SuddenWorld.com

Does Senator Barack Obama’s win in the Iowa caucuses represent a historical sea change in American politics regarding the matter of ethnic identity? That incredible speech he gave following his victory, taking first while Senator John Edwards and Senator Hillary Clinton took second and third respectively, was-dare I say-reaching the transcendent. I think he may have even been channeling a little bit of the Reverend Martin Luther King that night. See Obama’s victory speech in Iowa.

His win in Iowa may indeed mark the beginning of something momentous (aside from the milestone of being the first African American to win an Iowa caucus), but I would qualify its characterization differently from the way the media seems geared up to portray it. Media declarations of his being the first “African American” presidential candidate to win in the Iowa caucuses makes for compelling headlines (especially since Iowa’s constituency is predominantly white), but the label strikes me as a tad simplistic when one thinks about his background.

When you look at Senator Obama’s upbringing, his ethnic identity seems to embody the hybrid nature of America itself. Offspring to a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya, he was raised in Hawaii by his white grandparents and lived a few years in Indonesia with his Indonesian stepfather.

In a limited way, it reminds me of the case of celebrity golfing pro Tiger Woods, particularly when he was first gaining attention on the national scene. There was and continues to be an insistent effort on the part of media to find out where he stood in terms of his ethnic identity. Certain ethnic-based interest groups also vied to claim him as a native son.

However, Mr. Woods has consistently resisted identifying himself with a specific ethnic identity. This doubtless has come as a disappointment to those who were hoping to find a marquis minority spokesperson in this well known sports figure.

According to a 2002 article entitled “Will Tiger Ever Show the Color of His Stripes?” by Greg Garber of ESPN, he is one-quarter Thai, one-quarter Chinese, one-quarter Caucasian, one-eighth African-American and one-eighth Native American. So his reluctance to “endorse” a specific ethnic identity is understandable given that the “one size fits all” paradigm doesn’t reflect his unique background, although I personally think it’s somewhat regrettable that he hasn’t done more to champion his status as a multiethnic minority success story in mainstream America.

But unlike Mr. Woods, Senator Obama has rested his ethnic identity comfortably in one camp-that of the African-American citizen. And so the media and the rest of the nation, for the most part, have obliged him in his self-designation. However, this tacit agreement points to a problem of our complicity in the historically problematic definitions that have informed our history about who is considered black. I recommend reading “Who Is Black? One Nation’s Definition” by F. James Davis for PBS’s Frontline.

Of course, who am I to tell Senator Obama where he can place himself if he says he’s African American? The statement is not a falsehood when one considers the perception of anybody having a hint of black ancestry, known as the “one-drop rule.” No other ethnic group has quite the same stringent “credentialing.” And frankly, I think we still live in a society where appearance, for good or for ill, derives overriding precedence in establishing one’s ethnic identity. A fourth generation Japanese American living in Hawaii will still likely be identified as a person of Japanese descent before being called an out-and-out American…even if his or her ancestral language and customs may have faded with each successive generation from the originating immigrant family.

Furthermore, we have a penchant as human beings to seek tidy categories. But I hope we can one day reach a point where we can intelligently acknowledge the ethnic complexity of our nation, which is increasingly being embodied (quite literally) in a growing number of its individual denizens. Yes, Obama is black, but he is also white. Yes, he’s a junior US senator from Illinois, but grew up in both Hawaii and Indonesia. There were certain groups, taking exception to his mantle of being African American, who have invested into pointing out his multiethnic background, but not for what I would call the right reasons.

Before the Iowa caucus (although it’s a good guess his victory there has changed quite a few minds), there was actually skepticism from some parts of the African American community who did not quite believe Senator Obama reflected their particular black American experience. He was, after all-to their minds-half white, and his black ancestry spoke to an immigrant experience rather that one of slavery and Jim Crow segregation. Obama himself had to delicately place himself so as not to alienate either ethnic group.

White conservatives also seem eager to dispute his claim to an African American heritage for their own agenda of divide and conquer. A man relegated to ethnic limbo has little chance of creating universal appeal for himself (in the world of politics, anyway, if not the world of professional golf).

There is no doubt in my mind that seeing Barack Obama make a viable run for the presidency would have symbolic resonance for not just blacks, but all minorities and all whites, because when it comes down to it, Obama’s multiethnic heritage legitimizes him as the kind of minority that could only be made possible in the United States (okay, maybe also Brazil). A gallery of Presidential portraits that could display Obama’s visage would show an obvious shift from the status quo, but I’m not sure we are properly recognizing what that shift is by merely indicating that he is African American.

Of course, Iowa is only one state with forty nine primaries/caucuses to go, and then there’s still the matter of the general election against the Republican nominee. And while Obama may have proven in stunning fashion his electability, the ability to run a good campaign does not necessarily translate into the craft of governance. Time will tell what Obama will accomplish, but let me dream that little dream on that one night, when-not a black man-but a man for all minorities won the Iowa caucus. What say you New Hampshire?

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.