Sep 26 2007
Don’t Doubt the Benefit of the Doubt
Living as a minority in the United States, there is one particular luxury that I have always envied about the white majority, a feature of their cultural existence that ethnic minorities are not easily afforded, particularly those ethnic minorities with features that would identify them as distinctly non-European. A white person (I speak of those who have assimilated by more than one generation into the American mainstream) has the benefit of being perceived, more often than not, as an an individual before any assumed generalizations about his or her ethnic group.
Take for example my experiences in meeting new people: I am on occasion confronted with what my fellow minorities would recognize as “the question.” It is the question of one’s ethnic identity. For the most part, there is no intended ill will meant by such the inquiry–it comes from a genuine, if perhaps socially indiscreet, desire to know. Such curiosity is doubtlessly further spurred by the ethnic uncertainty proposed by my last name (which is another story altogether).
The range of tact inherent to the query varies according to the inquirer’s deftness with words and relative sensitivity to cultural matters. In attempting to “learn” about my ethnic identity, I’ve been asked, “What’s your background?”, “What’s your nationality?”, “Where are you from?”, “Where were your parents born?”, “Where were you born?”, “Are you Chinese?”, “Are you Japanese?”, and my favorite one that seems to question the evolutionary viability of my very being, “What are you?”
Depending on my mood, the question asked, and the person asking, my answer will vary. To questions about my nationality and where I was born, I usually respond with deliberate obtuseness that I’m an American who was born in Chicago. If I’m feeling charitable, I’ll eventually tell them the information they were really after–that I’m Korean American–but not without a dramatic pause in the pernicious hope that the asker will realize the folly of the assumptions inherent to his or her question. Sometimes I may redirect the question with all the ingenuousness I can muster, “Oh, do you mean my ethnic background?”
But no matter which form of “the question” is asked, and no matter how I answer, I always feel compelled to ask back (although I never have), “Why is it important for you to know that particular detail about myself; and if I were white, would you have asked the same question (with the intent of learning my ethnic background)?
This is not to say I don’t want to share with other people that significant part of me that informs my identity. But usually the intent behind the question seems not be out of a genuine desire to learn more about my Korean heritage so much as the compulsion to categorize me under whatever superficial knowledge the asker has about my particular ethnic group. Why not ask me what television shows I like, first? What books I’ve read? What I do for a living? To my mind, a first meeting is about trying to establish common ground, not to look for differences.
Individuals are not the only ones guilty of this tendency. It happens on an institutionalized level, as well. Take the striking contrast of the media portrayal and public perception of the Oklahoma City bombing against the the more recent 9/11 attacks.
At the outset of coverage for the Oklahoma City bombing, there was initial speculation that those responsible for blowing up the Murrah Federal Building could have been terrorists of Middle Eastern origin. It came as quite a surprise to the viewing public when the perpetrators turned out to be two white Americans.
Following the tragedy, there was some concern about radicalized white militias living in the United States, but those perception have not been sustained in the public consciousness the same way the fear of Muslim radicals has. The public had developed the conviction that individuals like Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were horrific exceptions to the perceived rule of generally law-abiding whites. We were not haunted by a lingering fear that every white person was lying in wait to blow us to kingdom come.
Has that same luxury of finding the exception to the rule applied to Muslims in the wake of 9/11? Following the aftermath, various government officials had to warn the general populace against attacking in unthinking retribution against innocent people perceived to be of Middle Eastern heritage. People were warned that such offenses would be prosecuted as federal hate crimes.
Despite the warnings, some bigoted vitriol spilled over, even into ethnic communities whose religious background was not even Muslim! Peruse this article from The Pluralism Project at Harvard for more information on reported hate crimes post 9/11: http://www.pluralism.org/research/profiles/display.php?profile=74090. In the case Oklahoma City bombings, insofar as potential citizen backlash against targeting particular white communities, there were no such similar concerns.
Furthermore, the mass media hasn’t helped in the average Muslim’s plight. By devoting the majority of their air time regarding Muslims to the most radical fringe elements of Islam, these extremists have unfairly come to reflect upon the majority of citizens who are law-abiding. Viewers are rarely given enough examples of everyday Muslims to dispel an irrational fear against entire ethnic groups. Representation of the white majority spans a huge spectrum, which allows us to consider white individuals on a case by case basis, in lieu of any perceived characteristics of “whiteness.”
For all ethnic minorities, this kind of racial profiling has come to mean an egregious double-standard. Blacks and Latinos have historically fought constantly against perceptions that have denied them fair, individualized treatment in regards to housing, education, employment, and the law. In the interests of “national security” during World War II, Japanese Americans in the US were forcibly detained in prison camps while no such initiatives were taken for German Americans. Minorities are still haunted by assumptions and generalizations that deny the primacy of individuality.
So to the white majority I say, don’t doubt the benefit of the doubt, and don’t forget to give your fellow citizens (who happen to be ethnic minorities), an equal measure of individual assessment.
2 Comments to “Don’t Doubt the Benefit of the Doubt”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.

Yes, and when you keep in mind that the notion of American citizenship–both legal and cultural–has traditionally been based on Emersonian individualism, what you refer to as “the benefit of the doubt” takes on even larger implications and ramifications. One has to be able to be seen as an individual to be acknowledged as an American, so if one is constantly marked as a racial/ethnic/religious group instead of an individual (ex: a “black,” an “Asian,” a “Muslim” instead of as a person/American who may happen to be of African American ancestry or Asian descent etc.) then one is not only denied individual status but ultimately also American citizenship.
Have you read Don Lee’s short story collection, _Yellow_? It deals with this in a marvelous way. The title story, the last one listed in the collection, “Yellow,” discusses it most directly, but the other stories are also great in their presentation and treatment of characters as Americans who happen to be of Asian descent but at the same time cannot escape the racist reality of constantly being seen, marked, and treated as Asians (as opposed to Asian Americans).
And, just curious…what do you think about the current debate over Seinfeld’s bit on Asian animators as illegal immigrants and game to be hunted? Thought it might offer you material for another interesting post….
Hi, NY books,
I’m familiar with the author and his short story collection but haven’t yet had a chance to personally read it. Thanks for the recommendation to add to my reading list.
I just saw the promotional ad to which you were referring on the following link to a blog by TIME staff writer Lisa Takeuchi Cullen:
http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2007/10/that_seinfeld_promo_on_asian_a.html
Comedy in the US is a tricky thing when it involves historically underrepresented minorities. On the one hand, comedy should be allowed to make anybody and everybody a target. Comedy done well is a sign of a healthy democracy, because it can humble both princes and paupers alike.
But unfortunately within American mainstream media, a sense of “fair play” becomes problematic when the representation of minorities is far from well-rounded (although there are slow improvements decade by decade).
The danger is that negative attributions, even comedic ones, to a minority risk become negative attributions to the entire minority group, if there are not enough positive or intelligent representations to serve as a counterbalance.
Negative attributions to a white person typically become endemic to the individual character portrayed, which then can be dispersed as a “universal” truism of the human condition.
With this ad in particular, I actually wasn’t entirely sure if the individual was Asian, given the poor image quality of the online video. Although the prospect is likely given that it is widely known that the US exports a lot of its animation grunt work to Asian countries.
At the very least, it shows poor judgment, especially in light of various immigration controversies. I actually wonder if the ad was cynically promoted to invite just enough controversy to get a little press (to which then I am contributing, so congratulations to the publicists of this already over-hyped media campaign heralding Seinfeld’s grand return to the mainstream…yipee).
Depending on how one looks at it, it could be compliment (back-handed as it may be) about the desirability of foreign skills and talent. On the other hand, it demeans foreign contributions to the filmmaking process by emasculating the featured animator (who was dressed in a rabbit costume and subjected to a humiliating hunt).
But the hunting scenario is not even accurate as an analogy. DreamWorks studio, just like any other business, has an eye towards they bottom line, which is why they seek to outsource work to cheaper foreign talent, so then why make it seem like the talent is trying to sneak into the country?