In a country populated by people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, it is advisable to pay attention to the terminology we use when we refer to those with whom we do not share the same attributes. Paradoxically, this political correctness is hypocritical and counterproductive in many ways.

For every religious or ethnic group, we have two designations: one that is deemed acceptable, the other pejorative. We use the first one when we want to be, or seen to be, civil, the second one when we want to denigrate the other.

We want to be known and seen as tolerant, we don?t want to be seen as living in a society that is compartmentalised, we want to be hip and modern, and to be hip and modern, we cannot afford not to be tolerant. Yet, deep down underneath our skin where it all matters, we are not tolerant at all. We are always criticising others behind their backs, either for their beliefs, or for their way of life. We are ethnocentric at heart, firmly rooted in our belief that we are right and they are wrong.

This window dressing tolerance is prejudicial to the advancement of many causes that would work in favour of the country as a whole. In public, we are afraid to criticize ideas or causes that are not in the interest of a particular group of Mauritians, for we fear being labelled as racist.

For instance, if I were to write against ACOU, I may very well be labelled a racist because my arguments are lined up against members of ACOU. Rather than see my criticism as constructive for the interests of many against the interest of a few, my opinion will not go down well for the simple reason that it goes against a predominant group. We therefore end up sacrificing an important debate lest it is seen as offensive; I end up as an egregiously racist individual and stop voicing my opinion in public unless I am willing and prepared to bear the consequential wrath of a few vocal people. Meanwhile, we are deprived of an important aspect of societal living; objective criticism is discarded, possible solutions are shelved, and we go on co-habiting as if all is well under the sun when in fact all is not well away from the sun. Resentments keep building up, and God knows if we are not sitting on a volcano.

But this cuts both ways. Many individuals would not hesitate to play the racial card when their personal interests are at stake. If public opinions are overwhelmingly against a decision affecting someone or a homogenous group, almost instantly we pull the racist epithet. The accused goes on the defensive, tries to explain he/she is not racist, politicians get involved and so do socio-cultural associations, and what do we end up with? Further compartmentalisation without a rational exchange of ideas, with further accusations flying between economic colonialists and political colonialists. And yes, add blind colonialists to the list! That is, those who are doing exactly to others what they, or their parents at some point in their life, had endured.

Using racism as a shield against criticism is no more than a calculated attempt to stifle and muzzle opposition. At the end of the day, it is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty to try and pull a fast one on the people of Mauritius. Welcome to the paradise island.

<B>By Saoud BACCUS [email protected] </B>