Othering, the fear of difference and a call to celebrate it.

 This is written in response to Zia Haider Rahman's article 'Oh, so now I'm Bangladeshi'  
(http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/opinion/oh-so-now-im-bangladeshi.html?mwrsm=Facebook&_r=1).

I read it, thought about it and ran a long way away from the original starting point with it. 

I am sorry if any wording is deemed offensive, it isn't meant to be in anyway. At the end of the day my main point is every human being should be celebrated, and not judged on something they have no power over. 

The ‘other’, it’s a dangerous concept isn’t it. This incessant need of humans to label differences, to provide strength to our individualities, to be deemed normal.

I read an article this morning. It was shared by an incredible woman who I went to a May Ball with in my final year. This article, ‘Oh, so now I’m Bangladeshi?’ by Zia Haider Rahman, was published in 2016, yes 2016. Yet it is still about a subconscious racism. The line “What more is it do you want of us? To be white? To be you?” couldn’t make this clearer. While we may not have racial-hate-statements written across the walls, we might not live in an age where schools, hospitals and buses are segregated by skin colour, we might even be in an age when to a naive white girl Racism no longer exists; yet it does, just now it is more hidden. It is hidden, but not absent, it is there, in all the authority of classifications of every job application, reward, and university application. While that may be to “encourage equal quotas”, how is that any less racist. The lack of racism will be the day when skin colour and heritage are not a topic of conversation, or a rite of passage. It will be a day where colour is not seen as a sign of difference but an optional topic of interest.

So this article is, in very simple terms, based around the announcement of Zira as a judge for the PEN panel. The announcement, as seen below, points out not only the country of birth, but the education and working history of said judge:

“Born in rural Bangladesh, Zia Haider Rahman was educated at Balliol College, Oxford, and at Cambridge, Munich and Yale Universities. He has worked as an investment banker on Wall Street and as an international human rights lawyer.”

Now I remember reading that announcement and had one question, “why does it say where he was born?” To me Zia is qualified to be a judge on his incredible achievements. Those achievements are the fact that he went to some of world’s leading universities, that he has worked as a banker and then qualified as a human rights lawyer. Those are achievements, others could be that he has published influential novels and written articles. They are the achievements that we cared about.

Now if it had said that he was born into poverty in rural Bangladesh and went through the Bangladesh school system, receiving a scholarship for Oxford, then yes that would also be impressive. But it doesn’t say that, it says “Born in rural Bangladesh”. The first four words you read about this man are completely unnecessary but could come with many presumptions on his character, appearance and history. I do not know if he came from a poor village, or his family were wealthy land owners; I do not know if he went to a local school, had no schooling or was sent to boarding school internationally. I don’t even know if actually he was born in Bangladesh on a two week holiday to the country. I know nothing about him from that statement, the only things that statement could provide would be that he was born in a country, which by some would be deemed as less normal than the UK, US, or wherever the other judges were born.

Because, lets question this, would they bother putting those four words in for me if I had been in that judging panel? “Born in rural England, Blah studied at Cambridge….” The answer is no, but what presumptions would you make if they had? That I had a good schooling? That I grew up on a farm? That I spent hours ensuring that all my extra-curricular and academic activities would enable me to go to Cambridge, from around age 4?

Probably some of those and not others, because that is what that statement welcomes: presumptions and othering. Othering based on his heritage, an invitation to ignore or excuse his other achievements.

I thought that one day in my life time we would realise that othering people does not do us any favours. Judging someone on their skin colour, heritage, religion or country of birth is completely redundant. What does that really tell you about someone? Maybe that they celebrate some different holidays, maybe that they have been brought up with different customs or beliefs, maybe that they wear a different foundation: but at the end of the day every person on this Earth is a human being. We all breathe, eat (if lucky), love, hate, cry, smile, laugh, learn, and think. We are all inherently the same. The processes in our bodies are the same. So why do we need to place people as different? More than that, why do we need to publicise some differences and not others?

We have come to cross-roads in history. This year is a year where things can change. If you watched the ‘Queen at 90’, you will see that this woman has seen many disasters based on difference, and I wonder did she one day hope that those in her Commonwealth would not be judged on their differences, would not need to be labelled in a judging panel or on official forms? She has seen World War Two, an age when six million, yes six million, Jewish people were killed in the Holocaust. If we included their fellow camp inhabitants, for example those who were disabled or homosexual, we are bringing that figure to eleven million. That is a third of all the people living in Oceania at the moment.

That should have been a warning to the world to the effects of othering. But then the apartheid happened, also in the Queen’s lifetime. 46 years where Black and White people were separated on the basis of their skin colour. That is one difference which isn’t a sign of anything but a different amount of melanin in ones’ skin.

She is now living through two disasters based on difference. One the refugee crisis where 59.5 million people are currently displaced due to conflicts all over the world. 59.5 million people who are causing fear in receiving countries, because guess what: they are different. What is so different? The fact that they are running for their lives, or the fact they haven’t come from the same country, might not look the same, might have a different interesting history to talk about (like the different history of your colleagues or classmates)? Then we have ISIS: something else entirely, or is it the same? ISIS has managed to recruit over 30,000 foreigners. How? Many survivors reports say it is because they wanted to belong, they were being victimised for their religion at home… the reasons could be endless and sometimes not understood.

But can we justify this all with one thing: difference is dangerous?

Yes, that is a justification for all these crimes, right? difference. That difference is inherently dangerous? But let’s make that a bit more specific.

Difference is not dangerous, the othering of difference is dangerous.

At the end of the day every human being is the same. God made us all the same, hey he even sent us the best warning we could have asked for when Jesus Christ, aka our saviour, our Lord, in many peoples opinion the greatest human being to ever step on this Earth, was put to death, for guess what, being different.

There are three quotes from the bible which could maybe back this up:

When you next argue that you don’t want immigrants or refugees in your country:

“…God… made every nation of men to live all over the earth…” (Acts 17:24, 26).

When you next try to justify this fear, or the crimes of the past, or the labelling of people as Bangladeshi-British in every document, or you try to justify a child crying because they are being bullied for ginger hair and freckles, or try to explain to albino child why they are being hunted for their body parts (in some countries in the world), aka justify these because of difference:

“So God created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God; He created them male and female” (Genesis 1:27)

When you try to say that every human on this Earth does not deserve the same, remember that Jesus died in order to provide forgiveness and grace for every single living thing on this planet:

“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:19-20).

The only biological difference between us is male and female, and that is not a reason for discrimination either (another time...). The things that make us are our actions: like Zia’s incredible achievements. So let’s not justify othering any more, let’s not repeat the mistakes of our predecessors. Let’s not fear difference, but celebrate it, embrace it. Othering is dangerous, acceptance is key.

As Said said:

“Past and present inform each other, each implies the other and  ... each co-exists with the other.” (Said, 1994)

So let’s not use this as justification for racism or othering, but instead look at it as a reason that we can live differently today, without discrimination, and view each person’s past and experiences as an optional topic of interest, rather than a topic of judgement.

Thank you, and for those of you who would read that as a prayer, Amen.