I can also list various writers and works across the Islamic world, from Islamic feminism, Islamic liberation theology, decolonial marxists, to Islamic socialists. But I think that may not be helpful because again we are stuck in this false dichotomy of “liberal” and “conservatism”. Of a rigid notion of “progress” and “reaction”, which I might add spits in the face of dialectics.
I can’t fault those that believe in a linear progress of history. Early Marxism itself was tainted with such notions until the 20th century.
So instead I will posit this question:
If we are to believe that gender and sexuality are socially situated within a specific cultural and time dependent context, then why do we assume that terms derived from such contexts like “homophobia” and “misogyny” are universally applicable and can be compared across different regions and areas of the globe?
This is not to discredit the admirable goal of internationalism, of universalising the struggle, but we then have to ask ourselves if this “internationalism” is based on actual applicability of it’s critique to the entire world or merely a projection based on false conceptions, with aid from the cultural and political hegemony of US-led Capital?
Also I’d like to note: if the Communists and “Progressives” were correct and listened to the masses in the Islamic World, they would have won. But they did not. So who is at fault here?
I have had arguments over this on here and Lemmygrad and so I am not going to engage further.
Just know that there is a different set of arguments and realities that we in the global south have to deal with it, away from the tired (and often orientalist/chauvinist) liberal-conservative dichotomy.
One large point I think is also the failure in developing a national vision to dissolve the communal differences between groups. As a result the parties take on a parochial character.
And what do indonesians make of it?
Most Indonesians in Malaysia and Singapore (ie, those with MY/SG citizenship) would be counted as Malay in classifications and often continue to identify as Malay rather than individual ethnic groups (Orang Minang, Bugi etc) as a result. There is a reason for this but I’ll keep my answer short.
As for Indonesians in Indonesia or migrated to Malaysia and Singapore after independence - I am not too sure.
Indonesian national identity was developed through efforts by anti-colonial Indonesian nationalists (many where also Chinese) in establishing a Malay-based national language (Indonesian), and so racial classifications had little effect after independence. The Dutch also had not imported as much foreign labourers as the British did, and often utilised the plentiful population surplus in Java for their colonial economy.
A somewhat similar trend could be seen in Indonesia’s history with their Chinese minority and the indigenous populations of the islands outside of Java but that would not fall under racism or racialism - a colonial construct with extensive roots in Western Modernity and Colonization.
So when I say particularity, it genuinely is a particularity found only within Malaysia and Singapore in Southeast Asia, but can be seen in many examples across the wider Global South.
I know that there is some level of racialist tension between malaysia and singapore (and brain drain of malaysian chinese into singapore)
Brain drain is somewhat of a concern due to uneven development and the higher wages seen in Singapore. This is the result of the semi-peripheral nature of the Malaysia in the World Economy. Other than that it’s not much of a political issue - as in, it is not covered as much in the political theatre of both respective nations (usually).
Malaysia sometimes complain about brain drain but that is the nature of Capitalism when you are imbedded in global trade networks. The neoliberal leaders follow the mercy of International Capital, and so backlash faced is due to their own subservience and nothing more. Having the 11th most powerful passport in the world has its downsides.
Singaporeans also have a nascent anti-immigrant base, something along the lines of “they are taking our jobs” but that is also the reality of being a city-state for Western conglomerates to park their headquarters in. Capitalism is the root cause. Not that I expect the labour aristocrats in Singapore to take heed.
I truly hate the word racialism, please find an alternative
I can’t change the literature unfortunately.
Communalism is also sometimes used as a synonym but I prefer racialism because everyone here uses the word “race” and it is immediately understood what it means.
And I also use communalism to refer to movements that generally do not fall under the “3 Race” umbrella (Malay/Indigenous, Chinese, Indian) or for more specific ethno-cultural chauvinism within the aforementioned racialised categories.
All they need to do is just start accepting chinese refugees when Malaysia is destroyed by climate change.
Actually Malaysia will fair quite well with climate change due to being richer than our neighbours. The position of the country in the middle of the tectonic plate also means that typhoons, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions also are not much of a concern.
Most major cities are also not threatened as much by rising sea levels.
If anything we will see more climate refugees enter Malaysia as time goes on. 10% of the population are already immigrants, mainly from South Asia.
I know your point should be mainly taken in jest but Chinese identity in Southeast Asia and especially Malaysia and Singapore is complicated, I do not necessarily think they will be willing to move to the mainland just due to identifying as Chinese. The most vulnerable to climate change would be indigenous groups that live in/near the coasts. The Sea Nomads (Orang Laut) and certain Orang Asli groups comes to mind.
·2 months ago
·2 months ago
deleted by creator