100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

November 05, 2018 - Image 3

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Michigan in Color
Monday, November 5, 2018— 3A

Everything except the food

If you know me, the last
thing you’ll mistake me for is
being a picky eater.
Be it American food, Italian
food, Chinese food or anything
in between, I’ve probably tried
it. Heck, I’ve even eaten fried
silk worms in Thailand — trust
me, they’re actually pretty
good. But for whatever reason,
the one food I never liked
growing up was sadly, my
own. Even though my parents,
sister and grandparents in the
states always loved Sri Lankan
food, I personally never found
it appealing.
Some of that I can pinpoint
back to my seventh birthday
party, on my first of six trips to
Sri Lanka. Like any birthday
party, it had cake, gifts and
lots of people I barely knew
showering me with hugs and
kisses and pinching my cheeks
until I was sore. When it got to
dinner though, I expected all
the food I liked, because it was
my party.
Instead of trays of pizza,
mac and cheese, and BBQ,
however, I was greeted by
chicken
curry,
parippu
(a

Sri Lankan version of dhal)
and many other vegetables
that didn’t seem the least bit
appealing to a first grader
dropped in a foreign country
for the first time.
Naturally,
I
complained
to my dad that I couldn’t eat
anything at my own birthday
party. That sounds reasonable
enough,
right?
Well,
he
certainly
didn’t
think
so,
telling me to “never ask that
again” and that I would enjoy
Sri Lankan food for the rest of
our trip. It might sound sort
of shallow, but when you’re a
kid, you don’t always want to
do what your parents say. So I
made it a point for the rest of
my trip to eat as little curry, as
little anything Sri Lankan, as
possible.
And each time I came
back to Sri Lanka, there was
always some kind of dread in
the back of my mind. Sure, I
loved seeing my family who
lived there, and I thoroughly
enjoyed
going
to
the
tea
plantations,
beaches
and
temples around the country,
but as petty it was, there was
at least three moments every
day I didn’t feel right.
What
I
didn’t
realize
then, and until recently, is

appreciating
your
culture
doesn’t
mean
liking
everything about it. In the
United States, there are so
many things wrong with our
society, but at the end of the
day, being an American means
accepting people for who they
are, no matter what you don’t
like about them.
That wasn’t a conclusion
that was easy for me to reach
until after the 2016 election,
which created an environment,
from my point of view, that
made it easy for people to
hate what was different with
others rather than trying to
appreciate those gaps.
But it gave me a new outlook
on my time in Sri Lanka.
Though I wasn’t necessarily
a fan of the food, I came
back this summer with a new
mindset. To truly accept my
culture didn’t mean I had to
love every single part of it,
but it does mean I have to try
my best to see the positives in
every single part of it.
For the first time in ages, I
miss Sri Lankan food. While I
sit here writing this, enjoying
a slice of New York Pizza
Depot, something small inside
me misses those vegetables.

RIAN RATNAVALE
Daily Sports Writer

Finding solidarity with other marginalized groups

I was recently at an open mic
night for LGBTQ folks to tell
their coming out stories. I was
pleasantly surprised to find
that, for a predominately white
institution like the University
of
Michigan,
the
speakers
and audience were both of
a
surprisingly
multiracial
composition.
This
pleasant
feeling
was
unfortunately
soon to leave me. Speaker after
speaker told their narratives,
some of which were heart-
wrenching, some of which were
inspiring, most were both. I
was transfixed by the sheer
emotional weight of some of the
stories, and by the bravery of
the people who were willing to
come up in front of an audience
of at least a hundred to tell
them.
This trance was soon broken.
A white person walked up to the

microphone to tell their story
of coming out as nonbinary.
A warning sign came when
they described their boss only
as “Indian,” with a sly wink
to the audience, when what
they meant to convey was that
he was socially conservative,
but
instead
chose
to
only
showcase this by relying on
misconceptions about Indian
cultural
values.
I
should
mention this alone is a huge
misconception
about
Indian
notions of gender and sexuality
— for one example among
many, in pre-colonial India,
hijras, as people identifying
as neither male nor female are
called, held important court
positions,
were
considered
religious authorities and often
were sought after for blessings.
It was only after the British
imposed Western values on
colonized India that they began
to experience discrimination
and criminalization, and the
country is still in the process

of decolonizing its cultural
mindset.
This
assumption
about

collective
Indian
ideas
on
gender
and
sexuality
is
offensive, but unfortunately it
was not the worst thing in their
monologue. I didn’t think much
of it until a minute or two later,
when, recounting an experience
with
their
aforementioned
Indian boss, they voiced him in
a full-on racist stereotype Apu-
style Indian accent. To make it
worse, about halfway through
their imitation they tapered
off to a half-assed-but-still-
derogatory
accent,
meaning

they must have known that the
accent was racist, performed
it anyways, and then decided
halfway through that maybe to
do so was not the greatest idea.
To anyone who might dismiss
imitating an accent as harmless:
It’s not. To do so is a form
of cultural imperialism that
reduces the rich experiences of
an entire group of people down
to a singularity that is easy to
mock, easy to other and easy to
exclude. Being the only Indian
kid in my grade in elementary
school, middle school and one of
two in high school, I can barely
count the number of times
another kid imitated an Indian
accent in front of me, either as
a way to try to make fun of my
father (who doesn’t even have
an accent), as a way to poke
fun at my ethnic background
or as a way to draw attention to
my otherness. In each of these
instances, I felt humiliated and
often wished I didn’t have to be
different — something no kid

should ever have to feel.
There also seems to be a
misconception
among
many
people
that
holding
one
minority identity gives you a
free pass to oppress others.
The fact that this person was
nonbinary absolutely does not

give them a right to be racist.
If anything, the fact that this
occurred at an open mic night
for LGBTQ folks makes it even
worse — it was intended to be
a safe space for marginalized
people of all ethnic and racial
backgrounds, and their outright
racism violated the sanctity of
that space. The same holds for

people of color who discriminate
against other people of color.
Even back in school, most of the
kids who made fun of me were
also nonwhite (but not Indian),
but they were still propagating
racist attitudes against another
minority group, and that is
not acceptable no matter your
color. Every one of us holds
multiple identities, be it race,
gender, sexuality or any other;
in any one aspect, I may be
more privileged than you or
you may be more privileged
than me. Those of us who don’t
belong to the majority, for any
aspect of our identity, must
be careful not to promulgate
forms of oppression against
other
marginalized
groups.
Fighting for social justice is
not about cherry picking which
marginalized groups you care
to empower and disregarding
the rest. Regardless of if we are
people of color, LGBTQ or any
other group, we should show
solidarity.

DANYEL THARAKAN
MiC Columnist

Exploitation in The NFL

The
prosperity
of
the
modern
National
Football
League in the U.S. is aided
by
white
supremacy,
i.e.,
the
marginalization,
commoditization
and
exploitation of the Black body.
It is clear that owners,
affiliates,
administration
members, and even sports
analysts and professors profit
more from the game than
the players themselves after
the costs of time, energy and
well-being are accounted for.
Yet, opponents of this theory
argue playing football is a
choice, and if people don’t
want to be taken advantage of,
they shouldn’t play football.
Or worse, even if Black players
are being taken advantage of,
it’s not that bad because they
still make a lot of money. But
these
notions
perpetuate
harmful stereotypes about the
intellect, responsibility and
the agency of Black players.
Further, these ideas fail to
acknowledge the deep-seeded
truth: Black players are used
for their bodies to make their
owners a profit at
the expense of
their
own
sanity
and

well-
being.

The average
player in the NFL
is paid $2 million a
year. The average owner
makes between $20 million
and $500 million a year. That
means even on the lower end,
owners make ten times on the
lower quartile of their pay
scale more than players on
the median/average quartile
do.
Not
to
mention,
the
injuries sustained in football
are unparalleled to any other
modern day, hegemonic sport.
According to the New York
Times and TIME magazine,
“The link between football
and traumatic brain injury
continues to strengthen. Now,
one of the largest studies on
the subject to date finds that
110 out of 111 deceased NFL
players had chronic traumatic
encephalopathy
(CTE),
a
degenerative brain disorder
associated
with
repetitive
head trauma.” CTE can cause
impulse
control
problems,
aggression,
depression
and
paranoia. As time goes on,
problems with thinking and

memory develop: memory loss,
confusion, impaired judgment
and
eventually
progressive
dementia.
Everything these players
do, from putting their (mostly
colored) bodies on the line
in the name of money, to
contracting a disease as severe
as CTE, is political. These
players, mostly of color, are
doing
everything
in
their
power to make a living by
playing
a
very
dangerous
game. The owners reap far
too many of the benefits
for this to not be aided by
larger power structures, like
white supremacy, or owner
versus player administrative
dynamics.
The
amount
of
money these players produce
versus how much they are paid
versus how much the owners
of teams are paid
is
absolutely

astounding
once one has done
their due diligence with the
research.
70 percent of the NFL is
Black, and yet there exists
a
dull
hum
around
that
statistic. This is a reality few
openly
acknowledge.
It
is
never a headline on ESPN,
nor is it ever discussed in
depth.
Colin
Kaepernick’s
act of kneeling during the
national
anthem
sparked
nationwide controversy over
the
patriotism
of
football
players, and whether they are
required to stand for a country
that does not stand for them.
There
is
undoubtedly
an
expectation of colorblindness
and respect for the American
flag despite the fact white
and Black counterparts of
same crime are treated vastly
differently by judicial system,
killings of unarmed Black
men is a reality, white cops
shooting with impunity, etc.

Participants of sports have
long been encouraged to be
apolitical and ignorant of
social conditions, even though
their bodies inherently occupy
political space because of the
United States’ legacy of slavery,
colonialism and Jim Crow.
When sportscasters try to
engage in conversations about
race or white supremacy, they
are disciplined or fired. (See:
Kaepernick,
Jemele
Hill).
Further,
these
repressive
consequences that result from
discussing the color of the
talent and/or socio-political
factors that push players into
football breed colorblindness.
If we don’t talk about how
the best and most talented
players in football tend to be
Black and undercompensated
compared
to
the
white
administrators,
public
and
popular
discourse
will
remark
that
disparities
do
not
exist.
This

blindness
(and
ignorance)
is
profitable. Maintaining
the
status
quo
is
profitable. Failing to
understand or combat
racism institutions is
profitable.
Ignorance
is
bliss.
But
this
is
dangerous. By continuing
to be being a patron of
institutions
that
actively
marginalize and commodify
the
bodies
of
Black
and
Brown folk without adequate
compensation,
we
stymie
social progress. Clearly, the
globalization of the modern
world and the world of sport
has allowed for a power
structure where the people
who manage the game earn
much more in compensation
(monetary or otherwise) than
those who play it.
Undergirding this love is
a pernicious and insidious
power structure that keeps
the players from receiving
compensation tantamount to
the risk, injuries and political
capital they would sustain if
never used by the NFL and
NCAA as chess pieces in a
game to uphold class and
racial struggle.

ALLIE BROWN
MiC Contributor

I felt humiliated
and often wished
that I didn’t have
to be different

PHOTO COURTESY OF KATELYN
MULCAHY/Daily

SADHANA RAMASESHADRI/ Daily

This assumption
about collective
Indian ideas ... is
offensive

If you’d like to submit to Michigan in
Color, please email us at
michiganincolor@umich.edu.

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan