Contents |
After the 1971 Indo-Pak War, non-Bengalis, specifically Biharis and other Muslim refugees from India suffered from active ethnic discrimination.[1] They are not considered full-fledged citizens of Bangladesh and until recently were not allowed to vote. The Bangladesh government now allows Biharis born after 1971 to vote in elections to the legislature.[2]
In 1991-92, Bhutan deported roughly 100,000 ethnic Nepalis (Lhotshampa). In March 2008, this population began a multiyear resettlement to third countries including the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Australia.[3] At present, the United States is working towards resettling more than 60,000 of these refugees in the US as third country settlement programme.[4]
Brunei, is a monarchy and a very conservative Islamic country. Racism is widespread in Brunei (although it is usually a less sensitive issue in the country), especially towards people of Indian origin who are referred to as 'Kalings' (a variation of Keling in nearby Malaysia and Singapore). People of other ethnicities are also subject to a range of discriminatory laws that give preference to ethnic Malays with regard to health, education and business ownership.[5] People who are permanent residents of Brunei (referred to as 'pink ic holders') are officially regarded as stateless and are not recognised by the government. This could be considered a form of racism as these residents are more likely to be of Chinese ethnicity and face a multitude of problems when they attempt to enter a foreign country.
Ne Win's rise to power in 1962 and his relentless persecution of "resident aliens" (immigrant groups not recognised as citizens of the Union of Burma) led to an exodus of some 300,000 Burmese Indians from racial discrimination and particularly after wholesale nationalisation of private enterprise a few years later in 1964.[6][7]
In 1978, a military operation was conducted against the Rohingya Muslims in Arakan, called the King Dragon operation, causing 300,000 refugees to flee to neighboring Bangladesh. In 1991, following a crackdown on Rohingyas, 250,000 refugees took shelter in the Cox's Bazar district of neighbouring Bangladesh. Despite earlier efforts by the UN, the vast majority of Rohingya refugees have remained in Bangladesh, unable to return because of the regime in Burma. They now face problems in Bangladesh where they do not receive support from the government.[8]
Muslims are stereotyped in the society as "cattle killers" (referring to the cattle sacrifice festival of Eid Al Adha in Islam).
The racist slur of "Kala" ('color' which was developed in colonial era from British people referring to Indian soldier brought from India to Burma. Later Burmese people kept referring to Indian people without understanding the English term. So Burmese people mistakenly developed their own term of referring British as "Kala Phyu" means 'color white' since at that time, British people came to Burma from India where they had well colonized ahead. However, to some degree, there is some negative sense associated with the term "Kala" while using it.) used against perceived "Indians" has especially negative connotations when referring to Burmese Muslims.[9]
Note that overwhelmingly majority of people do not know where "Kala" term came from. So this term was associated with many objects associated with British (e.g. "Kala Htine" directly means 'color + sit' which referred to a chair since The furniture 'chair' was not used in Burma before colonized by British. Only bench was used.)
The Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia disproportionately targeted ethnic minority groups. These included ethnic Chinese, Vietnamese and Thai. In the late 1960s, an estimated 425,000 ethnic Chinese lived in Cambodia, but by 1984, as a result of Khmer Rouge genocide and emigration, only about 61,400 Chinese remained in the country. The Cham, a Muslim minority who are the descendants of migrants from the old state of Champa, were forced to adopt the Khmer language and customs. A Khmer Rouge order stated that henceforth “The Cham nation no longer exists on Kampuchean soil belonging to the Khmers” (U.N. Doc. A.34/569 at 9). Only about half of the Cham survived.[10][11][12]
For decades some African students in China have complained of hostility and prejudice. Their complaints regarding their treatment were largely ignored until 1988-9, when "students rose up in protest against what they called 'Chinese apartheid'". African officials, who had until then ignored the problem, took notice of the issue. The Organization of African Unity issued an official protest, and the organization's chairman, Mali's president Moussa Traoré, went on a fact-finding mission to China. The issue was so severe that, according to a Guardian 1989 Third World Report titled "'Chinese apartheid' threatens links with Africa", "'Chinese apartheid', as the African students call it, could threaten Beijing's entire relationship with the continent."
Anti-Japanese sentiment in China is an issue with old roots. Japan started off like other Western powers by annexing land from China towards the end of the Qing Dynasty. Dissatisfaction with the settlement and the Twenty-One Demands by the Japanese government led to a severe boycott of Japanese products in China. Bitterness in China persists over the atrocities of the Second Sino-Japanese War, such as the Nanjing Massacre and Japan's post-war actions. Today, textbook revisionism and censorship remain contentious issues.
In a population of almost 7 million [4] Hong Kong has gained a reputation as international city, while remaining predominantly Chinese. This multi-culturalism has raised issues of racial and sex discrimination, particularly among the 350,000 ethnic minorities such as Nepalese, Indians, Indonesians, Pakistanis and Filipinos, who have long established minority communities since the founding days of the former colony or have come to Hong Kong recently to work as domestic workers. For example, Filipino females are sometimes addressed by the degratory term "Bun Mui" and male Filipino "Bun Jai" (literally, Filipino girl and Filipino boy, respectively). In 2003, the number of complaints filed with the body handling discrimination issues, the Equal Opportunities Commission [5] was up by 31 percent.
A race discrimination bill has been demanded by human rights groups for the last 10 years, and the government has been accused of putting the issue on the back burner.
Last December 3, 2006 was the first time a drafted bill was released onto the Legislative Council, and is expected to be passed before the end of 2008. However, the bill is criticized to be "too conservative" [6]. The exclusion of mainland Chinese migrants has also been a source of controversy, with the government claiming that they are not considered to be of a different race. Another issue of the bill has been of language instruction in schools.
The earliest rejection of discrimination spiritually, was made as far back as the Hindu sacred text of Bhagavada Gita, which says that no person, no matter what, is barred from enlightenment. Even early Hindu texts such as the Rig Veda discourage the abuse of outcastes. The text reads, "Indra, you lifted up the outcast who was oppressed, you glorified the blind and the lame." (Rg-Veda 2:13:12).[13] The caste system was equivalent to division of labour and a Shudra's son (the lowest caste) could become a Brahmin. But later this system became hereditary and a Shudra's son would remain a Shudra. During the British Raj, racist views against Indians based on the systemic scientific racism practiced in Europe at the time were popularized. Views include dividing linguistic groups into ethnic "classes" (see Historical definitions of races in India),[7].The first Prime minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, wrote
| “ | "we in India have known racialism in all its forms ever since the commencement of British rule. The idea of a master race is inherent in imperialism ... India as a nation and Indians as individuals were subjected to insult, humiliation and contemptuous treatment. The English were an imperial race, we were told, with the God-given right to govern us and keep us in subjection; if we protested we were reminded of the 'tiger qualities of an imperial race'. | ” |
"[14]
It is claimed by some activists [8] that casteism practised in India is a form of racism, but this is debated by those who believe that casteism has nothing to do with physical attributes, unlike racism. At the UN world conference on racism (August 31 - September 7, 2001) the Indian Government opposed the discussion of caste in the conference, saying that "the caste issue is not the same as racism" [9].
Allegations that caste amounts to race were addressed and rejected by B.R. Ambedkar, an advocate for Dalit rights and critic of untouchability. He wrote that "The Brahmin of Punjab is racially of the same stock as the Chamar (Dalit) of Punjab, and that the "Caste system does not demarcate racial division. Caste system is a social division of people of the same race",[15]
Such allegations have also been rejected by many sociologists such as Andre Béteille, who writes that treating caste as a form of racism is "politically mischievous" and worse, "scientifically nonsense" since there is no discernible difference in the racial characteristics between Brahmins and Scheduled Castes. He writes that "Every social group cannot be regarded as a race simply because we want to protect it against prejudice and discrimination".[16] In addition, the view of the caste system as "static and unchanging" (which would indicate a form of racial discrimination) has been disputed by many scholars. Sociologists describe how the perception of the caste system as a static and textual stratification has given way to the perception of the caste system as a more processual, empirical and contextual stratification. Others have applied theoretical models to explain mobility and flexibility in the caste system in India.[17] According to these scholars, groups of lower-caste individuals could seek to elevate the status of their caste by attempting to emulate the practices of higher castes.
Sociologist M. N. Srinivas has also debated the question of rigidity in Caste.[18][19] For details see sanskritization.
Pakistani-American sociologist Ayesha Jalal also rejects these allegations. In her book, "Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia", she writes that "As for Hinduism, the hierarchical principles of the Brahmanical social order have always been contested from within Hindu society, suggesting that equality has been and continues to be both valued and practiced."[20]
Historically, many Hindu reform movements have actively combated casteism and the practice of untouchability (segregation of the lower castes). In order to curb the practice of caste-based discrimination, numerous laws, including constitutional laws, have been passed in India outlawing casteist discrimination.[21]Special quotas are provided to the lower castes in access to schools and jobs. Lower caste political parties have achieved increasing prominence in the Indian political landscape since India's independence. The public practice of casteism has diminished significantly among the large urban and cosmopolitan classes in India. Nonetheless, the fight to end casteism is an uphill struggle, especially in rural areas where education and modernity are scarce, and numerous hate crimes have taken place in India that have been attributed to Casteism.
India's treatment of its lower-class Dalits has been described by UNESCO as "India's hidden apartheid".[22] According to Rajeev Dhavan, of India's leading English-language newspaper The Hindu, "casteism is India's apartheid which will continue in its most vicious and persistent forms for decades to come."[23] In the Indian caste system, a Dalit, often called an untouchable, is a person who lay outside the Indian Caste System. Historically, Hindu Dalits were forbidden to worship in temples and Muslim Dalits forbidden in mosques [10]. Dalits who converted to Christianity are frequently discriminated against by upper-caste Catholic priests and nuns.[24][11] The majority of rural Dalits still live in segregation and experience atrocities to the scale of 110,000 registered cases a year according to 2005 statistics.[25]
However, such allegations of apartheid are regarded by academic sociologists as a political epithet, since apartheid implies state sponsored discrimination, and no such thing exists in India. Anti-dalit prejudice and discrimination is a social malaise that exists primarily in rural areas, where small societies can track the caste lineage of individuals and discriminate accordingly. Sociologists Kevin Reilly, Stephen Kaufman, Angela Bodino, while being critical of casteism, conclude that modern India does not practice any "apartheid" since there is no state sanctioned discrimination.[26] They write that Casteism in India is presently "not apartheid. In fact, untouchables, as well as tribal people and members of the lowest castes in India benefit from broad affirmative action programmes and are enjoying greater political power."[26]
There are places where a father would kill his own child if he/she marry outside the caste ( Honour killing ). There are also places where 2 separate drinking glass is used. Hate between different language speaking group is very visible, even in cosmopolitan cities of the country.
See also Jakarta Riots of May 1998 and Anti-Chinese legislation in Indonesia.
A number of discriminatory laws against Chinese Indonesians were enacted by the government of Indonesia. In 1959, President Soekarno approved PP 10/1959 that forced Chinese Indonesians to close their businesses in rural areas and relocate into urban areas. Moreover, political pressures in the 1970s and 1980s restricted the role of the Chinese Indonesian in politics, academics, and the military. As a result, they were thereafter constrained professionally to becoming entrepreneurs and professional managers in trade, manufacturing, and banking. In the 1960s, following the failed alleged Communist coup attempt in 1965, there was a strong sentiment against the Chinese Indonesians who were accused of being Communist collaborators. In 1998, Indonesia riots over higher food prices and rumors of hoarding by merchants and shopkeepers often degenerated into anti-Chinese attacks. There were also racism against religion & believe wide across the country, especially between Islam and Christian.[27]
Amnesty International has estimated more than 100,000 Papuans, one-sixth of the population, have died as a result of government-sponsored violence against West Papuans,[28] while others had previously specified much higher death tolls.[29] The 1990s saw Indonesia accelerate its Transmigration program, under which hundreds of thousands of Javanese and Sumatran migrants were resettled to Papua over a ten-year period. Prior to Indonesian rule, the Asian population was estimated at 16,600. Critics suspect that the Transmigration program's purpose is to tip the balance of the province's population from the heavily Melanesian Papuans toward western Indonesians, thus further consolidating Indonesian control.[30]
As late as August 2010, UN's anti-racism panel found The Islamic republic of Iran discriminating and practicing wide racism against Arabs, Kurds, other ethnic minorities. The United Nations panel said "Arabs, Kurds and other minorities in Iran face discrimination because of their ethnicity." [31] The U.N. urged Iran to tackle racism on Arab, Azeri, Balochi, Kurdish communities and some communities of non-citizens.[32]
Organizations such as Amnesty International, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, and the United States Department of State[33] have published reports documenting racial discrimination in Israel.
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) published reports documenting racism in Israel, and the 2007 report suggested that racism in the country was increasing.[34] One analysis of the report summarized it: "Over two-thirds Israeli teen believe Arabs to be less intelligent, uncultured and violent. Over a third of Israeli teens fear Arabs all together....The report becomes even grimmer, citing the ACRI's racism poll, taken in March 2007, in which 50% of Israelis taking part said they would not live in the same building as Arabs, will not befriend, or let their children befriend Arabs and would not let Arabs into their homes."[35] The 2008 report from ACRI says the trend of increasing racism is continuing.[36]
Koreans tend to equate nationality or citizenship with membership in a single, homogeneous ethnic group or "race" (minjok, in Korean). Discrimination and ostracism of biracial children is ubiquitous in Korean society.[37] A common language and culture also are viewed as important elements in Korean identity. Both North Korea and South Korea are among the world's most ethnically homogeneous nations. South Korean schools have been criticised for hiring only white teachers who apply to teach English, because Koreans regard fair skin color as representative of "American" or "English"-ness.[38] Also, Koreans have discriminating words for people with different nationality, even for North Koreans.
South Korea has only granted refugee status to 60 people in its entire history. In comparison, South Africa has accepted over 35,000 refugees.[39]
Racism and hostility towards English teachers is a central theme of David S. Wills' controversial 2011 novel, The Dog Farm.[40]
In 2005, a United Nations report expressed concerns about racism in Japan and that government recognition of the depth of the problem was not total.[41][42] The author of the report, Doudou Diène (Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights), concluded after a nine-day investigation that racial discrimination and xenophobia in Japan primarily affects three groups: national minorities, Latin Americans of Japanese descent, mainly Japanese Brazilians, and foreigners from "poor" countries.[43]
Japan accepted just 16 refugees in 1999, while the United States took in 85,010 for resettlement, according to the UNHCR. New Zealand, which is 30 times smaller than Japan, accepted 1,140 refugees in 1999. Just 305 persons were recognized as refugees by Japan from 1981, when Japan ratified the U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, to 2002.[44][45] Former Prime Minister Taro Aso called Japan a "one race" nation.[46]
Ainu people are an ethnic group indigenous to Hokkaidō, northern Honshū, the Kuril Islands, much of Sakhalin, and the southernmost third of the Kamchatka peninsula. As Japanese settlement expanded, the Ainu were pushed northward, until by the Meiji period they were confined by the government to a small area in Hokkaidō, in a manner similar to the placing of American Indians on reservations.[47]
Malaysia is a multi–ethnic country, with Malays making up the majority—close to 52% of the 28 million population. About 30% of the population are Chinese Malaysians (Malaysians of Chinese descent) and Indian Malaysians (Malaysians of Indian descent) comprise about 8% of the population.[48] There are also a very small minority of aborigines whose ancestors or Orang Asli arrived in what is today Malaysia well over 7,000 years before the Malays arrived from what is today Indonesia roughly 3,000 years ago. The book "Contesting Malayness - Malay Identity Across Boundaries" edited by Timothy P. Barnard reflects the views of anthropologists that there is no such race as the "Malays" to begin with, even if one has since developed in Malaysia. If one follow the original migration of a certain group of southern Chinese of 6,000 years ago, some moved to Taiwan (today's Taiwanese aborigines are their descendents), then to the Philippines and later to Borneo (roughly 4,500 years ago) (today's Dayak and other groups). These ancient people also split with some heading to Sulawesi and others progressing into Java, and Sumatra. The final migration was to the Malayan Peninsula roughly 3,000 years ago. A sub-group from Borneo moved to Champa in Vietnam roughly 4,500 years ago. Interestingly, the Champa group eventually moved to present day Kelantan in Malaysia. There are also traces of the Dong Song and HoaBinh migration from Vietnam and Cambodia. There was also the Southern Thai migration, from what we know as Pattani today. All these groups share DNA and linguistic origins traceable to Taiwan, if not to southern China. Yet the Malay and Chinese (and also Indian) communities in Malaysia today appear at times at odds with each other given the polarisation caused by various policies under the Bumiputera policy.
There is a big problem with racism in Malaysia, it's mostly in the sense of positive discrimination for the Malay majority and the Bumiputera status (cheaper houses, lower interest rates, easier academic access and so on). Economic policies designed to favour Bumiputeras (basically ethnic Malays, but there are some exceptions), including affirmative action in public education, were implemented in the 1970s in order to defuse inter-ethnic tensions following the May 13 Incident in 1969. However, these policies have not been fully effective in eradicating poverty among rural Bumiputeras and have further caused a backlash especially from Chinese and Indian minorities. The policies are enshrined in the Malaysian constitution and questioning them is technically illegal.
Both major ethnic groups, Malays and Chinese, have their own spheres of control and power. UMNO, a race-based party and the ruling political party since Malaysia's independence from Britain, depends on the majority Malay population for votes by using laws that give Malays priority over other races in areas such as employment. UMNO also promotes ketuanan Melayu, which is the idea that the ethnic Malays or Bumiputeras should get special privileges in Malaysia. The Malays dominate in politics at both national and state levels, the civil service, military and security forces. The Chinese have traditionally dominated in the economy and live in large numbers in urban areas of Malaysia like Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Malacca, Johor Bahru and Kuching.
The Malay-controlled government ensures that all Bumiputras of Malay origin are given preferential treatment when it comes to the number of student places in Government universities, they are also given 7% discounts for new houses purchased by them, special Malay reserve land in most housing settlements, burial plots in most urban areas for the deceased Bumiputeras while the rest have to be cremated at such locations or pay premium prices, that all key government positions to be held by Malays including most sporting associations, a minimum of a 30% Malay Bumiputera equity to be held in Listed Companies, full funding for mosques and Islamic places of worship, special high earning interest trust funds for Bumiputera Malays, special share allocation for new share applications for Bumiputera Malays, making the Malay language a compulsory examination paper to pass with such high emphasis given to it. However, recently the government have decided to made 45 percent of overseas scholarship to non-Malays.
The lack of meritocracy in the Malaysian education system is frightening, the problem is it creates more disparity between various groups in Malaysia. Even school text books have been criticised as racist. “Interlok” is a novel used in schools, with Chinese groups today condemning its depiction of Chinese characters as greedy, opium-smoking lechers keen to exploit Malays for profit. Indian community earlier complained over the novel’s use of the word “pariah”. Chinese community have called to drop the “racist” book from schools. Chinese associations said the book was not only offensive to Indians but Chinese as well, as it depicted the character Kim Lock as a “miserly opium addict and callous adulterer” and his son, Cing Huat, as “cunning, greedy, unscrupulous and someone who would happily sell his daughters”. “‘Interlok’ propagates the ideology of ketuanan Melayu. In our considered opinion, this novel is not only unhealthy but an insidious poison,” complained the Chinese associations. They added,“‘Interlok’ conveys the central message that Chinese, Indian and other minorities are second-class citizens in addition to perpetuating the divisive notion of a host community (the Malays) versus foreigners (‘bangsa asing’ Cina dan India).” The groups also condemned the “major thread” in the book, which depicts the Chinese “cheating and oppressing” Malays or as “nasty and immoral” communist guerrillas. The statement was signed by the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH), LLG Cultural Development Centre, Malaysian-China Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of Chinese Associations Johor, the Penang Chinese Town Hall and 40 others, including the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST), Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM) and several Indian organisations. “Interlok” was written by Abdullah Hussain in 1967 and chronicles the daily struggles of the Malays, Chinese and Indians in pre-independence British Malaya.
Whether in education or in other arenas, Malays get many easy breaks and advantages solely based on their race, which in turn makes them lazier as they are not required to work so hard as the other races to achieve the same thing. The Bumiputra policy was initially well-intentioned, now it's out of date and it is doing more harm than good for Malaysia. Amongst Malaysians, the economic power of the Chinese community is exaggerated and the laziness of the Malays is overstated. But these ethnic stereotypes persist in Malaysia and hinder national unity efforts.
Malays have all the easy breaks the Bumiputera policy gives them, from the education system, through into the work place. The civil service and security forces in Malaysia are heavily dominated by Malays. Many 'mostly Malay' companies are like the civil service, they work shorter hours, do little work and when one expects them to do some work they do everything to get out of it. Mostly it's not their fault, it's the systems fault, the government, the establishment, the society, the culture rather than the individual, but every individual could work to change it, but due to the problem itself, they wíll not. The work place is still fairly segregated too, many big companies in Malaysia are 'mostly Malay'. For the small start up companies, they fight hard for business, and of these those people making money, those people taking risks, only very few of those companies are Malay companies. Most of them are Chinese and Indian companies. The Malay start-ups only start up when they can get a lucrative government contract that they do not have to work hard on through a contact. The way tenders and proposals are done in Malaysia for the big companies, generally it's who one knows, or how much one bribes, not who does the best work and has the skillset for the job. This is changing somewhat slowly.
Many cannot deal with racism in Malaysia and leave for other countries like Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, U.S.A. and elsewhere. Many talented people in Malaysia leave because of this exact problem. For smart Malays, they have two options: they can use their skills abroad, or remain in Malaysia, learn to abuse the system and with their Bumiputera status, make a lot of money. Many Chinese, in their late twenties or thirties, also go overseas to earn more, and have serious qualms about coming back given the situation in Malaysia.
The Chinese and Indians have to work much harder to get the same results, by doing this they are also improving themselves. Many Malays however find that they can sit back a bit. When these groups reach the corporate world, even though the non-Bumiputeras have been at a disadvantage, they actually often end up better because of the need to work additionally hard. In the end the Bumiputera system hurts many in Malaysia, including those who use it as a crutch.
The whole political culture is racially-charged because so many issues are seen in racial terms. The larger political parties, UMNO, MCA and MIC in the ruling coalition are all based on race. The media often does not help. Racism appears on the rise in Malaysia despite many Malaysians wishing that the situation would be otherwise.
In 2010, a Malaysian court sentenced a Muslim Malay to just a week in jail and only fined 11 others for a brandishing a cow’s head during a protest against the construction of a Hindu temple. Critics said the light sentences would further strain race relations between the majority Malay Muslims, who make up the majority, and minority Hindu Indians, Chinese as well as Christians of various raaces who complain of discrimination. The 12 were from a group who had marched in August 2009 with the bloodied head of a cow, some stomping on it, to protest a plan to build a Hindu temple in their mainly Muslim neighbourhood. Hindus, who consider the cow to be a sacred animal, were offended and angered.
For Ramadan 2011, television station 8TV had some advertisements featuring a Chinese woman at a Ramadan bazaar. The condescending advertisements were pulled for being racist and the station was expected to apologise. Instead they claimed Ramadan advertisements were an “honest mistake” and went on to claim that the viewers misunderstood the clips. The Ramadan advertisements – released as public service announcements (PSA) – appeared to be stereotyping Chinese people, depicting a socially-inept Chinese woman embarrassing others at a Ramadan bazaar. The clips were withdrawn following an online uproar. Quoting Austrian philosopher Karl Popper, the station said in its Facebook note: “It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.” “The PSAs highlighted the clueless behaviour of a Chinese woman played by an actor in scenes to demonstrate what might embarrass Muslim Malay hawkers and bazaar patrons alike. In one instance, the Chinese woman dressed in a sleeveless singlet, proudly showed her armpits, censored by pixels, to passersby while touching a bunch of bananas. Each PSA was soon followed by a moral lesson, advising viewers on good public behaviour. Some of these messages included: “Do not be greedy and eat in public”. 8TV said that the PSAs were only meant to serve as messages of “respect” for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. The PSAs appeared to target Chinese non-Muslims rather than both Muslims and non-Muslim alike.
A strong anti-Bengali Pakistani regime during the Bangladesh Liberation War were strongly motivated by anti-Bengali racism within the establishment, especially against the Bengali Hindu minority.[49] Discrimination in Pakistan now is mainly based on religion,[50] social status[51] and gender[52]
In the Philippines, preferential treatment were given to Spaniards and Spanish Mestizos during the Spanish colonization of the country. After 1898, control of the islands passed on to the new American overlords, who, together with a new generation of Amerasians, form one of the country's social elite. Up to the present-day, descendants of White colonizers of the country still obtain a positive treatment, while in the entertainment industry, the actors and actresses are overwhelmingly of part-White descent.
Similarly, the status of Filipinos of Chinese descent varied throughout the colonial powers. It is accepted generally, though, that a repressive treatment toward the Chinese were practised by both Filipinos and Spaniards and/or Japanese immigrants and Americans during the colonial period. After independence on 1946, the Chinese quickly assumed some of the top posts in finance and business. There were several repressions against the Chinese, however, such as immigration policies deemed unfair toward migrants from China during President Ramon Magsaysay's term, as well as the limiting of hours for studying Chinese subjects in Chinese schools throughout the country, as promulgated by President Ferdinand Marcos. In addition, as recent as 1992 and 1998, there were several anti-Chinese protests led by Armando Ducat, a Filipino businessman, who claimed that the Chinese rose to the top economic ladder through bribery and extortion. This has not been proven, however. To this day, there are still anti-Chinese sentiments among a minority of the Philippine population, as manifested in Internet forums and periodic public demonstrations. Nevertheless, the Philippines is still considered to be one of the most tolerant Southeast Asian nations.
The Philippines is a multicultural country. The majority of the population is Malayo-Polynesian groups, with small but politically and economically important minorities of Chinese, Spanish, American, Japanese, and Arab descent. The country is also home to an increasing number of immigrants from South Korea, India, Indonesia, Australia, the United Kingdom, and other countries.
The term "pogrom" became commonly used in English after a large-scale wave of anti-Jewish riots swept through south-western Czarist Russia in 1881–1884. A much bloodier wave of pogroms broke out in 1903–1906, leaving an estimated 2,000 Jews dead. By the beginning of the 20th century, most European Jews lived in the so-called Pale of Settlement, the Western frontier of the Russian Empire consisting generally of the modern-day countries of Poland, Lithuania, Belarus and neighboring regions. Many pogroms accompanied the Revolution of 1917 and the ensuing Russian Civil War, an estimated 70,000 to 250,000 civilian Jews were killed in the atrocities throughout the former Russian Empire; the number of Jewish orphans exceeded 300,000.[53][54]
Racism inside Russia is quite a modern post-USSR phenomenon that has been steadily growing in the past decade. In the 2000s, neo-Nazi groups inside Russia have risen to include as many as tens of thousands of people. [12] Racism against the peoples of the Caucasus, Africans, Central Asians and East Asians (Vietnamese, Chinese, etc.) is an ever-increasing problem. [13]
A Pew Global opinion poll showed that 25% of Russians had an unfavorable view of Jews. [14] Racism towards central Asians is said to be widespread.
The last time Singapore had a racial riot was in 1964, but since then things have been tranquil. Four decades after independence from Britain, a whole new generation of Singaporeans has passed out from schools and universities, more argumentative and articulate.
Yet whilst some things change, others seem to remain the same. For as long as anyone can remember, many women in Singapore with dark skin have been regarded by men as undesirable dating or marriage partners, hence one can easily find skin whitening products in stores and advertisements in Singaporean newspapers for skin-whitening products.
People who date (or marry) outside their own ethnic group are often socially shunned, so many Singaporeans prefer to stick to their own kind and are not inclined to reach out to have friends or dating partners of another ethnic group even if they have classmates or colleagues of other ethncity, given the social stigma on dating or marrying outside one's ethnic group.
The reasons for this racism in Singapore are multifold and include:
In contrast, some clubs (typically those founded by expatriates) and Western restaurants are sometimes accused of discriminating against local Singaporeans in favour of Western club members and patrons.
Racism has also widened to include recent Chinese migrants from China. Singaporeans have made insulting remarks about "ugly, rude" Chinese mainlanders who have benefited from Singapore's open-door policy to migrants from China.
In simple terms, Singaporeans have little desire to confront racism. Singapore is dominated by a single ethno-linguistic group to a much greater extent than most western or even middle eastern countries. Whilst not mono-cultural, Singapore is not multi-cultural as other countries like Canada, U.S.A. or France understand it. This in turn means there a perception of being absolutely no economic, social or cultural benefit to combating discrimination, because put bluntly, the group(s) e.g. minority Malays, Indians, Eurasians, Filipinos, Indonesians, Europeans, Jews, etc. that would complain are so much smaller as a proportion of the population, or are only non-citizens, so there is much less willingness on the part of political leaders to tap into their aspirations to earn votes, hence the voices of discrimitated minorities are simply less important in Singapore. A simple gloss that is often used as an easy way out is the phrase "Singapore is a multi-racial society" that appears over and over again in the media and government publications. The phrase is typically used without going beyond or analysing the circumstances of discriminated minorities including their housing, job and income situations. The preference is to deal with expressions of extreme racism, e.g. on web sites, by way of the Sedition Act. This, however, curtails freedom of speech in Singapore.
It is still Chinese-Malay animosity that appears to pose the biggest threat in spite of general inter-racial tolerance. The potential dangers become stark under the threat of possible Jemaah Islamiah bombings in Singapore, which could result, it is feared, in some kind of a backlash against innocent Malay Muslims. The government has put in place plans involving religious and community leaders of all races that will mitigate race violence if the bombs do go off. A Racial Harmony Day is held every year. Schools and Housing Development Board housing estates enforce ethnic quotas based on the race populations to prevent racial enclaves. The system ensures the majority Chinese live with a certain ratio of Malays and Indians and vice-versa. As a result, children grow up with at least some racial mixing both at school and their residential blocks. For many years, community leaders have been organising cross-visits to celebrate each other's cultural and religious festivals. However, the result has not eradicated idiotic race remarks frequently made by young people who believe that the Internet and free expressions give them the licence to say what they want. A number of young bloggers and commentators have been charged under the Sedition Act for making disparaging remarks about race and religion. Typically they contain anti-Malay and anti-Muslim comments. Insulting words would be used to describe Malays, satirised their attitudes, social customs and religious prohibitions. Some more extreme views include suggestions to blow up Muslim holy sites and eliminate Malays. Hate messages have become a norm amongst young Singaporean net users, a significant number of whom make up the bigots of bloggersphere.
The Nationality Law of the Republic of China has been criticized[55] for its methods of determining which immigrants get citizenship.
The Sino-Vietnamese War resulted in the discrimination and consequent migration of Vietnam's ethnic Chinese. Many of these people fled as "boat people". In 1978-79, some 450,000 ethnic Chinese left Vietnam by boat as refugees (many officially encouraged and assisted) or were expelled across the land border with China.[56]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||