Speaking as an American…
By Frank Wu

“Yeah, and what do they do in China?”

Whenever I have had the fortune to appear in a public forum offering my opinions on a contentious subject, I receive calls, letters, and e-mail messages from people who disagree vigorously and vehemently with my perspective and my message. Although I enjoy the 15 minutes of fame, I am taken aback by a few of the responses. They run along the lines of that rhetorical question about China—a land from which my parents came but where I have never been. My own mother tells me not be to too controversial. She says, “It will be bad for your career.”

Little does she know I’ve made a career out of being controversial. She has a point though: To be respected as a critic requires being accepted as a citizen.

Half the time I argue about immigration, I am met with the objection that China wouldn’t make it easy for a Westerner to become Chinese. The implication is that because presumably a white person would not be welcomed in China, an Asian person can be excluded from America.

When I argued for affirmative action against conservative author Dinesh D’Souza, on the C-SPAN program “American Perspectives,” I had the greatest exposure and the worst reaction. Because the two-hour show taped from Brown University in late 1997 was aired during the holiday season and on New Year’s Day, viewers channel surfing cable stations between the football bowl games saw the two of us discussing the most racially divisive of current political issues.

I made a modest case for affirmative action. I said that we should start with the real problem of racial discrimination, rather than so-called “reverse discrimination,” and ask what we were prepared to do to address its effects. I emphasized the importance of principled approaches to remedying racial discrimination and pragmatic compromises that would achieve real results. I described affirmative action as a limited program, a means to an ends rather than its own goal.

Still, I must have impressed a few in the audience—and not favorably. I welcome controversy, but I prefer that it does not become personal. The correspondence I received was about two to one in my favor, but within the negative mail were some warnings – one writer advised, “you’ll learn,” and sent along material purporting to show that African Americans were descended directly to apes, that Jews were engaged in a global conspiracy, with information about white supremacist Internet Web sites.

One of the dozens of hand-written letters I received afterward, without a return address, opened with the inquiry whether they had affirmative action in Japan.

I am tempted to reply, “How would I know?” Or with perhaps with too much cleverness for my own good, I could retort, “What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?”

My interlocutor deserves a more thorough answer though.

I don’t believe it is accidental, disapproving of the opinions of individuals who are Asian by asking them about their presumed ancestral homeland. With less sophistication than the speaker supposes, it is an ad hominem attack in its classic form. It has less to do with the substance of an argument than the identity of the person advancing it.

I have heard the point put often enough as a direct taunt. It comes as the heckler’s jeer, “If you don’t like it here, then go home.”

The same sentiment can be presented as empathy. I have listened to people explain to me, trying their patience as much as mine, that they understand how I as an Asian American may face discrimination here, because when they as Americans were traveling as a tourists in China or Japan they too felt prejudice.

As much as I value efforts at mutual understanding, even this kindly person is offering up an analogy which is frustratingly inappropriate. It shows what is wrong with the way Asian Americans are perceived as well as the subtlety of the error.

As a law professor, I help train people to argue from analogy and distinguish among different cases. The proper comparison to the treatment of a white American overseas—where she is in fact a “foreigner”—is the treatment of a non-white American overseas—where in fact I am a “foreigner;” say, me in France. If the idea is to match up the ancestral connections, then the most apt comparison to the treatment of a white American in Asia is the treatment of an Asian American in Europe. Incidentally, a non-white United States citizen visiting “the Continent” is likely to be accepted as a bona fide Yankee. I am as able as my neighbor to be an “ugly American,” a loud, rude, English-speaking tourist expecting to be catered to. When I am outside the United States, it is readily apparent to the rest of the civilized world where I come from.

If they are racist in Asia—and I am confident that some segments of any society are “racist,” however the term is defined—I regret that as much as any American. But it serves as no excuse for racism against Asian Americans, because it has virtually nothing to do with Asian Americans.

Maybe, I think, I should announce an obvious disclaimer. Asian Americans can be racists too.

Every time I discuss race relations, whether on a radio program or a college campus, no matter how hard I try to take a tone that is conciliatory, someone challenges me by asking what I have to say about Asian Americans who are racists. I don’t know how to answer their rhetorical question.

Of course, some Asian Americans are racists—however we define that term.

Just as is true of other communities, Asian Americans may reveal their prejudices in private among themselves. They might even exclaim it publicly and purposefully.

Some sound like they are Asian supremacy of some sort. Others will talk about “the blacks” in a manner that sounds like a disturbing echo of the Ku Klux Klan.

Confirming again that ethnic divisions can be drawn finer than reason, a few Asian individuals will denigrate other Asian groups: Japanese believing Koreans are inferior, Indians hating Pakistanis, Mandarin-speaking Chinese mocking Cantonese-speaking communities, and so on.

The possibility of intermarriage brings out the worst. When their son or more likely daughter announces her engagement to a “foreigner,” parents of the immigrant generation may be more dismayed than the potential in-laws. Their arguments—or commands—about the purity of bloodlines, grandchildren who “look like us,” or filial piety may appear archaic but they are no less painful for their bigotry.

Asian Americans can be every bit as sexist and homophobic as anyone else as well. Asian American parents may favor their sons and mistreat their daughters so much that, as sensible as it seems to the parents, appears absurd to observers. They are as ready as blacks and whites to disown a child who turns out to be gay or lesbian.

So what?

I should no more be expected to defend these people who have nothing do with me other than their face resembling mine, than blacks or whites should be asked to apologize for demagogues of their respective racial heritage.

Nevertheless, I agree all of us who care about racial justice must emphasize moral principles rather than our own interests. So for once and for all, I will be clear as I can: Asian Americans who mistreat other people on the basis of their race are reprehensible—and all the more so, if they criticize other people for returning the favor.

If Asian Americans are biased, then they should change. We should not be satisfied to be reduced to the lowest common denominator, along the lines of, “I’m racist; you’re racist too.”

Every opportunity I am given, I denounce injustices committed by Asian Americans. I try to persuade Asian Americans that they are not only doing wrong to others in the abstract, but also failing to help their own cause in reality. They lose their claim against discrimination if they engage in it.

The only difference is that when I am taking to task Asian Americans, I usually do so to Asian Americans. I don’t believe it helps Asian Americans improve if I persuade non-Asian Americans of these points. It may only create a backlash among Asian Americans. They become angry I am “airing dirty laundry” instead of addressing the actual problems.

Since I have been giving speeches for over half my life, I don’t mind facing debating tactics. I worry, however, that many Asian Americans are silenced—along with Jews, Latinos, immigrants, and anyone else who somehow seems like they don’t belong. They are treated like guests enjoying the privileges of this country. They understand that they are expected to remain polite.

So they keep their mouths shut, even though they as much of a right as other citizens to take part in our political process. Or if they speak up, they are looked at with some sort of suspicion even if the next person voices similar views.

Stereotypes have a self-fulfilling quality. Stereotypes give us images of other people, but they also give us scripts to follow. It is easier for Asian Americans to sound exactly like their stereotype, performing according to the script: submissive, passive, agreeable, docile.

It is no surprise that Asian Americans feel excluded from race matters. As D’Souza, the author of books such as The End of Racism, observed privately when we debated initially, it isn’t often that an Asian American is invited to comment on civil rights, much less that two Asian Americans are given the opportunity. As much as I disagree with D’Souza’s opinions, I agree with him that more Asian Americans should be offering their opinions. I also am appalled that some of the criticism of his work opens with the observation that he is from Bombay, or that he is Catholic, or that he is an immigrant—and for a few critiques, it don’t progress much further beyond that. I am heartened that what happens to me extends to him as well.

Public discourse is the greatest of democratic traditions. Whatever they do elsewhere, we should demand that everyone think for themselves and we ought to encourage all of us to share our thoughts. Ethnic newspapers such as AsianWeek are part of a rich tradition of civic journalism. Even when the popular press has forgotten or ignored its public responsibilities, the more specialized media that serves a community has maintained its role: watchdog; advocate; spokesperson; forum; cheerleader; critic—all together, with often contradictory goals and in a sometimes messy manner.

Above all, however, Asian Americans must participate in the dialogues of democracy. That is what it means to be an American.