DO NOT HAVE RACIAL DIVERSITY FOR THE SAKE OF IT, RACIAL EQUALITY & OPPORTUNITY IS THE KEY

<Credits: Donovan Choy>

The term “social justice” used to hold a precious meaning. In the 60’s, the mention of social justice brought to mind fearless men like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King championing civil rights for African Americans. In the early 20th century, it brought to mind feminists fighting for the fundamental right to vote, for the right to legal recourse for rape by their husbands. It brought to mind bold white men and women like William Lloyd Garrison and Margaret Fuller who so tediously paved the path of abolitionism so men like Abraham Lincoln could leave a legacy behind.

Today in 2016, the term social justice is but an empty shell of its former glory. In fact, the term “social justice warrior” (SJW) is used as a derogatory slang. How did such a term come to be so warped with negative connotations? One does not have to look very far on the internet for a prime example.

Just last night, less than 24 hours ago, I saw a most curious development on my Facebook. An Indian lady by the name of Pooja Nansi was snarkily hassling local entertainment site TheSmartLocal.

TSL shot a video with their crew eating Indian snacks and commenting on them. Nansi’ feelings were very hurt. She was so upset with the video’s depiction of her treasured cultural holiday so she took to Facebook in a rant (as is her right) in what I observed as an awfully enthusiastic attempt to shame the news site (as you can see for yourself in the screenshots).

Now, I actually have a copy of the video so I know exactly what I’m talking about, which is more than can be said for all these social media commenters and especially the site Mothership, who essentially constructed their “news” story based off the random ramblings of Nansi and some stray Facebook comments, then slapped on a “The Smart Local ruins Deepavali for S’porean Indians with insensitive racist video” title. This right here, is the essence of dishonest journalism (aka yellow journalism), where standards of truth are conveniently compromised for the sake of website hits and advertising revenue. But back to Nansi.

Note her triumphant tone, her choice of words (“DON’T YOU WORK IN TECH??? FIND IT”), she actually seems to be more gleeful than anything else about having her racial holiday insulted. She outright announces with all the aplomb in the world her intent “to tag every person I know to call this out”, and does go on to tag at least a dozen of her friends.

In a very spectacular fashion, Nansi launches into a very daring tirade against TSL. For all its energy, her accusations amounts up to nothing more than contemptible nonsense. She goes on to declare that the video was “hurtful”, and that it took away from her a time where she used to enjoy her culture.

First of all, one cannot “take away” your culture from you. Our cultures are not a possession, not some kind of camouflage cream we smear on our faces during National Service; our culture is individually determined by ourselves. If I chose to identify culturally with the Central African Great God Juju up on the mountain, no one can strip this cultural belief from me but me.

Which begs another question: Is your culture something so fragile and feeble that the slightest provocation upon it would threaten to shatter it to bits? Humans have rights, ideas do not. Individuals possess rights, cultural, religious and personal beliefs do not possess an immunity to criticism.

Then she exclaims, “what you are really saying is that Indians aren’t ‘Singaporeans’ and that our snacks aren’t really ‘Singaporean’ either”.

And what is possibly wrong with either of those claims? “Singaporean” is a nationality, not a race. Our races, Chinese, Indian or Malay is not intrinsically etched in stone with the Singaporean nationality, despite the government’s promotion of these races as our “identities”.

If Kim Jong-un invades and takes over Singapore and floods our borders so that 90% of the Singaporean population were Koreans, are the Singaporean “racial identities” still seen as Chinese, Indian and Malay? Or is being “Singaporean” now to be Korean? Would this then constitute kimchi as our national snack?

Simply because Indians reside within Singapore does not magically mean that Indian snacks are “Singaporean”, the same way pineapple tarts and Nasi Lemak are not a “Singaporean” snack or dish.

Within Pooja Nansi and the horde of sanctimonious Facebook users crying for racial diversity, the wretched perversion of the term “social justice” is most clearly laid bare for all to witness. What used to bring to the forefront of our minds the passionate fight for a fundamental equality of human rights, is today desecrated by petty, self-righteous individuals, squabbling ever so anxiously every time their precious feelings are provoked. This regressive behaviour is often attached to endless mind-numbing chirping for racial diversity, observed in the equally birdbrained comments of some of these social media spectators.

One of Nansi’s friends even uploads a picture of the TSL crew as “evidence” that the team is not racially diverse, because none of them were Indians. What then, pray tell, is the solution here exactly? Should the government pass a law that ensures all businesses hire a strict quota of racial minorities? If we truly want to be racially diverse, why stop at Singapore’s racial “identities”? Why not also have the bill sanction that all companies meet a minimum criteria of Caucasians, Africans, Mongolians and Australian Aborigines?

Racial equality and opportunity is the key, not racial diversity for the sake of having racial diversity – there is a world of difference. If we put aside our emotional knee-jerk reactions for a moment and think about it honestly, this “valiant” call for racial diversity is in fact precisely what racism is: judging one solely based on race.

We’re no longer unique individuals with different skill sets and talents; we’re simply Chinese, Indian or Malay. “Hire a person not based on his/her merits”, they yell, “Hire them based on their race! We must have racial diversity for the sake of having it!”

Until these people can overcome their irrational infatuation for “racial diversity”, the words “social justice” will continue to be nothing more than a common internet slur.