You need to be consistent with the so-called “The Great Replacement”

You believe in the conspiracy “theory” in which there is an attempt to replace all white people AKA anyone of full European descents with non-white people, particularly non-white Muslims. You even dub it the white genocide.

No, white people are not on the brink extinction. Not only they are still the majority in Europe, their ancestral homeland, they are still very much present in other parts of the world. Australia, New Zealand and much of the Americas, especially North America. In fact, they still dominate the establishments in Australia, New Zealand and much of the Americas.

Unless there are evidences of white people all over the world being systematically massacred, displaced from their homelands, having their heritage sites regularly demolished and having their babies taken away from them and given to non-white families, there is no genocide. Your only evidence of the “white genocide” is the fact that non-white people are allowed to live and thrive in the west.

No, you are not concerned about being a victim of genocide. You are concerned about how whiteness is no longer seen as a strength and virtuous by default, how European-rooted cultures are no longer seen as the epitome of civilisations.

And that matters to you because you have spent your entire life believing your white European lineage – something which you have no control over – makes you an inherently superior being, because being white and European is your entire personality, because you are unable to see your non-white and/or non-European fellow human beings as fellow human beings.

It also shows how insecure you are. You love boasting about how mighty your western heritage is, how it is objectively the best in the entire history of mankind…. and yet, you also believe the mere existence of non-western cultures in the west is enough to threaten its existence.

So, which one is it, then? Is western heritage mighty or feeble? If it is mighty, then why can it be easily threatened by other heritages? Where is the mightiness you love hyping about it? I will come back to this later.

I also wonder, what’s wrong with being a minority, anyway? Surely, you don’t fear discrimination and bigotry considering you keep saying they don’t exist.

And that segues to what the title of this blogpost is referring to.

One thing I notice about some of you is your rejection of the racism accusation.

You insist you are not a proponent of white supremacy and your judgements of non-whites are not driven by hatred or any emotions; you believe you are just stating the objective facts.

….which is ridiculous in itself. If you are truly reasonable, you wouldn’t claim your judgment are 100% guaranteed objective, data-driven and not emotionally-driven, you wouldn’t claim you embody the perfect human. Because you try too hard to paint yourself as “rational”, you end up sounding the exact opposite.

And that so-called “rationality” of yours also extends to the genocide of indigenous people in the Americas and Australia, which you consider perfectly acceptable.

You claim it is not because you hate non-whites, but because it is just a matter of “survival of the fittest”. If the indigenous people lost their lands and heritage, then you believe they deserved it. You believe anyone deserve to be annihilated for being weak and what racial categories we belong to are irrelevant.

If that’s the case, then why are you opposed to the so-called white genocide?

Following your so-called “logic”, if the mere presence of non-whites in the west is more than enough to threaten the existence of white people, it proves that they fail they survival of the fittest test and it means they deserve to be “exterminated”.

Following your so-called “logic”, shouldn’t you accept that all genocides – including the ones against people like you – are a good thing? Why can’t you be consistent about this?

Rhetorical questions, obviously. You are just racist cunts.

I feel gross for typing those previous paragraphs because I don’t believe what I typed. I did so because I wanted to make a point.

Meanwhile, if you type the exact same words about certain “others”, you wouldn’t feel grossed out. In fact, I am certain it will excite you.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Queer acceptance is consequential

Anti-queer bigots argue giving queer minorities equal rights will drastically change the world we live in. From my personal experiences, when you ask them to elaborate, they usually give one of these four responses:

  1. Queer equality will greenlight sexualisation and even sexual abuse of children, even though not only such things have existed prior, there are no evidences that queer people dominate the “child grooming industry”; if you can believe not all Catholic clergymen are child sexual predators, then why can’t you believe the same about queer people?
  2. Queer equality will take the rights of cishet and/or religious people. Obviously, this is projection. They want queer people to have less or no rights and they assume queer people will return the favour.
  3. Queer equality will allow people to marry animals and their own family members. Obviously, this is slippery slope fallacy; they believe those things will happen not because of evidences or proper reasoning, but because they feel they are entitled to force a correlation between two random things.
  4. Queer equality will make cishet people queer. It doesn’t, it only allows queer people to comfortably come out of the closet. But, even if people can turn queer simply because queerness is accepted, that means cishet identity is fragile and not as strong as people think it is.
  5. They refuse to elaborate. They make the claim and expect others to trust their words, confidently declaring their dogmatic asses as trustworthy.

But, they are not entirely wrong. Because no humans live in a vacuum, queer equality will bring changes to our world… but, not the changes bigots love to claim will happen.

Queer acceptance does not simply improve queer people’s quality of life, it also means we have to question everything about ourselves.

We are fearful that some or all aspects of our worldview are outdated and holding us back and therefore, have to be discarded for the betterment of everyone. Because our worldview is inseparable from who we really are, discarding it feels like we are “losing our true selves”.

Emphasise on the word “feels”. It does feel scary to let go of something we grew up with. But, I guarantee, doing so still allows us to be ourselves; the difference is our selves have become better and more open-minded.

The changes may not just be about changing our selves, they may also involve acknowledging their truest forms.

We are opposed to equality because we fear we may be queer ourselves. Queer acceptance means we are more free to explore such possibility. It means we have to confront it, sooner or later.

If we turn out to be queer, some of us fear we will suffer from intense self-hatred, unable to accept ourselves. Even if we are not queer, we still feel insecure about our sexuality and gender identity, because we don’t fully conform to the cishet stereotypes.

Many of us have to yet to realise that it is okay to defy society’s unnecessarily restrictive expectations, that there is nothing morally wrong about offending other people’s arbitrary and shallow sensibilities which serve no purposes other than coddling their own fragile feelings.

Easier said than done. But, it is possible.

.

.

Obviously, not all changes are good. Sometimes, changes can be for the worse. But, if you believe a tradition is worth preserving simply because it is old and no one are able to provide data-driven evidences of its benefits and refute data-driven evidences of its harms, then it deserves to be discarded.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The most bizarre arguments I have ever encountered

Throughout the years in my blogposts, I have written about the people I have argued with, ranting about their narrow-mindedness, poor moral integrity and their lack of brain usage.

Sometimes, I don’t talk about specific individuals, more about groups of them. When I do talk about specific individuals, their worldview and behaviours aren’t uniquely theirs; I have encountered others just like them.

But, in this case, I am a bit overwhelmed.

Online, more than once, I have criticised westerners’ ideas of diversity and multiculturalism. While I do acknowledge pogroms are non-existent in the modern-day west, I despise the wide-held belief that diversity and multiculturalism only exist there; I also criticise some westerners’ try-hard attempts to be multicultural, which end up as tokenism rather than genuine acceptance.

I also assert that many Indonesians have strong experiences with interethnic and interreligious relations… while admitting the latter is more flawed than the former and our race relations still have lots to desire.

And the reactions are predictable.

Conceited westerners get too defensive, accusing me of demonising the entire west and whitewashing my own country’s image. Every time I talk about genuinely good things about Indonesia, self-hating Indonesians start making weird criticisms about their homeland: they accuse Indonesia of being “guilty” of certain things… while also fawning other countries which are also “guilty” of those same things.

In this particular case, this person is one of those self-hating Indonesians; they rebuke me by asserting Indonesia’s proneness to sectarian violence. I cannot deny it because it is unfortunately true.

But, I also state that acceptance in the west is also far from perfect and the COVID pandemic proves it; in some countries, there was an increase in hate crimes against people of Chinese descent… or anyone perceived as such.

This person says that’s BS. Not only the increase was exaggerated (as if a threefold increase was nothing), they also said determining how bad sectarianism should not be based on how fearful the minorities are, but based on how many tourists and investors still flocking into the area.

Then, it went downhill even further.

I live in Batam and when I said it is very diverse, they said its diversity was due to its location in Java, which this person insinuatingly considers to be the country’s only diverse place.

Wrong! Not only Batam is not located in or near Java, it is an island city which is a part of an archipelago located east of Sumatra, South of Singapore and Malaysia.

They also said the people of the city of Banjarmasin were being intentionally provocative… simply for using words differently, as if this person’s dialect is the objectively correct one.

And I still haven’t talked about the weirdest part.

They also believe Indonesia is not multicultural because it suffers from Malaysisation AKA domination of Malay culture. Their evidence? Our national language – Indonesian – is one of the standardised registers of Malay language.

I told them our national language is Malay-derived because, prior the Europeans’ arrival, Malay had already been used as a lingua franca in the region for centuries.

This person said it wasn’t a good enough because the language was used only among traders. When I asked which language they think deserve to be the national one, they gave me two: Javanese and Sundanese. Why? Simply because ethnic Javanese and Sundanese are the biggest and second biggest ethnic groups.

While they are indeed the biggest, there is a problem with that: their languages were never used as lingua francas.

They were never used as mediums of interethnic and intercultural communications. They don’t have experiences catering to other cultures. While old Javanese was used outside Java, it was mostly used as a literary language of the educated elite. Because the ethnic Javanese form around forty percent of the country’s total population, declaring their language as the national would culturally suffocate the other ethnic groups.

Malay? While it is based on the native language of one ethnic group, it has been used interethnically and interculturally for centuries; it has many years of experiences catering to different cultures.

In fact, there are at least twenty Malay-based creoles found all over the region, including the eastern part of Indonesia. Malay also has some influences in even more faraway places; Sri Lanka has an endangered Malay creole language, there is a practically extinct language in western Australia called Broome Pearling Lugger Pidgin which uses significant amount of Malay words and, prior the Spanish colonisation, Malay was the lingua franca of the Philippines.

The standardised register is different from the one used in Singapore – where Malay is mostly used by ethnic Malays – and in Malay-majority Malaysia and Brunei.

Indonesian has some loanwords from the regional Indonesian languages and, from all of them, Javanese is the biggest contributor.

Unlike the ones in the other aforementioned countries, which still retain their melodious sounds, the standard phonology in Indonesia is very flat and clipped; even though it does sound lifeless and bland, it is a type of accent which anyone can easily acquire. It is also normal to hear public figures – including our current president who is an ethnic Javanese – speaking Indonesian with noticeable regional accents.

Not to mention the most widely-used informal register of Indonesian is a creole natively spoken by ethnic Betawis, adopted by non-Betawi Jakartans and any Indonesians who heavily consume the national pop culture. Different regions also have their own informal registers of Indonesian, which are basically Indonesian infused with words from the local languages.

Basically, our standard Malay has mutated so much, it no longer becomes a “purely Malay” tongue.

I have a controversial take: if I have to choose between Dutch and Javanese, I would rather choose the former as our national language.

Yes, it is the colonial tongue. But, because of its entirely foreign origin, it doesn’t take side with any of our indigenous ethnic groups. In the context of Indonesian unity, it can be neutral.

And let me reveal this person’s most outrageous claim: Indonesia suffers from Malayisation. It is outrageous because, even if our standard Malay is still a “purely Malay” tongue, it is still the only Malay thing about our national identity.

None of our patriotic songs have Malay-influenced melodies and arrangements; they tend to sound like marches more than anything. Every time the country is represented in overseas performance arts events, Javanese and Balinese music and dance are prevalently represented, Malay ones barely exist.

After I said Malayisation exist where ethnic Malays congregate, that person accused me of flip-flopping and being inconsistent. I wasn’t. Malayisation existing in some regions is not the same as it existing on the national level.

But, do you what exists on the national level? Javanisation.

While the Indonesian establishment is very multiethnic, there is no doubt it is dominated by ethnic Javanese. Literally all of our presidents are of Javanese descent (even though, admittedly, Habibie didn’t grow up surrounded by Javanese culture).

Soeharto also implemented a policy of transmigration, in which he sent ethnic Javanese citizens to settle in less crowded places outside their homeland. Whether he intentionally used the policy to Javanise the country or not, it doesn’t matter. It still helped Javanising the country even further.

I have talked a lot about how our national symbols are of Hindu and Buddhist origins. But, recently, I just found out they might be the legacy of Majapahit, an ancient kingdom centered in Java which conquered a huge chunk of modern-day Indonesia, including a small chunk of western New Guinea. The Javanisation started long before the country existed.

When I pointed those facts out to the person (minus the Majapahit one), they said Javanisation is a good thing. Good because it supposedly prevents the spread of Islamic extremism.

Which is, again, more BS!

If that is the case, then why does the country still end up having cases of it? Why aren’t the people raised in Java immune to it? Why does this long-Javanised region fail to prevent its rise? I don’t know if the person answered the question or not, as I got too exhausted to revisit the thread.

Whatever the causes of extremism are, if you pay attention to the world, no backgrounds can make you immune to it, not even the so-called superior Javanese culture.

Now, to sum things up:

I am overwhelmed for various reasons.

That person lost their credibility almost immediately. Batam is not just a village in the middle of nowhere, it is a city of over a million residents, a job opportunities destination for many Indonesians and, due to its proximity to Singapore and Malaysia, one of Indonesia’s gateways to the world.

If you don’t know the location one of Indonesia’s major cities, it is clear you lack even the most basic knowledge about this country. You shouldn’t be that confident when talking about the country.

This person also claims to care about multiculturalism. But, their words clearly indicates otherwise.

In the western context, this person thinks sectarian violence is bad NOT because it makes minorities feel unsafe and unwelcome in their own countries, but because it drives tourists and investors away. Basically, this person believes multiculturalism – in the west, at least – should be about the money, not the minorities’ well-being.

I have encountered people who love exaggerating western countries’ diversity and multiculturalism, while also downplaying and even denigrating the non-western ones’. But, this is the first time I encountered someone who sees multiculturalism solely through the profitability lens.

In the Indonesian context, this person has contradictory views. They believe adopting a national language based on Malay is a symptom of Malay cultural imperialism, even though it is the only Malay thing about our national identity. Yet, at the same time, not only they tolerate Javanese cultural imperialism, they wish it happens more thoroughly.

Combine that with their unreasonable hatred of Banjarmasin dialect, it is obvious their “concern” for multiculturalism is just a mask, a mask to conceal their prejudice against anything non-Javanese, to conceal their sense of Javanese supremacy.

I am not surprised by the existence of such views; everyone here knows Javanisation and Javanese supremacism exist. I am just taken aback someone finally says the quiet part out loud.

.

.

*My usage of the word “Javanese” can be interpreted loosely.

Foreigners who know nothing about Indonesia may assume Javanese refers to all people and things from Java. That’s incorrect.

In Indonesia, the word Javanese refers to the ethnic Javanese – who are indigenous to Java – and anything associated with them. If you are referring to someone or something in Java and they are not “Javanese”, you say “of Java” and “from Java” instead.

To make it more confusing, the Javanese are not the only ethnic groups indigenous to the Island – there are also the Sundanese, Cirebonese, Madurese, Betawis, Osings, Tenggerese, Banyumasans – and yet, they have the island’s namesake. For the longest time, I didn’t know why that was the case.

Then, one day, I found a book called A New Spirit (Indonesian: Semangat Baru) by Mikihiro Moriyama, a Japanese scholar specialising in the Sundanese language. He asserted that centuries ago (don’t remember exactly when, probably before the 14th or 15th) Sundanese people were once considered a sub-group of the Javanese. Nowadays, no one consider the two as the same; even their languages are mutually unintelligible with each other.

According Wikipedia (yes, I know), people who identify as Betawis didn’t exist prior the 1800s and, even though Cirebonese identity has existed for centuries, its existence was first acknowledged by the census in 2010. The Madurese are from Madura, which isn’t technically in Java; it is an island located very close to Java.

The Banyumasans, Osings and Tenggerese are considered subgroups of Javanese. I know many Banyumasans see themselves as Javanese. I am not sure about the other two.

For the most part, if you have basic knowledge about the country, what constitutes as “Javanese” should be clear-cut to you. So, what do I mean by the word being interpreted loosely?

The problem is not simply Javanese people dominating the establishment, it is also about how island itself exerts too much power.

Jakarta – the country’s capital, economic centre and media centre – is located in Java. If a national company is not headquartered in Jakarta, it is very likely headquartered in other cities in Java. Most of the top universities are in Java. When a development happens, it starts in Java and other islands may or may not be given the opportunity to follow suit.

Indonesia is not simply Javanised, it is also very Java-centric. Two different, but equally problematic things.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Reminded of my national identity, in overseas museums

About two months before I started writing this blogpost, I visited the US with my mom and sister. Specifically, NYC and DC.

I am thirty-one and this was my second time visiting the US. The last time I was there, I was seven. My extended family and I visited Universal Studio and Disneyland in LA, Lake Tahoe and San Reno; in fact, I celebrated the 2000 new year’s eve in LA Disneyland.

Now, my preferences have changed. Unless the theme parks are unique, I am no longer interested in them. I prefer museums, especially art history ones.

While I did really enjoy my visit to Metropolitan Art Museum in NYC, I had more fun in DC.

For one, almost none of the Smithsonian museums charge entrance fees and very few of them require bookings. My hotel was also near the National Mall, where many of the museums are located; despite DC having worse walkability than NYC, I was able to spend entire days walking from one museum to another, no cars and public transit needed.

Now, about the title…

Metropolitan Art Museum have artefacts from all over the world and various time periods, including ones from Ancient India and the Muslim world. Unsurprisingly, the Freer and Sackler galleries in DC – which specialise in Asian arts – also have similar collections (yes, I know who the Sacklers are).

I am a Muslim from Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim-majority country. Between Islamic and Ancient Indian artefacts, many would assume I would have emotional attachments to the former.

Nope.

While I definitely can appreciate the beauty, I don’t have any sense of nostalgia for them. For me, they are just as alien as the Greek and Roman artefacts. But, do you know what elicit emotions within me? The Ancient Indian ones.

It is not just the sculptures’ natural stone colour (as the paint eroded with time), it is also the (mostly) Sanskrit names and Hindu and Buddhist imagery which evoke familiarity for me.

I have yet to get tired of explaining this: even though Indonesia is indeed a Muslim-majority country with Middle Eastern cultural influences and which Arab-Indonesian population is bigger than the Indian-Indonesian one, our national symbols are of Hindu and Buddhist origins. Not only the establishment embraces them, many of us do take pride in our ancestral Hindu and Buddhist roots.

Many of us also believe we can be Muslims without becoming Arabs. In fact, I don’t think there are that many Arab-Indonesians who can speak Arabic.

I already had this realisation long before I visited those museums. But, I didn’t expect to experience it for a second time… and I certainly didn’t expect to occur while I was abroad.

This realisation also exposes a knowledge gap of mine. Before I elaborate, let me go on a tangent first.

As expected, art history museums categorise their exhibitions geographically and temporally (not to be confused with temporarily) and the Asian art galleries in DC are no exceptions. But, these ones in particular also have a few exhibitions summarising the entire continent.

Well, tried to summarise. Let’s face it: it is a continent of more than forty countries and territories, some of which are very culturally, ethnically and religiously diverse and a handful of them are transcontinental. You simply cannot summarise it, you can only create blanket statements.

In one of the exhibitions, there was also an interactive screen discussing symbolism in Asian cultures. I was a bit annoyed that it claimed peacock was culturally important throughout the Muslim world; I thought it was just another stereotyping of Muslims, as peacock was not symbolically important in my country.

A Smithsonian employee was tasked to ask visitors about their opinions of the exhibitions. When he approached me, I told him what I just wrote above.

About two months later, I told my experiences to a Facebook friend of mine, a Canadian who lived in Indonesia throughout the 70’s and 80’s and probably left before I was born. After I told her about the peacock thing, she rebuked me, saying I was wrong.

She showed me quite a few examples of peacock motif on batik. I google searched them by myself….. and I found even more examples of them….. in various styles.

I am embarrassed and confused. Embarrassed because this is one of the times when foreigners actually know about my country probably more than I do. Confused because I don’t know why peacock was not one of the animals I associate with Indonesian identity.

Growing up, when I think of quintessentially Indonesian animals, ones which remind me of our national identity, I think of tigers, elephants, rhinos, komodos, birds-of-paradise, anoas, barking deers, orang utans, cassowaries, cockatoos, sun bears and arowanas. Not once I thought about the cocky peacocks.

I wonder: would it make any difference if I grew up attending good schools, surrounded by traditional artists and artisans or even simply grew up in a place where peacock motif on batik is common? Or would I remain ignorant? Even though I am at fault for not learning enough, I also refuse to let my surroundings off the hook.

But, one thing for certain: even though peacock isn’t the most popular animal symbol in my Muslim-majority home country, it is certainly more symbolically significant than I thought.

And the fact some foreigners already knew about this… is humiliating.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

My kind of ideal place to grow up in

Disclaimer: while I didn’t grow up with an upperclass lifestyle, my upbringing was still a financially-privileged one. Privileged enough to not growing up hungry, privileged enough to not be financially wrecked by the ongoing pandemic.

But, even if my family had a billionaire dollar, I am certain I would still not grow up with the ideal physical and human environments.

Let’s start with multiculturalism. I wish my upbringing was even more multicultural.

I am a Muslim who grew up in urban parts of Indonesia; anyone with similar upbringing would have been exposed to people of different ethnic backgrounds (and, to some extent, their foods) and would have interacted with Christians (arguably more than western Christians have interacted with Muslims). Interethnic marriages are also common among urbanites.

The diversity of my hometown specifically – Batam – is even more noticeable. Because it is a planned city, it is dominated by five ethnic groups instead of one. Christianity is not the only visible minority religion; Buddhism also has a strong presence.

But, it is not enough for me.

While I am used to interacting with my culturally and religiously distinct fellow countrymen, I wish I can witness them “practicing their identities” up close.

I wish I grew up attending traditional cultural festivals of different ethnic groups, complete with the traditional music, dance and attires. I also wish it is more socially acceptable to join the religions’ holiday celebrations and marry outside one’s religion.

Most importantly, I wish I grew up in a place where bigotry and incitement are more unacceptable. It is disturbing how many Indonesians love inciting/tolerating anti-Chinese violence, use Israel to justify their anti-Semitism, perceive atheism as extremism and perceive dark skin as a defect. I hate that I used to be one of them.

While I wish Indonesia has more racial and religious diversity, it can be dangerous with the thin ice we are currently standing on.

It would also be better if the multilingualism is official as well. I hate how we have hundreds of language and yet we only official recognise one. I also hate that not all Indonesian schools obligate the teaching of regional languages, treating them them as mere vernaculars, making them more prone to extinction; even Javanese, the most spoken and empowered regional language, is on the decline.

Even if it is unfeasible to use regional languages as mediums of instructions at schools (like they do in India), the least we can do is acknowledging their importance to our identities as Indonesians, just like we do to our national language.

Now, about the city itself.

I spent most of my life in Batam and a handful of years in Jakarta metro area. While Batam is definitely less hectic, both undoubtedly have poor walkability and mass transit. But, even if they are almost the exact opposite, it is still not enough.

My ideal city should has more parks, more lush trees in the pedestrian areas, more car-free streets, less highways and less cars in generals. I want it to consists entirely of mixed-use, transit-oriented developments, where every amenity and transit stop is accessible by a short walk. I want all public transit to be rail ones; inexplicably, every time I visit countries with better mass transit, I prefer their trams and metros over their buses.

Oh, and when I say amenities, I am referring to medical emergency units, primary and secondary schools, stores that sell fresh foods, pharmacies, community centres, multilingual libraries and lush parks. I believe those are facilities which every person must have easy access to, both financially and geographically.

It is not enough for public housing to be well-maintained. It also needs to be spread out all over the city, ensuring the residents are not segregated into the periphery. Yes, I am also opposed to gated communities, where the privileged ones live in a bubble.

Ideally, I want as many festivities possible. From traditional Indonesian festivals similar to Sekaten and Tabuik to ones with more “international” themes like Jazz. But, if I have to choose, I would prioritise the traditional Indonesian ones.

Pragmatically, traditional Indonesian arts make Indonesia stand out on the global stage. Spiritually, they help feel more attached to our ancestral heritage. As much as I love modern western music, it is unable to do any of them (unless when fused with traditional Indonesian styles).

Apart from the usual themes of arts, sciences and history, the museums should include niche or weird ones. They can be about dolls, stamps or history of specific neighbourhoods and districts.

There should be at least three non-sectarian research universities that attract students from all over and offer a wide range of academic programmes, especially the so-called “useless” ones. Each of the university operates their own public museums and public broadcasters. If there are religious seminaries, one of them must be multireligious.

It has its own local and multilingual public broadcasters that prioritise quality over ratings. While they can broadcast programmes produced elsewhere, 60% of the programmes must be locally produced.

It has a diverse range of architectural styles, preferably pre twentieth century and early twentieth century ones. But, if I have to include more modern ones, I would prioritise ones that have as many ornaments as possible or ones with weird shapes.

If I have to include the simplistic ones, I would rather choose the Critical Regionalist ones. If I have to include International Style, I would want the number of such buildings to be kept to a minimum. If I have to include Brutalism, I would relegate such buildings to film and TV sets that produce dystopian fiction.

The city is connected to a Swiss-type railway system, ensuring the citizens can arrive to not only other human settlements, but also a wide-range of natural recreational places (e.g. beaches and highlands) within two hours or less. No cars and highways needed.

I am certain that if I grew up such environment, I would be a much better person.

I would grow up as a much more self-reliant child and teenager who didn’t need assistance just to leave the house. I would develop a greater sense of adventure (without being a thrill seeker who can only have fun when the risk of injury and death is high). I would have been physically healthier as well. While I am not ashamed of my homebody tendency, it would be nice to balance it with more outdoor activities.

I would have been more curious about my hometown and discovered many hidden gems, like small eateries in alley ways, niche museums or even weird-looking buildings. I would be familiar with my hometown inside out.

I would have been exposed to more diverse aesthetics. While I am not ashamed of my enjoyment of pop culture, I wish I also grew up with more niche and offbeat alternatives.

I would have learned that unity in diversity requires more than just living side-by-side. It also requires us to confront and overcome the differences and, most importantly, humanise our fellow human beings.

My upbringing would have been a much richer, more well-rounded and more pluralistic experience.

Of course, there is high a possibility of me taking things for granted. But, as long as I am exposed to the world beyond my hometown and country, it’ll be okay.

Yes, interethnic and interreligious lives are far from perfect here. But, I started to appreciate them more when I learned about the ones overseas, with their glaring imperfections.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Diversity: from pro to anti

I used to be very conservative; it is not unexpected when one grew up as an Indonesian Muslim. I don’t have labels to describe my current social stances; leftists may find me too liberal and liberals may find me too left-wing. But, I can definitely say I am no longer conservative in that department.

Recently, I found myself baffled: why are there conservatives who used to be liberal or left-wing? Specifically, why do some pro-diversity people end up as anti-diversity?

I have my own hypothesis. I base it on observations of white westerners online – especially the so-called “progressives” – and moderate Indonesian Muslims, which include my former self.

Sidenote: Moderate Indonesian Muslims are not liberal or left-wing in the slightest; they are conservatives who fancy themselves as accepting and tolerant, even though they have badmouthed interfaith romance and are racist against Chinese-Indonesians. They appear “progressive” because they are romanticised by wide-eyed foreigners, they are often compared to Islamists and moderate religious tolerance is the tradition here.

Now, for my hypothesis.

Some people are pro-diversity because they want to feel good about themselves. They want to feel it so bad, they miss the point of it all. As a result, they face some snags in their embrace of diversity.

They learn that embracing it requires more than just eating exotic foods, supporting more diverse fictional characters, sleeping with people of different skin colours and not committing pogroms. They realise they also have to learn traversing human differences; never mind the consequential ones, they even don’t know how to deal with the trivial ones.

Not only they don’t understand the values and worldview of the “others”, they also have bad experiences interacting with them. For them, if something is indecipherable, it deserves to be hated. If they have bad experiences with people of certain backgrounds, they think it is acceptable or even a must to demonise the entire groups. They just can’t help themselves from doing those.

They love othering the “others”, whom they perceive as nothing but giant monoliths. They think Asian-Americans are not divided to different subgroups and are the same as Asians in Asia. They think every true queer person was born with rainbow imagery planted in their minds. They stereotype their fellow human beings… just like the bigots do.

They also don’t care about how the “others” think and feel. They only care about pushing their thoughts and feelings onto the narratives. They hate how they are not worshipped for doing the bare minimum. They hate how they cannot make everything about themselves.

Sooner or later, they will have the realisation: not only pro-diversity belief cannot be exploited for their own benefits, it is also against the actual worldview they have been clinging onto and were in denial about. As a result, the “woke” – who was never “woke” in the first place – becomes “anti-woke”.

Hypothesis ends.

Obviously, like any hypotheses, mine must be “tested” before it becomes a theory. I am also too lazy to find out if someone else has thought about it (someone probably has).

But, one thing I am very certain of: I have met people who claim to be progressive and yet, they are guilty of the sins I describe above.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

No, homogeneity is not a strength

When people argue against multiculturalism, they often project themselves. They think their inability to handle human differences is universal and sectarian conflicts are mundane in diverse places.

Another one of their favourite argument is citing the success of South Korea and Japan. They argue the countries’ near 100% homogeneity is the reason why they are globally successful.

Of course, there are multiple issues with that assertion.

Issue number one: success is relative. While South Korea and Japan have wealth and greater soft power than my country Indonesia does, I will never be envious of their high suicide rates, drinking cultures, stressful student life, severe school bullying and, in this case of Japan, strong history of fascism and historical denialism.

Issue number two: correlation does not equal causation. Those people never provide evidences. They simply connect two things and expect others to believe it at face value. Life is also complicatedly interconnected; even if homogeneity is a factor, it is definitely not the only factor.

Issue number three: even if I accept that shallow definition of success and correlation equals causation, I still don’t see how it proves the inherent superiority of South Korea and Japan.

If homogeneity brings prosperity as they claim it does, then it is comparable to wealth we are born into.

Both give us unbelievably massive leverages. Children born into wealth have better access to education and they can pursue their passions without financial worry. Due to the stricter conformity, homogenous societies have an easier time achieving their collective goals.

Neither wealth nor homogeneity is inherently bad. But, praising a country’s homogeneity is like praising someone for coming from a wealthy family.

You basically praise someone for being born with cheat codes.

Personally, I don’t believe we must commend people who can find common grounds despite their stark differences. Not only I consider that to be a bare minimum, I also don’t want them to pat themselves on the back.

But, I would rather reserve my praise for them. Considering they are the ones who do extra efforts, it is just sensical.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

“Differences” is not just a bigoted excuse to deny refugees, it is also idiotic

First thing first, your projection is not the reflection of reality. Just because you are shamefully unable to deal with human differences, that does not mean the rest of us share that defect of yours.

If anything, you can find places all over the world in which people get along with each other despite their racial, cultural and religious differences; there are also places that used to be pluralistic but ended up sectarian thanks to European colonialism. The Partition, anyone?

Second, it is idiotic because Europeans have so many things in common with each other and yet, they have an extremely long history with wars; mind you, the second world war ended less than a hundred years ago. The EU was created as a war prevention effort!

We don’t even have to go back in time. Just take a look at present Europe!

Never mind the non-white, non-Christian and non-European immigrants, many Europeans still have a problem accepting white, Christian immigrants from other European countries! Are we going to pretend there is no widespread anti-Polish and anti-Romanian sentiment? Are we going to pretend there are no far-right people inciting hatred against other European nationals? Are we going to pretend there is no far-right resurgence in Europe?

Heck, no need to talk about immigrants. Even Europeans hate their fellow white Christian countrymen!

Even though The Troubles have ended in Northern Ireland, there is still hostility between Protestants and Catholics. The conflict between Dutch and French-speaking Belgians shut their federal government down for a month. The UK, France, Spain and Scandinavian countries have a track record of erasing regional languages; France is still reluctant to revive them (surprise surprise). Norwegian language has two officially recognised standardised spellings and that also has caused tensions among the Norwegians.

While Switzerland is not ravaged by sectarianism, the Swiss are also infamous for their unwillingness to learn the other national languages, unless there are direct practical benefits; it is reported that they prefer to speak English with the other language communities rather than learning their tongues.

My point is if cultural clashes are the reasons why you reject SOME refugees, why don’t you reject all of them?

Why worried about clashing with those desert people when you are still unable to unite with your fellow white, Christian and European countrymen?

As I have said too many times before, the problem is not the existence of differences, the problem is your pathetic inability to handle even the most trivial ones.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

You should hate multiculturalism!

*puts on a mask*

Why? Because it deceives you!

It deceives by promising you more tasty foods, more exotic people to masturbate to and fornicate with, and generally more good feelings about yourselves.

Instead, it forces you to learn how to journey across human differences, learn to endure the trivial ones and learn to have honest and open conversations about the consequential ones.

You should hate it because, rather than effortlessly giving you the perks, it encourages you to learn about the complicated thing that is human nature. It encourages you to understand your fellow human beings.

Everyone knows the greatest human right violations are when someone or something does not feel obligated to satisfy your earthly desires and, worse, encourages you to be more thoughtful and compassionate as human beings.

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Actually growing up multicultural

I have encountered so many westerners who either brag or complain about how their western countries are the world’s diversity hotspots, with MAGA Americans being the loudest.

I always counter them with the data which clearly indicates otherwise. In fact, because I have too much time on my hands, I wrote an entire blog about it.

Months laters and I still encounter those people to this day, making the same predictable talking points. The more I encounter them, the more I disappointed in myself, though.

Almost all of them act like they know how it feels to live a multicultural life. I am disappointed in myself because I have been noticing that for a while… and yet, I haven’t written about it.

Overall, it does not make any sense. How experienced you are with other cultures is not determined by their mere presence around you; it is determined by your interactions (or the lack thereof) with the people. You can live in one of the most diverse places on earth and still trapped inside a cultural bubble. For your information: New York City is (not was) infamous for its segregated schools.

In fact, not only they are too proud of themselves, they tried to discredit me as a bubble dweller who know nothing about the outside world.

Yeah, about that…

My Indonesian hometown Batam has not one but five dominant ethnic groups (due to it being a planned city) and, while being predominantly-Muslim, churches and Buddhist temples are easy to find; it is also very close to Singapore and Malaysia, making it one of Indonesia’s gateways to the outside world. I have lived in two cities in the Jakarta metro area, which many Indonesians migrate to and also one of the country’s gateways to the world. I also lived in Melbourne for about a year.

I, an indigenous Indonesian Muslim, attended a middle school where the student body was predominantly Chinese-Indonesian -whose religious affiliation was Buddhist (and possibly also Taoist and Confucian)- and many of the teachers were Filipinos, with one American and one Aussie. My high school also reflected my city’s demographics: visible Christian and Buddhist minorities and multiple dominant ethnic groups. I briefly attended an Indonesian university which attracted students from all over the country. I graduated from an Australian university with an international student body.

Apart from Australia, Singapore and Malaysia, I have also visited other foreign countries like Thailand, New Zealand, China (Hong Kong included), Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Palestina, the US, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Czechia, Austria, Hungary and Switzerland.

On Facebook, my social circle consists mostly of foreigners and there are lots of times when I get myself reprimanded for resorting to cultural stereotypes.

How is that for a bubble dweller?

After realising how culturally-rich my upbringing was and interacting with so many misguidedly proud westerners, I learn two lessons about what it means to be a multicultural individual.

Lesson one: being multicultural is not about simply enjoy cuisines and arts from other cultures. It is actually interacting with the people we divisively refer to as the “others”.

And I am not talking about professional situations; I am talking about ones where we interact because we sincerely enjoy each other’s presence. While intimacy is not required, informality certainly is. Those are the occasions when we can get to truly know the “others” beyond the labels.

I am not saying enjoyment of other cultures’ cuisines and arts is bad; in fact, we should always encourage ourselves to broaden our tastes. But, they are surface-level aspects of cultures; if we are too focused on the surface and disregard the more abstract things beneath, we may end up making caricatures out of the people. Weeaboos are a great example of how NOT to appreciate other cultures. Admittedly, stop stereotyping people after doing it your entire life is easier said than done.

I am also not saying interaction alone helps. If we only care about affirming our preconceived beliefs or having token minorities in our lives, no amount of interactions will ever enlighten you. But still, if you want to understand your fellow human beings, wouldn’t it make sense to… you know… actually interact with them?

Lesson two: being multicultural is not about tolerance, it is about resilience. It is less about accepting and liking the trivial differences (emphasise on the word trivial) and more about how well you are in dealing with them.

Someone may annoy you for being too polite or rude. But, instead of wasting your time whining, you should move on with your live and accept that none of your fellow human beings will be 100% likeable to you.

I have to say reactionary monolingual Anglophones score really low in the resilience department. For someone who love to call people snowflakes, they sure can’t handle the mere sounds of any other languages. Even Indonesians who are very racist against Chinese people are not that triggered by the mere sound of Chinese languages (as far as I am concerned); mind you, Indonesia used to banned any public of anything perceived as Chinese!

Humanising your fellow human beings and skilfully traversing trivial human differences. In my personal views, you need both in order to truly experience multiculturalism.

.

.

.

Oh, and about the people I argued with…

Some did end up acknowledging that diversity does exist outside the western world and more prominently so. But, it was not an admission of error on their part.

After the acknowledgement, they proceeded to talk about how politically unstable those diverse African countries are, proving diversity is bad for unity.

Now, did you see what just happened there? In case you didn’t notice, there were goalposts moving and gaslighting happening.

They acted as if they already acknowledged the diversity of non-western countries from the very beginning, even though their refusal to do so was the reason why we argued in the first place.

They acted as if we were arguing the merit of diversity, even though we argued about its existence outside the western world.

And they also acted as if I defended diversity as an inherently beneficial thing, even though I never made the argument. Not even once.

I know some people are against this behaviour. But, I can’t help myself: my opponents clearly lost.

Well, they already lost when they made a claim proven false by data. They lost for the second time when they started moving the goalposts and attempting to gaslight me.

And one person lost for the third time when he said my refusal to vindicate his make-believe was a sign of autism.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.