When East meets West; Misguided Eurasian Ethnocentricity

Part 3 of 3: The White Way

The reality is that the American and European domination of the world has taught most of us to think in one similar way; their own way. Heralding their perceived superiority, they have infiltrated existing local societal systems all across the world and condemned any other way apart from their own. At their own folly and perhaps our own, their belief in the infallibility of democracy and a legal framework in the form of the constitution have condemned all other forms of societal structures.

Hindu laws, Hudud Laws, the customs and practices of certain African tribes, native Indians the ideology of the Chinese and Japanese, communism, facism and socialism have all fell victim under the scrutiny of the western judgement. Numerous literature and documentaries in western media have described in great detail the flaws of these ‘brutal’, ‘primitive’, ‘barbaric’ and unfair and inhumane cultures. These exposés are widely circulated portraying these cultures, ideologies and concepts in a negative light compared to western thought.

The arrogance that reeks from western ethnocentricity perhaps justifiably stems from their greatest strengths; their ability to organize and structure, to impose and convince and finally faith and utmost confidence in their own ability. With a strong sense of self-belief in their methods, their overwhelming faith in their laws, cultures and beliefs compelled them to convince all others, that their ways were superior. Their ability to structure and organize all their thoughts served as a testament to their superiority. And finally when they imposed, most often than not, they succeeded.

Unfortunately, where lay the strengths that I have described in western cultures, therein lay the weaknesses of the non-western cultures. Their lack in structure, authority and self-belief allowed them to succumb to the imposing nature of western cultures.

I have no personal agenda against democracy, western culture or Christianity. Democracy may not be flawless, but perhaps it represents the most widely acceptable political structure we have now. Western culture has introduced many good values to the rest of the world too; speaking out against injustice and liberating those who have been discriminated. Christianity has brought hope and faith to many who in their darkest days were left floundering. Western colonisation of the world has indeed its benefits. But indeed it made the world sway to its tune; and if any is to stray from it, it would be near impossible to escape the prejudice and judgement from all else.

We are decades into the post-colonialism era. But why are we still judged based on western standards? Worse still, not only by the westerners, but by ourselves too.

Values like chastity are forsaken in the name of liberation. Traditional masculine and feminine roles are increasingly challenged by feminism, blurring the divide between male and female; unfortunately portraying the modern women as one not limited by culture or traditions and ultimately less feminine. Duties, responsibilities and roles are forgotten as western youth revolutions challenge the traditional eastern parent-child relationships. Sacred ties and relationships such as marriages now are no more than legislative and civil partnership that last only whilst it works. Prayer and devotion are met with scepticism and western scientific hypotheses, theories and statistics are increasingly used to explain the ways of the world.

Perhaps there is no right or wrong. But this discourse is not about which is right or better, eastern cultures versus western cultures. It merely is about remembering who we are and why we are, instead of aspiring to be someone else we are not.

Cultures and traditions evolve with time, and I am not naïve or ignorant to that. We cannot expect to still live by the traditions of our predecessors from the Vedic era. But nothing should stop us from holding onto the good and positive principles of these cultures and traditions that define us. The evolution of cultures and traditions is not about forgetting older practices, but instead is about learning from other cultures and ingraining their positives into our own lifestyle whilst accepting the technology and modernisation of the world. Unfortunately, the converse is the reality. We see more people adopting this modern foreign culture and trying to implement an eastern flavour to this. At risk of hypocrisy, I admit that even I may perhaps be guilty of this.

So hence the paradox within my discourse; will globalisation blur the lines that divide us culturally until we accept an increasingly popular western culture, or will the remaining few who have resisted westernisation so far continue to resist this new hybrid culture and allow the clashing of cultures to continue?

I warmly embrace globalisation, as the bringing together of people, I believe, helps you understand other cultures, allowing you to dispel myths, prejudices and stereotypes. Or even if it confirms them, it at least affords one the chance of experiencing a different culture and learning how to respect and live with it. However, I for one am not ready to discard religious teachings and traditions that have been passed onto me for centuries, for these are the very things that have defined who I am and provide an explanation to my identity.

Perhaps the world would be a more peaceful place if we all discarded our respective culture and religion and adopted a hybrid one. But I suppose I still would prefer a little more flavour and colour that the various cultures, religion and traditions bring to the world, even if it means a little more drama.

When East meets West; Misguided Eurasian Ethnocentricity

Part 2 of 3: Post-colonialism sentiments of superiority
The residual effects of post-colonialism still linger on as many former colonies have suffered from westernisation in the form of European ethnocentricity that has quenched previously held traditions, religious beliefs and ultimately culture. Heralded as the harbinger of civilisation, European imperialism gradually built an aura of superiority around European culture by condemning our very own traditional Asian cultures, hence teaching the world to measure and judge against a European based standards; a western yardstick.

This is commonality I find especially amongst the upper class or the upper middle class of our very own Asian cultures. By no fault of their own, their exposure to ‘stylish’ western cultures allows them to indulge in an air of self belief that embracing the values of ‘civilised’ cultures is form of self betterment. After all, the faculty of self improvement comes naturally even to the most primitive men. When combined with curiosity and the faculty of thought, the theory of survival of the fittest subconsciously forces upon men the natural inclination to attempt to distinguish themselves from the pack, to portray themselves as better, improved, attractive or even for simpler reasons such as a testament to their fitness or fertility.

By discarding traditionalistic cultures, many Indians have separated themselves from the traditionalist hordes that make up the majority of the society. By embracing western cultures, they edge closer towards belonging to a group perceived as being elite and superior; unfortunately and unwittingly failing to see that they have just allowed themselves to enter into the submission of foreign influence. Consequently the very features that define the Indian society and culture dissipate away and Indian identity is gradually lost.

The sense of identity is important to all because it explains what we are. It explains why we act or behave in a certain manner. It provides a fresh source of variety in an increasingly monotonous culture that has been emphasised by western education and science; inhibiting the birth of unique individuals from the various cultures. By infiltrating local legal, administrative and religious setups, western colonisers have imposed their own practices upon their colonies.

Bearing western gifts, a coy smile and the promise of a structured civil society for the benefits of the people in lands stricken with civil wars, in exchange for a mere share in administrative powers in local affairs may appear to be a fair trade at first glance. But the manner by which colonisers wrest control of the administrative powers from local leaders were by no means honourable. Many forget the circumstances under which the locals had to agree to the terms set by the western colonisers. With a vast army with far superior array of arsenal looming not far behind, the options were simple; a peaceful transition of power under which locals retain a small portion of position and power, or a transition by force under which locals will be forced to accept whatever scraps are available after the aftermath.

The strategy was brilliant, as although western colonisers gained entry through the threat of force, it provided the illusion that the entry was sanctioned by the local leaders, hence making the so-called joint administration more acceptable to the locals. As the colonisers’ voice grew louder and more frequent, it quenched the voice of the local leaders who became increasingly isolated from their own positions and people. By implementing hybrid laws, the colonisers modified local structures into a system that slowly resembled their own western society.

However, as the locals who held such high regard for their local leaders, they accepted this unfamiliar change purely because the believed that all this change was sanctioned by their own beloved and respected leaders. Unfortunately, many of the local leaders had only the own personal interest at heart, accepting the conditions imposed onto them to purely to safeguard their position The locals believed that their leaders would only have their best interest in heart when accepting these unfamiliar changes; that perhaps they could learn from another culture for their own benefit.. What they did not realise at the time was that western education and law, in many areas contradicted their own views. But instead of offering a moderated platform where these clashing of ideas could be weighed against each other, western ideas were pressed ahead and heralded as better or true at the cost of dispelling and disproving previous culturally dictated thoughts ideas. The more the locals learnt about the west, the more they forgot or unlearnt their own prior knowledge.

Christianity and science condemned religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism and our beliefs; labelling them as delusions, misguided or false. Missionaries targeted areas where the population were most severely affected by suffering often most those living in severe deprivation, lacking structure in society and uneducated. The relief of their physical suffering came hand in hand with spiritual rescue.

After all it is not difficult to dissuade a man to part from beliefs that he has held on to, at a time when all around him is failing. Missionaries could very easily convince these select populations that any other form of worship apart from Christianity is false and blasphemous, hence incurring the wrath of God who has brought upon them this very suffering that they are currently experiencing.

At a time when in places like India, education and religious teaching were exclusive to mostly the higher echelons of society, the lack of faith, belief and structure of religion amongst the poor is not the least surprising. Choosing salvation of a new religion and culture over tradition and a religion one know very little about, is a straightforward choice that any man would make at times of desperation.

Thus in Asia, where tradition, culture and religion closely resembles a meshwork that has been intertwined over the centuries, separating tradition from culture, from religion is quite nearly impossible. Hence the consequence of adopting a new religion as per guided by the missionaries is the abandonment of tradition and culture.

Unfortunately the lack of consistency and structure in many cultures has led to its’ notwithstanding nature in the face of imperialism. Faith and beliefs are only held on to as long as a follower has a reason to adhere to them. The diversity and failing teachings of Hinduism due to the lack of a structured religious authority has left many followers lost or misguided. When Hinduism fails them, or fails to provide followers with answers or reason, it is no surprise when these followers look elsewhere. Similarly with traditions and culture; when we do not invest to preserve our culture and traditions, there is no doubt they will dissipate away and become diluted in the wave of globalisation. When the upper class discard and even worse despise our own culture, and openly embrace a perceived superior culture, it eventually becomes exclusive and draws the lower strata of the society towards it. It is then inevitable that the middle and lower class masses aspire to follow similarly to match and achieve the heights of the upper class to resemble or duplicate their lifestyle.

When East meets West; Misguided Eurasian Ethnocentricity

Part 1 of 3: Is Hollywood really better than Bollywood?

For a long time I have believed that the blurring of cultural lines and barriers is an inevitable consequence of the giant wave of globalisation that is sweeping across the world. This phenomenon was one that an idealist like me warmly embraced, as I believe the breaking down of borders would bring cultures together hence allowing firsthand encounter which could dispel the myths and prejudices that one might hold against another of a different kind.

Perhaps it was my naivety that I did not account for the possibility that the opposite could happen too, if not even more likely than the former. The coming together of various cultures instead of blending together, I find as history suggests, is more likely to clash and create more barriers between cultures.

Allow me to digress to explore this thought. My friends have long known me for my loud spoken criticisms of the Indian film industries. I have never hid my contempt for what I saw as a lack of quality in the direction, a lack of depth in the plot and above all the dismal portrayal of the majority population of Indians as simpletons, rude and uncivilised, and sometimes best described as brute in the manner the films thrive themselves on glorifying retaliation against wrong with pure physical violence. The loud and crude dialogue and the exaggerated acting, I find especially difficult to endure. And even on the rare occasion you find yourself immersed in the storyline with a thin plot best described in Tolkien’s words, “butter spread over too much bread”, you are suddenly rudely interrupted with a random choreographed dance sequence or an utterly irrelevant comedy scene.

How do I even to begin to compare these productions that barely qualify to be called films to great classics such as ‘The Godfather’, ‘The City of God’, ‘Usual Suspects’ or even next to adventurous epics like ‘Star Wars’ or ‘Lord of the Rings’? Never mind the plots, even adrenaline and pure testosterone driven films crammed with violence and action were extremely ‘watch-able’; ‘Rambo’, ‘Predator’ and ‘Die Hard’ spring to mind. Likewise even soppy romantic, slapstick comedy and musicals were amusing and if not entertaining. I must reluctantly admit that I truly was mesmerised by the beautiful production of ‘Moulin Rogue’, an unusual film which I thought its genre appeared to be contemporary art more than mainstream cinema.

Although I never may have admitted it, I perhaps may have been silently embarrassed how the culture and traditions of Indians have been portrayed so crudely and so shamelessly in these movies, especially when viewed in the same light or beside the stylish American, European, and even those of oriental origin namely the Chinese and Japanese productions, such as ‘Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon’ or the flawless ‘Seven Samurai’.

That is until a particular scene from a largely obscure Tamil film left me pondering and questioning my judgements of culture. The scene, from a movie titled, “Vilai Thirai”, a struggling wannabe director has elaborate ideas of producing a movie to match the ranks of European classics epitomised by a solid and strong characters with tasteful subtlety by performance actors who are able to effortlessly draw viewers into the plot. He stars opposite a struggling wannabe actor who is a direct contrast to director; an actor who believes in not-so-subtle acting, exaggerating every scene to emphasize every emotion to allow his audience to grasp each innate emotion in its raw audacity, and immerse themselves in the fantasy providing them with escapism from reality.

In one particular scene, the director bursts out at the actor questioning his acting abilities, drawing contrast between him and greats such as Marlon Brando and Al Pacino. The actor retorts in reply, questioning the director on why was he so preoccupied with European superiority. He asked the director to stop judging him on European standards and reflect on the culture and traditions of the Indians.

He asks, “How can a European (referring to Ben Kingsley) play Gandhi, and not an Indian like me? I have no doubt I could play him better, not only because I understand better what it means to be an Indian but I know what its like. He portrayed Gandhi based on a western interpretation of how Gandhi was like. Can you ever see or even imagine an Indian actor cast to play Winston Churchill? Does it not sound ridiculous? But similarly a European plays Gandhi, and so poorly too, yet the world applauds his acting? It’s ridiculous. Stop judging us on European standards. This is India and its culture, and Indians know what we want in Indian films. If the Indian people want overacting, we give them overacting. Do you think your great European actors could deliver what we do in our films?”

Those may not be the exact words, but basically a summary of the message it carries. Nevertheless his words stung me, because I understood precisely why I have failed to appreciate Bollywood and Kollywood. I thought Ben Kingsley’s portrayal of Ghandi was superb. But the yardstick that I used to measure his performance was one that was ingrained into me over the years from popular mainstream media; European media. I learnt to believe what I read, heard or watched from the mass media. Retrospectively, it is only now I realise that I never really had the chance to judge Marlon Brando’s portrayal of the Godfather impartially. Everything I had heard or read about the movie and Brando lead me to believe that it could not get any better, as though films should be modelled after this fine example.