Racial politics

Rosemary Brown has been described as one of the earliest politicians to attempt to challenge the divisive racial politics of Canada, during the 1975 NDP leadership election.[1]

In 2015, Jagmeet Singh campaigned against police carding, in what Maclean's described was "racial politics were at the crux" of the policy.[2] Ahead of the 2019 Canadian federal election, while describing them as "conditional multiculturalists", a National Observer analysis stated that white Canadians didn't easily engage in racial politics.[1]

One of the Racial politics in United States is to describe racially charged political actions by Abigail Thernstrom, the vice-chairman of the U.S. commission on civil rights. The practice has been a major part of American government since its creation, and often divides the Republican and Democratic parties.

The United States Government has since the time of its creation been divided, and in many ways developed based upon issues of race. In 1861 the Civil War between the Northern and Southern states of the nation was fought partially over the abolition of slavery. Furthermore, the tension between the Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats continued for many years after as the South created Jim Crow laws and continued the segregation of individuals of color. The Northern Republicans realized that the South would not simply erase the strong racial divide that existed despite the abolition of slavery, and so in hopes of having a functioning Government allowed for such restrictions to exist.

In 1896, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the, "separate but equal", doctrine was constitutional in the case Plessy v. Ferguson. Segregation was legal, so long as the segregated schools and facilities provided to whites and blacks were equal. Plaintiff Homer Plessy, whose ancestry was 1/8 African American, was persuaded by civil rights activists in New Orleans to test a new law that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads.

In 1954, the ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned in the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education. The Supreme Court determined that the establishment of separate schools for whites and blacks was inherently unequal and unconstitutional. This was a major success for civil rights advocates, including the NAACP.

In 1967, California Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act as reaction to growing racial politics in the country. Supported by the NRA, the motivation of the Act has been described as racially motivated, in relation to the growing Black Panther movement.[3]

In 1997, the interim replacement of Yvonne Gonzalez with a white man as Dallas ISD superintendent, was met with public unrest due to the racial politics of the situation.[4]

Perhaps the most glaring aspect of racial politics today is the re-drawing and shaping of district lines to seclude minorities in certain areas. In doing this, Republicans and Democrats alike ensure certain trends in voting patterns and constituent concerns, as they place a high concentration of minorities within a voting district. This is a crucial aspect of modern-day politics and is often a major factor in elections.

By 2019, racial politics was being increasingly identified as a reemergent phenomenon, with some media describing it at its most extreme in the history of the United States.[5] In October 2019, on the death of Elijah Cummings, a CNN analysis discussed the congressman's understanding of racial politics in the US, praising his ability to "navigate a white world - how to get along with white Americans as a means of better holding the country to account".[6]

In 2014, Vox reported how "Australia's twisted racial politics created horrific detention camps for immigrants", such as Nauru Regional Processing Centre, describing the country's treatment of immigrants as a return to the racial insecurities of white Australians and the white supremacy of the 20th-century White Australia policy.[7]

Rita Panahi publicly dismissed Australian basketball player Ben Simmons' claim that he was refused entry to Crown Melbourne due to his race in August 2019. Panahi wrote that "He seems to be afflicted by this racial politics that everyone in the US has gone nuts with where they see everything with a filter of race".[8] In October 2019, author Peter FitzSimons stated that his latest book on James Cook, was an attempt to improve the racial politics of the country, which he compared unfavorably with New Zealand's race relations.[9]

Malaysian politician Chang Ko Youn said "Malaysia has practised racial politics for 51 years and we know it is divisive as each party only talks on behalf of the racial group it represents... When all races are in a single party, no one person will try to be the champion of the party.... It is easy to be a Malay hero, a Malaysian Chinese hero or a Malaysian Indian hero but it is difficult to be a Malaysian hero.... The country is facing economic problems now and it is important that the Government and political parties come up with a Malaysian agenda on how to unite the people and face these challenges..."[10]

On August 13, 2008, a letter was sent to The Star[11] with the title "Why we can't get our experts to return" saying:

THE most important asset of a country is not its natural resources but its human resources. This is especially true in a knowledge-based economy, which will be the trend in future if it is not already the trend in most Western countries.

Writer A. Asohan wrote: "...you started to grow up, and race increasingly became a factor. You became aware of race politics here. Insidious people would hint that being friends with the "Other" made you a traitor to your own race. The racist rot seems to have intensified over the subsequent generations. The bigotry we learned as adults are now being picked up by our primary schoolkids. Our leaders may, in a fit of progressiveness (by their standards), talk about racial tolerance, but acceptance and appreciation for other races and cultures seem beyond their ken. Racial intolerance in the country is getting worse, we tell ourselves, looking back to a more idyllic past. Bah, what crock! We Malaysians have always been racists. Heck, the entire human race has always found some illusive basis for discrimination. Race, religion, colour, creed, whether you were born north or south of that artificial line called a border – we spend an inordinate amount of our time and resources on delineating our differences rather than celebrating our similarities. If you married someone from a different race in the old days, you faced severe social censure and were treated as an outcast. Parents wrung their hands and tore at their hair, wailing "What did we do wrong? Aiyoh, how can you do this to us?"[12]

Marina Mahathir wrote: "...The same thing happened in our country. Unfortunately, race politics has not really died down yet, and some people reacted as if ethnic cleansing had just taken place...."[13]

Politician Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham when he was asked "What do you dislike most about Malaysians?", he replied: Racial politics.[14]

Chris Anthony wrote: "...After 50 years of living and working together side-by-side, the people have voted to do away with racial politics but unfortunately the politicians are far from showing signs of heeding their calls for multiracialism...."

Philip Bowring of International Herald Tribune wrote that the political organization of Malaysia has long been largely on racial lines, Islam has at times become a device for use in racial politics, a yardstick for measuring the commitment of competing parties to Malay racial advancement.[15]

In 2019, the Malay Mail reported how the 2019 Tanjung Piai by-election would be an opportunity to move away from racial politics, by respecting the racial pluralism of Mohamed Farid Md Rafik, after his unexpected death.[16]

According to many historians, the root cause of this strife between the ethnic communities and Malay nationalist sentiments like ketuanan Melayu was the lack of assimilation or amalgamation between the Malays and non-Malays. Because most of the migrants came as "guest workers" of the British, they felt little need to integrate into Malay society. (The Straits Chinese, most of whom were rich merchants instead of manual labourers, were an exception and managed to assimilate reasonably well, with many of them habitually speaking Malay at home, dressing in the Malay style, and preferring Malay cuisine.) Few bothered to even learn the Malay language; the census taken at independence showed that only 3% of Chinese aged ten and over, and 5% of Indians in the same age group, were literate in Malay. The comparable figure for the Malays stood at 46%.[41] The British educational policies, which segregated the different ethnicities—providing minimal public education for the Malays, and leaving the non-Malays to their own devices – did little to help matters. The Malays, who were predominantly rural-dwellers, were not encouraged to socialise with the non-Malays, most of whom resided in towns. The economic impoverishment of the Malays, which set them apart from the better-off Chinese, also helped fan racial sentiments.

This failure to assimilate or amalgamate has in turn been blamed on the British. George Maxwell, a high ranking colonial civil servant, credited the Malay aristocracy for its acceptance of non-Malay participation in public life, and attributed political discrimination to British colonial policy:

"With thirty-five years service in Malaya, and with intimate friendship with Rulers over two generations, I can say that I never heard one of them say anything that would tend to support [the exclusion of non-Malays from administrative appointments]. From the very earliest days of British protection, the Rulers have welcomed the leaders of the Chinese communities as members of their State Councils. Other [non-Malays] are now members of the State Councils. The policy of keeping [non-Malays] out of the administration owes its inception to British officials, and not to the Rulers."

On the basis of these policies, historians have argued that "Given the hostility toward Chinese expressed by many colonial officials and the lack of physical and social integration, it is not surprising that most Malays formed the opinion that Chinese were only transients in Malaya with no real attachments to the country."

Another contributing factor to ketuanan Melayu, according to historians, was the Japanese occupation during World War II. One states that the war "awakened a keen political awareness among Malayan people by intensifying communalism and racial hatred." This was widely attributed to the Japanese policies which "politicised the Malay peasantry" and intentionally fanned the flames of Malay nationalism. Racial tension was also increased by the Japanese practice of using Malay paramilitary units to fight Chinese resistance groups. Two Malay historians wrote that "The Japanese hostile acts against the Chinese and their apparently more favourable treatments of the Malays helped to make the Chinese community feel its separate identity more acutely ... it was also the beginning of racial tension between the Malays and Chinese."[44] A foreign commentator agreed, stating that "During the occupation period ... Malay national sentiment had become a reality; it was strongly anti-Chinese, and its rallying cry [was] 'Malaya for the Malays'..."

In the year 2006, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on his release from 6 years of prison said in a number of interviews that the NEP should be abolished and that all races should be given equal opportunities[17] and also that the NEP was bad because only the cronies of UMNO party became rich from it, however Khairy Jamaluddin from UMNO party hit out at him (Anwar Ibrahim) for saying that. Khairy said: "What cheek he has to speak" and also said that Anwar Ibrahim was the greatest UMNO party member of all and a very rich one too.