Ask the Other Question

Through soap advertising in the colonies, the British also exported ideas of racial hygiene and imperial progress. Photo: Internet

“Soap is civilization”
—Unilever Company Slogan

“There is a war that makes us adore our conquerors and despise ourselves”
—The god of small things, Arundhati Roy

Few days back, on Facebook the article titled “A fascinating map of the world's most and least racially tolerant countries,” by Max Fisher went viral. The deep-blue (racially tolerant areas) included the US, UK, Canada, Australia, Scandinavia, and much of Latin America. The deepest-red (most racially intolerant) countries were India, Bangladesh and Jordan. South Africa fell in light blue (highly tolerant), and Nigeria in light red (highly intolerant). (Fisher was drawn to the topic by news of a new research paper, by a pair of Swedish economists, on the links between economic freedom in a country and its level of tolerance). Many people liked and posted comments on Facebook, expressing remorse at how 'true' it is that that we Bangladeshis, (along with Indians) are so racist. My friend shared the piece with me. My response was utter disinterest.

Living in Bangladesh, I grew up surrounded by 'Fair & Lovely' posters and advertisements ('Fair and handsome' has joined that proud corporate lineage). So a white, westerner coming to me and saying 'Hey, people in your country are racist' will not be much of a shock to me really. Of course, there have been counter arguments in response to the article. Siddhartha Mitter in his article “Cartography of Bullshit” looks at the survey method and calls it a 'methodological disaster,' given that the data collected are from different years and 'race' is dealt in a simplistic way. Others have concluded saying that this clearly doesn't portray an accurate comparison of the 'most' and 'least' racially intolerant countries. But what do these categories even mean—the 'most' and the 'least'? To get a nuanced understanding of a society, it's important to go beyond the 'facts' and the 'whats,' and explore the 'whys' and 'hows.'

This British advert dates from the early 19th century. photo: internet

Anne McClintock in her book 'Imperial leather' writes, 'Victorian cleaning rituals were peddled globally as the God-given sign of Britain's evolutionary superiority, and soap was invested with magical, fetish powers. Soap advertising, in particular the Pears soap campaign, took its place at the vanguard of Britain's new commodity culture and its civilizing mission.' A 'sanitation syndrome' led to the invention of the trope of 'dirt' that was used to draw lines between the 'unclean' sections of the populations— prostitutes, the Irish, Jews, the unemployed, criminals, the insane, African slaves and sexual 'others.' This 'sanitation syndrome' fulfilled the purpose of drawing demarcating lines to separate the Victorian ruling elite and the 'degenerate classes' both in the imperial metropolis and the colonies. It is interesting to explore the trope of 'dirt' in the Victorian context and trace out the invention and marketing of soap during the colonial era. Through soap advertising in the colonies, the British also exported ideas of racial hygiene and imperial progress, when they associated ideas of the white skin with cleanliness and civilization.

The Indian Subcontinent went through a colonial period of three hundred years—imagine the amount of brainwashing (hegemony) the subcontinent went through. British colonialism made new realities for the colonies that pretty much messed up a lot of things—ideas of race, religion, class, gender, sexuality, beauty, body, language, knowledge production, governance. When the history is so dense and complex, how can it make sense to draw simplistic equations of racially tolerant and intolerant counties? What is the relevance?

As a sociologist student, I am skeptical of the idea of representation. A philosophy I bumped into while reading an essay just that day: “But, who, we might reasonably ask, is giving the reading?” Only few weeks back, even in a 'socialist democratic paradise' like Sweden (one of the most racially tolerant countries according to the map), passengers were checked randomly by security guards at the Stockholm subway based on the phenotype (those who did not fit into the stereotypical Swedish look—blonde, blue-eyed). Sweden's justice minister defended this racial profiling in the name of national security measure obviously. It is important that we don't take things for granted, and look into matters. It is much more important to come up with relevant research works, perhaps how to change racist societies?
(The writer is a Reporter, Star Campus, currently doing Master's in Gender Studies: Intersectionality and Change at Linköping University, Sweden.)