Turbans, tabouli, and identity politics

I’d like to start out by thanking Quebec Premier Pauline Marois for first inspiring the column I published last week in Métro. All the recent talk about religious headgear worn by soccer players made me decide to publish it. During the last provincial election she relied heavily on identity politics with her talk of a creating a secular charter. The charter proposes a ban on religious symbols – except of course the crucifix which she claimed was a cultural symbol.

She is certainly not the first politician to play the identity card. It happens regularly in the US and in countries all over the world, especially in those with large immigrant populations.

Full disclosure (and I hope this doesn’t cost me readers): I am not a religious man and I am frankly disturbed by how a) we treat those of other faiths in the name of God, and b) how women in particular are treated in some religions. Religion is important in many ways. It gives people a sense of meaning to their lives and it gives people a code of moral conduct. But we can have meaning and we can act in a moral fashion without having to resort to a belief system. Worse yet is when we feel superior to others because our beliefs are the ‘correct’ or ‘true’ ones. It seems people have no difficulty seeing the lack of reason in every other religion but their own.

But this post is not about religion, it is about respect. I may not agree with someone’s beliefs but I can still respect the individual. Religious symbols – especially those that symbolize inequality between the genders – are not things I care for, but I don’t think banning them is the way to go. I prefer to interact with people. Direct contact and desegregation is the way to overcome most conflicts between groups. Through contact, we quickly see the individual behind the symbol. Generalizations give way to judgments about the person. Desegregation and contact among individuals has helped reduce racial conflicts. It is also what has been shown to help destigmatize people with mental illnesses.

The recent media storm about the banning of Sikh headgear by the Quebec Soccer Federation brought out some pretty ugly facets of human nature. To pretend it was a safety issue (as the federation claimed) or a jurisdictional issue (as the premier claimed) is preposterous. It was a pure and simple form of bigotry. Nothing else. The only question that should have been debated was whether or not our society should accept a religious symbol on our soccer pitches. Those who are not comfortable with them supported the ban. But is this really the way we want to deal with religious symbols? Ban them? This, in a city with a church on every corner and a giant crucifix on the mountain around which the city was built? In this misguided effort to desegregate society, we only alienate people and INCREASE segregation.

If you are interested in reading more on related issues, here are some older posts I wrote about group mentality, segregation, culture and immigration: Reasonable accommodation, Ten years after the fall, Segregation, Desegregation.

Here is last week’s column:

The taste of tradition
(Source: Le goût de la tradition. Journal Métro, June 18, 2013)
Voir plus bas pour la version Française.

The other day I enjoyed a delicious Vietnamese baguette from our local Asian grocery store. Mmm! This traditional Vietnamese treat reminded me of my trip to that beautiful country years ago. On many days I walked down the street with my two newly adopted seven-year olds and we’d all order one with the ingredients of our choosing. Needless to say, I have quite an emotional attachment to those little baguettes!

France colonized Southeast Asia from the mid-1800s. They exerted their rule over Vietnam until they were finally overthrown after the famous battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954. Even though they were kicked out as foreign invaders, they left behind many elements of modern Vietnamese culture including a latinized alphabet, beautiful villas, an educational system, and of course the famous baguette!

But there is one problem with my story. When exactly did a baguette from France – a dish introduced by foreign invaders – become part of traditional Vietnam? Rice is the traditional Asian grain, not wheat.

I think of this baguette when I think of culture. We seem to be obsessed with cultural preservation. Each wave of immigration brings talk of ‘us’ and ‘them’ and grumblings such as, “If they don’t like it here, they can go back to where they came from!” or some similar sentiment. Let’s face it; people don’t like to lose their identity.

But aren’t we all in a constant state of identity evolution?

I suppose the first time you ever saw meat turning on a spit at a Lebanese restaurant you wondered, what the hell do THEY eat? Now, of course, you know it as delicious Shish Taouk and Shawarma. Somehow, if I ever left Quebec for a number of years and then came back for a visit, one of the first things I’d eat is a ‘Traditional Shawarma sandwich!’

Few of us have the same musical or food tastes as when we were young. Many of us also change political views as we age. The same goes for the culture around us. It is radically different from the one we grew up with. It evolves whether we want it to or not, and will do so with or without contributions from immigrants.

Culture is not one of those things we can put in a mason jar and keep undisturbed for many years. It is in a state of dynamic flux impacted by every new person born or brought in to it. We can either whine that things ‘aren’t the same anymore’ or we can embrace the fact that our culture is, and always will be, a reflection of our own ever-changing attitudes.

________________________________________________________________

Voici la version Française:

Le goût de la tradition

L’autre jour, j’ai savouré une délicieuse baguette vietnamienne provenant de l’épicerie asiatique de mon quartier. Mmm! Ce délice traditionnel du Vietnam m’a rappelé mon voyage dans ce magnifique pays, il y a des années. Plusieurs fois, je m’étais promené dans la rue avec mes deux enfants de sept ans nouvellement adoptés, et nous avions tous commandé une baguette garnie des ingrédients de notre choix. Inutile de dire que j’éprouve un attachement particulier pour ces petites baguettes!

La France a colonisé le Sud-Est asiatique au milieu des années 1800. Elle a gouverné le Vietnam jusqu’à la célèbre bataille de Dien Bien Phu, en 1954. Même si les Français ont été chassés en tant qu’envahisseurs étrangers, ils ont laissé derrière eux de nombreux éléments de la culture vietnamienne moderne, dont l’alphabet latinisé, les grandes villas, le système d’éducation et, bien sûr, la fameuse baguette!

Mais mon anecdote pose un problème. Quand, exactement, la baguette française (aliment provenant des envahisseurs étrangers) est-elle entrée dans la tradition vietnamienne? C’est le riz qui est la céréale asiatique traditionnelle, et non le blé.

Je pense à cette baguette quand je pense à la culture. Nous semblons obsédés par la préservation de la culture. Chaque vague d’immigration apporte son lot de « nous » et d’« eux », et de récriminations comme : « S’ils n’aiment pas ça, ici, qu’ils retournent d’où ils viennent! » Convenons-en : personne n’aime perdre son identité.

Mais notre identité n’est-elle pas en évolution constante?

Je suppose que la première fois que vous avez vu de la viande cuire sur une broche verticale dans un restaurant libanais, vous vous êtes demandé ce que c’était. Mais maintenant, vous savez qu’il s’agit de délicieux shishtaouks et de shawarmas. Si je devais quitter le Québec pendant quelques années et que je revenais en visite, l’une des premières choses que je mangerais est un sandwich shawarma «traditionnel » !

Peu d’entre nous ont conservé les mêmes goûts musicaux ou alimentaires que pendant leur jeunesse. Et plusieurs changent d’opinions politiques en vieillissant. Il en va de même pour la culture qui nous entoure. Elle est radicalement différente de celle que nous avons connue dans notre enfance. Elle évolue, que nous le voulions ou non, et avec ou sans l’apport des immigrants.

La culture n’est pas une chose que l’on peut mettre en conserve pour la garder intacte pendant des années. Elle évolue dans un flux dynamique influencé par toute personne qui naît ou qui arrive de l’étranger. Nous pouvons soit nous plaindre de ce que « les choses ne sont plus ce qu’elles étaient », soit accepter le fait que notre culture est, et sera toujours, le reflet de nos attitudes en mouvement constant.

Tagged as cultural preservation, immigration, Religious symbols, secular charter, secularism, segregation, Turbans.

Posted in Human nature, Random thoughts.

Posted on 28 Jun 2013