Indonesia could learn from Martin Luther King, Jr.

Indonesia could learn from Martin Luther King, Jr.

Samsudin Berlian, Graduate Student, Princeton Theological Seminary,
New Jersey

Martin Luther King Jr. was born on Jan. 15, 1929. He is best
known for his struggle to end racial segregation in America and
for his vision of an integrated society where blacks and whites
would live together in harmony and equality. He was awarded the
Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, when he was only 35, the youngest ever
recipient. He was heartlessly killed in his prime in 1968, but
his legacy continues to live to this day. To honor his dedication
and vision, Americans celebrate his birthday every third Monday
of January.

Most Indonesians, however, have only a vague idea about this
great man. His name is rarely mentioned and then only in relation
to the civil rights movement in the U.S., which seemingly had
little to do with the situation in Indonesia.

It is true that King's concern was primarily about racial
issues in America, as well as, in his later years, the problems
of poverty in general and U.S. militarism. But his message of
nonviolence and social integration is universal and enduring. His
core message is as relevant today in Indonesia as it was in
America 40 years ago.

The nature of the racial composition of the two countries is
different but the problems are, to a certain extent, similar. In
America racial problems exist between whites and blacks,
American-Indians, and other minority groups. There are also
racial problems with regard to minority groups such as blacks,
Jews and Koreans.

The problem of discrimination against blacks was rooted in
two-and-a-half centuries of slavery and almost a century of
state-enforced segregation. Although today both slavery and
segregation have officially and legally ended, the bitterness and
resentment toward each other are still very much alive.

In Indonesia, the problems are not as clearly defined. There
has been no significant record of persistent slavery or ethnic
cleansing, although racist laws and policies have existed. The
perpetrators of racial misdeeds are more diverse, if less
systemic.

The history of modern racism in Indonesia began when the Dutch
created three tiers of citizenship in the East Indies: the first
citizens were the Europeans, the lowest class consisted of the
so-termed natives, and in between was everybody else. However,
the racially charged violence that recently erupted and persisted
in many regions could not be blamed on the Dutch.

Such problems could often be traced back to the failure of the
government to provide justice, equality and security.
For example, many Dayak people committed a brutal racist act when
they used their collective force to expel more than 100,000
Madurese from Central Kalimantan. Then they pursued a follow-up
racist policy by using their political muscle to prevent most of
the Madurese from returning.

They defended themselves by claiming that the Madurese were a
security hazard because they committed crimes with impunity. The
Dayak argued that getting rid of the Madurese made the province
more peaceful. But they committed an inexcusable racial crime
when they lumped together all Madurese, associating the peaceful
with troublemakers among them, and punished them all, not because
of what they did but because of what they are.

Yet the Dayak were not accustomed to acting in a racist way.
They generally do not have a "holier than thou" attitude. They
lived, and are still living, in peace with most other ethnic
groups. In fact, they lived in peace with the Madurese for
generations. During the pogrom in 2001, many Dayak people helped
Madurese who were fleeing from Dayak warriors.

The truth is that the Dayaks themselves had suffered from
racist conduct by the authorities. They claimed that they had
long endured the wrongs done to them in silence because the
police mostly ignored their plight and would let criminals of
Madurese origin roam free. Because the authorities failed to
provide the Dayaks with justice and security, they exacted
revenge instead.

The police's attitude might be based on fear of major
disruption rather than racial bias, but still their inaction was
racist.

Thus racism begets racism. And racist conduct by the
authorities and powerful people is the most potent to perpetuate
racism. Racism is most destructive when the government or a major
group or powerful individuals adhere to it. Unfortunately,
Indonesians may not see racist policies as such because they are
so used to it.

The policy of the Soeharto regime, for instance, to appoint
mostly people of Javanese origin as governors, regents, and
district heads outside Java, and not the other way round, was
racist.

The government was guilty of racism when certain laws were
made exclusively applicable or inapplicable to a certain group. I
have a friend from North Sumatra whose official documents do not
state his surname. This was because when his parents were
applying for his birth certificate, the government official told
them that their son could not have more than one name. This was a
blatant act of racism, forcing a group of people who were used to
having a surname to follow the tradition of a major group who
were not.

Government failure to recognize and respect the rights of
indigenous people is also an act of racism. When a group of
Papuans were chased away from their habitat because they happened
to sit on a mountain of copper and gold that the government
coveted, the reason might have been primarily economic. But it
was an inherent part of state-sanctioned discrimination that has
made the people of the richest island becomes the poorest of all
major ethnic groups in the country. Racism is indeed often
associated with unfair economic policy.

The impact of racism goes beyond the suffering of its victims.
One of the major issues faced by the country at this moment is
the internal displacement of more than a million of its people.
In many areas it has been caused by racially related violence.
The displacement of the Madurese from Kalimantan, of the Butonese
from Maluku, of the Javanese from Aceh, have respectively created
immense hardship, not only for the displaced, but also for the
local people and the administrations of Madura, Buton and North
Sumatra.