Discriminative behavior such as racism and sectarianism can take many different forms. At its worst, it can take the form of war and genocide. However, many other forms of discrimination exist that are harmful to the social fabric, yet are not taken seriously enough because they are subtle and not easy to spot. If we want to have a healthy society, we have to tackle all forms of discrimination whether explicit or implicit.
Two years ago I spent a few days with a group of Afghan colleagues who I got acquainted to from my years of studying abroad. Several aspects of modern Afghan political history are similar to the ones in Iraq. One unfortunate aspect is the racist and sectarian discrimination of the different ethnic groups against the Hazaras minority, which was explained to me with some very upsetting details. The Hazaras, who suffered and still suffer from genocide and inequality are portrayed by the other groups as simple, weak, and inferior. Khalid Husseini, an Afghan-American novelist, provides quite accurate insight into the situation of the Hazaras in Afghanistan throughout his books. The discrimination against the Hazaras reminded me of the effort of the former regime in Iraq to belittle the different ethnic groups who were opposing his regime.
One extremely painful yet effective tool used against the Hazaras is jokes and derogatory stories that present them in an unintelligent and helpless light. The same dirty tactic was used against the Kurdish people, and unfortunately, these jokes persisted long after the collapse of Saddam’sregime and contributed the racist narrative that subtly feeds conflict.
This tactic was not unique to the Kurds. A group of officers from the ‘Dulaim’ tribe from Anbar province attempted to overthrow the regime in October 1994. The officers were exposed, arrested, and executed and when their tribe revolted and overtook power in Anbar province, the regime brutally crushed the uprising. After that, the jokes about the Dulaim tribe started to spread around in different provinces in Iraq, and just like the jokes against the Kurds, they kept contributing to the sectarian tensions after 2003.
Of course similar jokes also existed against the Marsh Arabs in southern Iraq who had always been opposingthe regime and their marshlands remained a refuge for opposition fighters from different parts of Iraq. This led to the regime’s dewatering and destruction of large parts of this natural and cultural heritage, portraying its inhabitants as backward and uncivilized when in reality their roots go back to the Sumerians and their ancient lifestyle of extreme historical and anthropological importance.
Just like bullying and hazing are used to assassinate the character of individuals, jokes against minorities are used to assassinate the character and identity of a whole group of people. Jokes are effective in achieving this goal because the belittling and humiliation of the targeted group can take place indirectly, under the pretext of innocent humor and harmless fun. Sometimes, even the ones targeted laugh with the ones who tell these jokes, but unconsciously the negative impact that is associated with these jokes takes place.
Simon Weaver, a social scientist who studied humor and racism, mentioned in his book three theories of why jokes are told, and says that all three theories can be applied to racist jokes. In the first theory, jokes are told to express superiority. The party that creates the jokes wants to convey a sense of superiority over the object of laughter, may that be an idea, a person, or a group of people. This theory applies perfectly to racist jokes as those who create or tell these jokes reflect a sense of superiority over others. The second theory, dubbed the ‘incongruity theory’, claims that we perceive jokes as humorousbecause they tell something unexpected, the objects being discussed in a joke are placed together in unusual ways, or the joke provides a surprising explanation of a certain phenomenon. In racist jokes, there might be specific norms or habits that a certain group practices. What racist jokes do is provide a humorous explanation or reasoning for these norms or habits to belittle the group’s practices. In the third theory, called ‘relief theory’, the purpose of jokes is to provide relief from specific tensions. People tell jokes to escape a certain pressure. Racist jokes are often used to escape the pressure of wanting to say hurtful and inappropriate things that are unacceptable in a serious setting, by humorously delivering the same message. The argument is that because it is a joke, the impact should be benign and therefore allowed. However, this use of jokes is instrumental in allowing the racists to practice their racism with the excuse of only wanting to provoke laughter and relieve tension that is imposed by law, morals, and strict social or religious rules.
I could provide numerous examples but if I do so, this would be promoting this type of joking. I am sure, however, that the readers know enough of these jokes, and through the framework above can analyze these racist jokes and understand what I mean. What can be said about jokes with racist content is that they have been effectively used to achieve malign political goals, usually used by authoritarian or colonialist powers to achieve certain agendas.
Apart from jokes, some people tend to express discrimination through more subtle or indirect ways, such as through ‘micro-messaging’. Micro–messages are certain behaviors, choices of words, hand gestures, facial expressions, and hints that provide a second communication channel besides explicit words, that human being use to interact with each other. Micro–messages are subtle and difficult to identify, yet our unconscious mind receives and processes them, and has an important impact on our behavior. Interestingly, the concept of micro-messages was studied first in the workplace in U.S. organizations to identify the impact of discriminative subtle behavior on people’s performance. When for instance a certain group of employees from a certain race hang out together and don’t mingle with other races, they are not being explicitly racist. However, their behavior signals that they are uncomfortable and reluctant to mix with other races. Another example of micro-messaging would be talking in a polite but formal way with members of another race or ethnicity, but interacting in a very friendly and smiley way with members of the same race or ethnicity. Or talking and laughing in the presence of coworkers using a language they do not understand. Such behavior is not overtly hostile, but it invokes an uncomfortable feeling of exclusion and can have a great impact on the behavior and mental well-being of minorities.
It is the responsibility of leaders, in all parts of society, to pick up these subtle approaches of discrimination in our communities and organizations and vehemently oppose them, as they are dangerous means to keep sectarianism, racism, tribalism, sexism, and all type of discriminative behavior alive in our societies. Tackling these phenomena ensures that we overcome our tragic past and stop fueling future conflict. Unfortunately, we see many leaders make use of such forms of communication to further their myopic agendas by steering up feelings that divide communities instead of unifying them. It is not difficult to spot these tactics when following up the media such as fiery statements and loud debates on talk shows. Snide remarks, belittling, and accusations are usually filled with a racist undertone and toxic micro-messages, without really providing any solutions for the problems that people suffer from daily. One thing is sure: leaders who use these tactics do not have a constructive agenda and feed on conflict and crises to remain in the spotlight.
