Good times in Kuala Lumpur

We hit up the Batu Caves today, Bee having inauspiciously gotten her period just in time for the occasion. I wouldn't otherwise subscribe to the whole "Don't go to the temple while you're on the rag" sexist Hindu fundie bullshit, but I have a good reason this time: monkeys.

We had to trudge up 278 steps to get to the caves, and they were so many cute monkeys along the way, carrying their babies, eating bananas and coconuts, and just playing and being merry. Until we got to the very top, and this one monkey dude starting humping this monkey chick, and then she ran away, and then the monkey dude sat there looking stumped for a minute, until it lunged forward and practically pounced on Bee. Luckily, Bee had an umbrella with which to ward off the motherfucker. It was quite unrelenting and kept specifically running after her in an assaultive frenzy! Perhaps this virile, horny monkey was the manifestation of Hindu patriarchy, warning women not to enter any holy confines while ovulating. To top it off, we found out that the enormous statue in front of the caves was of Kartikeya, and Marathi women, for some reason still unbeknownst to me, are not supposed to look at that sucker.

After the caves, we enjoyed high tea at this really nice resort-type place where all the other guests were stuffy and white, and stared in horror at us as we entered for our audacity as people of color to be patrons of this colonial establishment; they couldn't relive the times to the extent they had hoped, where people of color could only exist to serve them, and where nobody would be able to talk or laugh or do anything that could seem remotely impolite, except perhaps STARE. Anyway, the tea and sandwiches and scones and other sweets were hella good.

In the evening, we checked out the mall at the bottom of the Petronas Towers and watched Date Movie. If you find inherent humor in people being fat, or having disabilities, or being black, you'll find it hilarious. SO FUCKING WITTY.

Time for pizza and Zoolander.

You know what I hate? When people suggest that communities that are marginalized along different identity axes are mutually exclusive. Like today as part of Cesar Chavez Week there was this speaker talking about immigrant farmworkers and how they have formed alliances with LGBT people, and he was really cool and all, but he kept suggesting that there were the immigrants on one side and the queers on another and they managed to find commonality, as though there are not queer immigrants!!!!! Now they might not feel entirely safe either in immigrant communities or in queer communities for many reasons, not least of which are the homophobia of many immigrant communities and the racism/Eurocentrism of many queer communities -- and that might create some artificial invisibility where they try and pass as straight or have their own niche gatherings -- but that all is getting into another story. It reminds me of last year when I wanted to do a joint Fem Forum and Lambda event, and one of my co-chairs was like "OMG, but what do feminism and queer rights have to do with each other???" OMFG, aside from the fact that it is the most obvious union since misogyny and homophobia are so intertwined and we all want to transcend gender roles and heteronormativeness, how about the fact that we're supposed to be for rights of all women, including those who are queer?

Venn diagram, people. I am not a woman on one side and a person of color on another that concocts innovative strategies of being an ally to myself; I am a bloody woman of color! And y'all men of color and white women better note that both racial justice and feminism need to encompass that intersection. And women of color better encompass queer women of color and women of color with disabilities and queer working-class immigrant women of color with disabilities, ad infinitum! I have absolutely no interest in Azn pride unless we're talking the intersections of the intersections of the intersections, because I sure as hell am not looking to liberate no fucking Harold and Kumar!

don't need no sleeping pills.

I recently acquired 27 fucking Bar review CD's from PMBR, and I thought that since I have trouble sleeping at night, I might as well just lie in bed and listen to them. Since it's several months before the exam and I have yet to put myself through two gruelling courses, there is relatively low pressure to absorb the material effectively from the CD's at this point. I could just lie there and subconsciously soak in bits and pieces here and there as I please. But lo and behold, for the past two nights, the monotony of these southern law professors going on and on about the parol evidence rule and all kinds of other bullshit has had me zonked out within about twenty minutes!

Yesterday, I went to an interesting film and discussion regarding some Hindu nationalists' agenda to dictate how Indian history is presented in California textbooks. The gist of it is that they want to deny the Aryan Invasion Theory, and portray Hinduism as one unified, perfect religion that was indigenous to the land -- thereby suggesting that Muslims and Christians were foreign invaders that upset this egalitarian utopia.

Obviously, these nationalists want to incite global pride in what they perceive as their spotless ancient civilization and moreover scapegoat religious minorities for all the country's ills. The history they hope to write is patently false and misleading; the caste system was not merely descriptive, as they claim, but hierarchical and discriminatory. There was no gender equality. And whether Hinduism was fostered from within or outside of the land, there is ample evidence to support the existence of civilization preceding it, and moreover, there have always been so many diverse local traditions and ways of practicing "Hinduism" that it doesn't even make sense to suggest it was ever one religion. In fact, it's even odd to force one "Indian" identity, because our clothing, foods, languages, and customs span more diversity than Europe. (Although, thanks and no thanks to globalization and Bollywood, that gap is slowly closing. ;()

But all that said -- and with emphasizing the need not to romanticize the Hindus and/or "Aryans" as the pure, original ones and construct "The Other" against which to pit them -- I am equally skeptical of the agenda that could be fueling some groups' and individuals' support for the AIT, and not entirely appeased by this explanation of why endorsing AIT does not have possible racist implications --

But, how does the place of origin of Aryans provide *any* superiority to *any* race? It does so, *only* if the lens through which you are looking at history has already been distorted by Hindutva�if you believe that peoples who can trace their geneology all the way to India have somehow more claims to its citizenship, than others whose geneologies can be traced to areas outside the current-political boundaries.

Well, the whole citizenship/entitlement angle is certainly not the type of lens through which I have any interest in looking. However, I could see lots of fucked up people including the historians from which most of the evidence stems having fucked up reasons to advocate the notion that Sanskrit, Vedic philosophy and medicine, and the whole deal resulted from whitey intervention. The necessity of white people for these developments feeds into a white supremacist agenda pretty nicely, and, after all, they take pride in colonizing and suppressing the inferior others, so those aspects could also be strapped on with pride. I mean, I think Sanskrit and Vedic astrology and the Hindu epic myths and Kalidasa are pretty dope, and I'd like to give my peeps a fair shot at having birthed them. Of course, I'd also have to and do accept that my peeps -- I am of an "upper caste" after all -- were assholes in countless, reprehensible ways.

So my question is, why does it have to be an either/or? Either we accept that Hinduism came from white people, OR we allow the rationalization of Hindu nationalism and minority oppression? Isn't it possible that it came from within in various bits and pieces but was blown into this hegemonic and hierarchical monstrosity that we should look at critically, not least because Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity have very ancient historical ties with the land as well? If we really and truly and sincerely believe that the AIT is true and legit, that is one thing, but sometimes I get the feeling we are categorically embracing it just to avoid rationalizing Hindu nationalism, and that irritates me because it mirrors what the nationalists are doing, which is categorically denying it in order to suggest a position that is not a necessary or rational conclusion. We should be able to evaluate the historical merits of the theory alongside a criticism of the way its advocates and opponents alike deploy it to further their agendas. Hrmph.

Anyway, I'm gonna read this by Romila Thapar later tonight instead of thinking more out of my ass.