Riot Act III: Deconstructing Religion

In the holy trinity of ever controversial issues, religion remains unmatched by sexuality and politics, intertwined into the everyday life of human beings, deeply spreading its textual roots into the acres of passion and faith that drive followers to believe. A praised vehicle of hope and solidarity, one’s religion usually becomes one’s identity, and is often carefully guarded against criticism like a vulnerable baby in a manger.

As a child, I was raised in a religious household for my grandfather was a pundit, and my parents were steadfastly committed to being “good” Hindus, as in, practising their culture. I attended a Hindu primary school and then graduated to a Catholic secondary school where religiously-relevant prayers were said at least three times per day. I studied Sanskrit Hindi at Sunday school and was a member of Baal Vikas, a competitive Hindu children’s choir. As you can imagine, my developing years were not short on the wisdoms and teachings of many religions. So the question remains, how can someone this deeply involved in his religion not believe?

During my academic career as a university student, I studied South Asian history, hoping to gain enlightenment and understanding of my culture. Although I developed an intense satisfaction towards theories that could be both reasonably and factually supported, I was open-minded to the idea that alternative explanations could smooth over the inconsistencies I discovered in my faith. Unfortunately, they only helped to nail my beliefs to the cross.

If you are Hindu and have been to any number of religious ceremonies, you may often notice that some pundits comment on certain actions being “incorrect” despite being taught by others of the same profession. Other times some rituals may lead you to question their necessity altogether while being simply clarified as “part of the process”. The main reason for these variations can simply be a reflection of Hinduism’s multi-textual foundation, for unlike Christianity and Islam who adhere to the Bible and the Qur’an respectively, Hinduism has no one core book of knowledge or guidelines because in the days it was written, the religion was simply a catalyst of mass manipulation.

Riddled in rewrites, inclusions and exceptions, the rituals of Hinduism changed with the reigning classes, coordinated to benefit the likes of those in charge and to appease their outlook on life and the way it should be lived.

Why then, hundreds of years later, do we submit to such archaic and outdated teachings? If one group of persons finds meaning in a scripture, it does not automatically fulfill the needs and understandings of a mass congregation with differing situations and lifestyles. Humans are not stock characters that can adhere to rules written in stone. How can we allow ourselves to be governed by such ancient mindsets when we constantly reevaluate our own behaviour to the appropriateness of ever changing society?

Furthermore, if we open religion to interpretation, aren’t we no better than the Europeans who used these exact scriptures to justify the enslavement of our ancestors? Personally, I can not give my support to any institution that discriminates and isolates individuals who ask for their acceptance, based purely on gender or sexual orientation. Moreover, what does it mean when the “leaders” preaching these validations not only engage in these affairs but traumatize under-age victims? When is the sanctity of religion broken? Is forgiveness as easy as confession, prayer and repentance? And if so, is our justice system needed? Would you be satisfied if a priest or pundit absolved a criminal of his sins? Do you understand the motives of Holy War?

All these questions constantly reinforce my disbeliefs in the conventions of religion and simultaneously strengthen my faith in God. Live your life with purpose, and respect, and be tolerant of other people’s cultures, lifestyles and ideas, including those who choose to follow their religion. Be responsible for the choices you make and remain aware that while you may follow your ideas, you still live in the real world. Finally, understand if don’t believe in religion, you have not abandoned God and he can hear your prayer from your bedside to the sidewalk. Religion is but a man-made state of control, and by no means a legitimate basis to dictate the suitability of one’s character or lifestyle.

RIOT for Freethought, Responsibility and Faith

By Shastri Ramlogan

Riot Act II: Race Rises at the Funeral

I am a devoted film enthusiast, as you very well may know, spending hours reading, analyzing, ingesting screenplays and backstories, box office data and film castings, writing and criticizing with passionate and particular precision. I find something incredibly relatable and transcendent about film and its elements, being able to mimic reality but also to project unimaginable worlds. Film is the canvas of creativity and I often view the genre as an outlet to reflect on modern day relationships.

Once in a while, a film’s production inspires me to rethink my assumed philosophies on certain issues, and in the past, I have often caught myself off-guard with the resulting conclusions. One such film is the Hollywood version of “Death at a Funeral”.

In case you didn’t know, “Death at a Funeral” was originally a British film which was released in 2007, and I had the personal pleasure of seeing it by accident one night when I made a late trip to the movies with my friends. While the major consensus was unfavourable, I found it to be quite charming and hilarious so upon learning that an American remake was in the works, I was very interested in how the story would transform across the pond.

Now that the film has been finished and released into theaters this very weekend, marketing has been at its highest and for the first time, I noticed an incredibly overlooked aspect – the inclusion of race.

In the British version of the movie, the main cast was all white, something which is very common for many films. However, in the Hollywood version, the main cast is all black, except for the character played by white actor, James Marsden. Now again, this is not uncommon, and did not seem strange until a cast member explained in an interview that “the cast was built around Chris Rock” since he began developing the vehicle for himself.

Now for many people, there would be nothing wrong with that statement, but to me, it sounded like “Chris Rock is black, so the rest of the cast has to obviously be black as well”. Does anyone else find that somewhat disturbing and even racist? Because an actor is black, the rest of the cast has to automatically be of the same race? For the record, there have been many all black ensembles but the difference here is the inclusion of the white character. I found it especially significant since originally, the character was the same race as his spouse in the British version. Why include an inter-racial union? And it is here where the element of race comes in.

The characters played by James Marsden and Zoe Saldana are engaged and she is bringing him along to the funeral to meet her family, but more specifically her father for the first time. She is terribly nervous about making a good impression because they both love each other and she wants her father’s blessing. The difficulty I’m having here is, if miscegenation is so tolerated and accepted then why isn’t it more prevalent in films? And why the need to cast along the lines of race if inter-racial relationships can take place?

In a recent poll, 95% of 18 to 29 year olds approved of interracial dating and while mixed marriages are not nearly as common as same-race marriages, they do exist. So my question is, when are we going to see a movie like “Death at a Funeral” where the setting is integrally familial, set in the time of Saldana and Marsden’s characters? What I mean to ask is, when is there going to be a film about a normal family dealing with normal events, despite being of different races?

If filmmakers are welcome to showing inter-racial couples in pre-marriage situations, why haven’t they taken the steps to show these particular unions in a post-marriage light? And not in the common illustration where they face prejudice and discrimination, but in a socially accepted forum, if it is indeed so tolerated.

One theory is if it were all well and good, race jokes would be extinct. There would be no “cracker” name calling or “Flava Flav” references which in turn shows how poorly written and race-dependent these types of films are. Or are they afraid of alienating audiences? Think about it yourself. If you went into a film not knowing anything beforehand, and saw a mature couple of different races together, or a young white girl calling an elder black woman her aunt or vice versa and mixed characters in a setting such as a wedding or a funeral, would you be confused? Despite our approvals, the showcase of inter-racial relations would be surprising or shocking to most which implies that race-mixing is still a very taboo subject in society and for all the support that allegedly exists, there are still strong reservations about mixed raced couplings.

What disappoints me most of all, is that even though directors and producers have the power to create any world for their characters, they retreat to the same portrayals of race and race relations. I often wonder, especially when I see animated movies, why those in charge chose to create those characters. In the area of animation, you could build anything to your heart’s desire, but instead the choice is often a talking animal of some sort. Is there no creativity? And then people are awed by the unmatched success of “Avatar”. Why? I don’t know. James Cameron is a visionary. He created a new world, a new life. Anyone could have done the same, but they lack the imagination to produce what he has achieved.

In the end, while we may be accepting of another’s race and culture, it is still left to be seen whether we can truly welcome a mixed union as something normal and part of life. Until then, most of you will suffer through the race jokes and live in quiet denial of the truth until Hollywood decides they are brave enough to cast a white woman as a true love interest opposite Will Smith.

RIOT for Tolerance, Acceptance, Love and Creativity.

By Shastri Ramlogan

Riot Act I: Prerequisites for Freedom

I recently had an argument, for it could hardly be described as a discussion, with an acquaintance of mine about what he envisioned as the requirements for an individual to become an adult, or as he put it, a "big man" or a "big woman". As someone is who is invested in a better Trinidad and Tobago,  and aware of the current social tragedies gripping many youths, I was interested in what he had to say, but I would soon come to realize, he was more for venting his judgments than providing helpful solutions.

He started with the issues of underage drinking, smoking and sex among "little children" which I conceded as three mainstays of premature development in our society. Too often, young adolescents look towards these outlets as ways to establish their maturity and the image of adulthood but even more often fail to recognize the dangers and consequences of their actions.

He padded along until his argument soon degraded into his ideas of society's problems such as boys "following everything these jamaicans doing...wearing tight clothes and have more earing than gyul" while the girls "following these americans wearing snow clothes in this hot weather...trying to talk big english and on deh blackberry hole day." I failed to understand the relevance and pointed out his issues as judgmental. While I supported the idea that adulthood was equally a mix between psychological maturity and physical maturity and that sex, drinking and smoking were better left to be enjoyed at the legal age, mimicking another's culture was in fact, not illegal, but more so, everyone is allowed their freedom of expression be it how they dress or how they speak. It does not mean they are not adults, or less than. But I also began to notice a deeper issue here. His emphasis on "big english" and the use of the Blackberry was a trademark indication on one's view of social standing. Many people interpret the use of standard English and the Blackberry as social symbols of popularity or wealth or an attempt to be "white". But why is that so? Isn't it only because we believe it to be? Why can't it just be the way someone speaks or just an ordinary phone? And most times, to those using these effects, it is just that, nothing more, but I digressed. I simply indicated to him that he could easily look away from the girls wearing "american clothes" and that if I personally wanted to talk on my phone all day, I wasn't asking him to watch and easily summed up my argument in the age-old Trinidadian phrase - "Who vex loss".

He responded poorly to criticism and sarcastically chided that it was then okay for him to wear a clown suit and snow boots to work and that he shouldn't care whether anyone watched or not, because it was not bothering him. What he failed to understand, and which I was sure to point out was that he was in his right to wear whatever he wanted, even a clown suit. It may be against company policy and professional attire to go to work dressed as one, but it was not in fact, illegal.

He highlighted that real men were leaders and had that natural instinct and utilized the notion that he "cah see a male lion in the jungle telling the female lion to go fight for territory" and "doh matter how much things change certain things must remain constant for life to continue." It was clear that he did not take kindly to my former disagreement that a man did not have to be the leader or the breadwinner and could be successful at home while his wife worked, suggesting that the next thing he would say was for women to stay in the kitchen and stay home to take care of the children. Further humoring his animals analogy, I pointed out that it was the lionesses that hunted the pack's food and in essence "brought home the bacon" and archaic ideals were no longer valid in modern times. But by now I was passionate about proving my point:

"You have to be kidding me right? There is a reason humans are humans and animals are animals. Are you implying that a man who stays home while his wife works is less of a man? Steups. It is this kind of patriarchal "man is boss" thing that fuels domestic violence and rape. Like you missed the gender equality drive or what? I'm not saying men can't be leaders. I am a leader, but they don't have to be and I don't think men who take a back seat to their wives are "gay" or "fassy men". They don't need to beat their chests and show they have the biggest cocks in the yard. That is not what makes a "big man" and it is exactly that kind of thinking that has these 14, 15, 16 year olds out of control in our society, because they want to be "leaders" because "man supposed to be that way".

He cited that our youth are in this predicament because they don't appreciate our own culture. But what culture was he speaking of? Did he mean the rum songs and the jump and wave? Couldn't it then be argued that these songs especially the prevalence of rum songs be encouraging alcoholism among youths which would then contradict his point? He obviously didn't mean traditional culture because he wasn't walking around in a dhoti or a dashiki, and was a "follower" in his American styled shirt and jeans just like all the people he was negatively branding.

He fired back saying that although he could resist the pressures of American culture, his younger siblings could not and that they were being bombarded by American tv shows, songs, and the like and he was not standing for it and that it was "damaging for the generation to come". To which I responded - typical Trinidadian excuse. Trinis have one thing in common, there is always someone else to blame. No one is ever responsible. There is always a scapegoat. Listen up people. Don't leave your children and siblings to be raised by the television! Take an active part in your children's lives. Monitor what they watch, give them guidance and support, talk to them and nurture them. Don't leave them to their devices and then use that as evidence. I am tired of hearing people blaming video games for laziness or real world violence. Guess what? Millions of people play video games everyday, and violent ones too, including myself, but these millions don't all go out and commit crimes. Video games don't kill people...people kill people. Television doesn't ruin children, delinquent parents do.

He said my distinction that people are different from animals was laughable and stupid and that in the end we were all the same. He elaborated:

"What is the difference between animals and humans?...we have a bigger brain?...so! ah horse have a bigger dick! because we have ah bigger brain we think we better."

Unfortunately, I had to enlighten him on the fact that brains were indeed important for logical reasoning and thinking and that the size of a dick was not, because if it were, humans would surely be at the bottom of the pile. But it was here where I realised some people just can not be helped but it was sad that someone as young and "educated" as himself could have, despite the world of knowledge and experience at his fingertips, such a misguided and close-minded concept of reality.

He continued to rip on the girls wearing "snow boots in 35 degree weather" and complained how he would understand if it made sense but to him it did not, so I quietly and curiously inquired about his obsession with these snow boots. I wondered firstly if fashion needed to make sense, if he had proof that they were in fact snow boots, and if he was an expert on boot fashion or if he asked the person wearing the boots for confirmation. No response. Maybe he found his argument to be a fruitless exaggeration or maybe he realized he was making an uninformed point based on personal opinion.

In the end, we never really got to discussing what were, if they exist, prerequisites for adulthood but I was able to outline what certainly should not be determining factors. Most importantly, I tried to show him like his freedom of choice to not wear certain clothes or speak a certain way, it was within the rights of others to do what they wanted within the law and that he should at least respect that freedom even if he didn't agree. Everyone has their own way of living their lives, if you're not happy with it, look the other way. No one is asking your approval, especially not those wearing snow boots or talking on their Blackberry phones. In the end life is subjective. Nothing has rules or guidelines, especially not human behaviour.

RIOT for Freedom of Choice and Expression.

by Shastri Ramlogan