In February 2022, American comedian and media personality Joseph James Rogan issued an apology after a video compilation surfaced highlighting his use of racial slurs in his podcasts of episodes over a 12-year span. The damning word he used in particular was the “N” word. His apology to his viewers was heartfelt and true to his blunt style.
This whole contention of him using this particular word and his abject apology for using a word that was not his “to use” is interesting. The interest for us Sri Lankans over an event that took place in America between the American public and an American media personality that most Sri Lankans are not even familiar with lies in the parallel that can be drawn between the flak Rogan received and the ongoing controversy in Sri Lanka over free speech versus community harmony.
The police’s prompt action taken over comments deemed insulting to Buddhists has met with a lot of criticism by those advocating free speech. However, those who welcome the stern response from law enforcement for mocking Buddhism and Buddhist culture are not overtly concerned over free speech. Their concern lies over the eroding of our values – an effort they claim to be deliberate.
The argument is not without merit, though lacking in concrete evidence. The root of the miscreant accused is geopolitical hegemony that has been afflicting this Island nation for centuries. The reason that the three European nations – Portuguese, Dutch and the British – could never fully conquer our spirit was due to the strong traditional bonds that acted as an adhesive.
Nevertheless, the effect of belittling our values over time has been considerable. The recent trend of openly mocking Buddhism is thus seen by many as a continued attempt to distance us from our own society. Once traditions, values and customs of a community loosen, the wholesomeness of that unit disappears. If the community is not careful, that void created can be filled with very destructive and even cannibal forces.
Why do Buddhists feel under attack?
Buddhists are indoctrinated to respect all religions and cultures. Original Muslim mosques and Christian churches in Sri Lanka had been built on land given by temples. Inside most Buddhist temples hosts a small Hindu kovil. The support Buddhists offered to both the Catholic and Muslim communities in the aftermath of the Easter Sunday Attack in 2019 further attests to Buddhist’s protectiveness of other religions in the land.
Culturally, we are also very respectful. Non-Buddhists and even the “modern” Buddhist often refer to Lord Buddha as simply “Buddha”. The argument against the usage of “Lord” is that He is not a king or god. This naked reference to Him without any respect or reverence is a jarring experience to those who grew up to address Him respectfully as “Lord Buddha”.
Even Jesus is not referred to as simply Jesus in Sinhala. He would be either “Jesuthuma” or “Jesun-wahanse”. Both “thuma” and “wahanse” denote the highest respect.
Therefore, the attack on Buddhist anecdotes and insignia is quite shocking. The fact that the insulting remarks have been made by a Buddhist or a non-Buddhist is a moot point.
Buddhists refusing to find acceptance in this new trend of discussing Buddhist matters with casualness that is borderline insulting is being derided as being backward. Those who fail to see “what the fuss is all about” are thankful that the “educated Buddhists” are not “that hysterical”.
In actuality, the adjective “educated” is a ploy from the Emperor’s Clothes. Once the word “educated” is used, not many would want to differ lest they be perceived to be not as educated as those who Pooh-Pooh Buddhists’ sentiments.
Problem with the Word “Only”
One may wonder how Rogan’s apology fits into this debate. Rogan is an outspoken standup comedian with an immensely successful podcast career. As one would know, the success of a standup comedy act lies in the fine balance of saying it as it is, without crossing the fine border of defamation. A good comedian often trespasses into the gray area of politically incorrectness, which can shock the senses but has the sharp wit to never cross over to be politically inflammatory.
Rogan, by using the “N” word was deemed to have been inflammatory. When the video was released of him using this word in numerous clips of his podcast, it went viral and had the potential to destroy him. Judging by his apology, it also had a profound effect on him as well. He was genuinely ashamed of himself.
This scenario brings forth two important questions. His use of the “N” word was not with the intent of a racial slur. As he, in his apology, pointed out, it is a word used freely and frequently by black Americans themselves. When a black American uses the “N” word, it denotes the bond of a brother. It is very much akin to the “machan” in Sinhalese use to call out for friends. As such, the “N” word is a common word used by rappers in their songs.
In this scenario, where does the question of free speech come into play and how come the censorship that applies to the likes of Rogan does not affect those who utter blasphemous remarks against Buddhism are two areas we must try and understand.
Clearly, for the black American community, the meaning of the “N” word depends on who uses it. When a black American uses it, it is construed as a friendly address from one black brother to another. When a Caucasian uses it, the meaning alters. It is not taken as a sign of brotherhood but that of a racist. Of course, a Caucasian might not be using the “N” word to call out another Caucasian. It would be primarily to address or greet a black American.
If the use of the word was not to imply a racial slur, but in the form of a simple greeting, why cannot a Caucasian use that word is an interesting question. Why is it that we have not heard a debate or an opinion from the free speech advocates on this matter?
After all, most Caucasians in the present generations do not “see” colour. Therefore, they do not necessarily distinguish between skin colour and interact with both white and black skins as equals. Yet, they may not use the “N” word without risking the condemnation of being a racist. A white man, as pointed out by Rogan’s apology, can even lose his job for using this controversial word even if he used the word simply to illustrate a point.
The answer in this instance obviously lies with the historical grievances of the black community. For centuries, black communities around the world, across the continents had been subjugated to brutal oppression by the Caucasians. It really did not matter if the Caucasians were in the majority or the minority, or whether the blacks were in their own homeland or in faraway lands forcibly taken into as the black populations had not been able to escape the exploitation and suppression of their rights and the dehumanization.
In this sense, it is thus almost funny that a white man is today disallowed from using a word just because he is white. Jokes aside though, it is always a red flag when the word “only” comes into play. For instance, in this case, only the black community may use the “N” word. Likewise, we have other instances where certain communities insist on being accommodated with only their ways and habits. Therefore, all those who oppose bigotry must be very mindful when the word “only” pops up.
In this sense, if the “N” word is derogatory, then perhaps it should not be used by either community. Alternatively, the context with which it was used must be taken into account before accusing one of racism.
Historical grievances
This anomaly or even perhaps the hypocrisy of allowing the use of a word depending on the colour of the skin stems back to the historical grievances nursed by basically every community against the white. As the children of those victims, we view Caucasians with a certain degree of suspicion and disdain.
This was very evident during the scandal between Meghan Markle and the British Royal Family. Meghan implied that certain senior Royal Family members were racist in their treatment to her. Though she failed to offer concrete proof, her tears convinced many that her accusations were true. The basis of the credibility lies in the historic role the British Royalty played in the slave trade and exploitation of the blacks.
Today, the royal families in Britain and across Europe are working very hard to clean their slate. Recently, King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands, for the first time, officially apologised for his country’s involvement in the slave trade. This long overdue apology coincided with the 150th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in former Dutch colonies.
As the Dutch King observed that while “a start has been made, there remains a long way to go.” It is not an easy task as the past cannot be undone. The damage done to the former colonies cannot be quantified as it is not a mere process of calculating the cost in terms of the tangible, but also the intangible as the cultural destruction and the erasing of the national identity.
The matter is further complicated as certain Western influenced ideologies continue to belittle our values and customs. At this juncture, it is essential to understand that different countries value their heritage in very different ways. For instance, the West has absolutely no qualms cutting up their flag to make a bikini or a pair of undies or print their flag on a slipper. For us, it would be nothing short of blasphemy.
Neither country is wrong with their attitude. By marking every possible and conceivable object with their emblem, the British and the Americans promote their national identity. We promote ours by almost revering our insignia.
Buddhism is a very important and integral part of our identity. Hence when certain entities mock Buddhism and that mockery is justified and protected as an individual right by those indoctrinated with Western values, it is only natural that our antennae hone in on the implications. It is immaterial if that mockery or the justification is from a Buddhist or a non-Buddhist. The ideology that promotes this insulting casualness is not local.
Perhaps, the damage to the social fabric by this mockery is not visible to many. However, it is our historical experience that the damage is a gradual wear and tear of our values with lasting long term repercussions. Therefore this current push for Buddhists to treat what is important to us with the same casualness as another nation would treat theirs is not a fair expectation. It certainly challenges the concept of “inclusiveness”.
The subject of bigotry must be treaded with care. As Rogan found to his embarrassment, when interacting with other communities, historical significance must be taken into consideration. Therefore mocking Buddhism or the Buddhist culture should be frowned upon with the same intensity as the use of the “N” word.
At the same time, it is unfair to penalize the descendants of racists despite the huge strides they have taken to distance themselves from their ancestors’ behaviour. Otherwise, racism will simply continue for bigotry is really not about skin colour, but the shaming of one for who (or what) they represent.
Rogan’s experience provides an important lesson to those who believe trampling on another’s sensitivities is justifiable in the name of free speech. It clearly is not. Freedom of a right, any form of right, comes with great responsibility. Upholding that responsibility over freedom is the path forward towards a better society.
Shivanthi Ranasinghe