in education (as opposed to other races, say Blacks)? Isn’t that racialising? Rather does it not have to do with the circumstances, the history of their presence in US? The Asians who migrated there were looking for a better life–they went in search of economic betterment. So obviously, they made the effort. There are lots of other Asians who value being in their ‘native’ land, and education and success are not their priorities. It is also a matter of class–immigration policies attracted the educated Asian classes to America. Blacks however were abducted to be slaves in US. You need to consider the racial history of their migration and the whole history of Anglo racism against them to consider their performance in the US. From where were Blacks supposed to develop a culture of belief in education when education was denied to them until relatively recently?

With regard to the SL situation, the two battling groups, Sinhalese and Tamils are not racially different but rather ethnically different. They perceive themselves however as being of two different races. So issues of racism are relevant. You want me to say the two groups are equally guilty of racism. To say so would mean failing to distinguish between a majority community’s will as a group to dominate another group and the minority group’s will to resist such domination. In addition, the majority group has a state behind it and is armed, whereas the minority group has been disarmed and enjoys no political power. How anyone can equate them is way beyond my ken. I can only speculate that there is political intent behind such a false equation.

I guess I’ve answered your question. Only the first statement is racist. The other is not if the decision to split a nation along racial lines is aimed at giving each group a fair share of power and access to rights and autonomy. It may be ‘racialist’ but not racist.