Monday, March 1, 1999
Model minority myth detrimental to everyone
ETHNICITY: Stereotypes of Asian American community ignore
reality, trivialize historical repression of group
By Judy Hu
Entering the Powell Library reading room on any given night, you
will see hundreds of Asian students poring over textbooks and
lecture notes, all aiming to set the curve. With the plethora of
Asians in the library, it would seem that they are all
hard-working, intellectual individuals. The late American writer
Mark Twain once wrote about Asians in America: "They are a harmless
race when white men either let them alone or treat them no worse
than dogs … they are as industrious as the day is long. A
disorderly Chinaman is rare, and a lazy one does not exist."
Yet it is a common misconception that Asian Pacific Islanders
(APIs) are immune to racism and oppression. Asians are often
perceived as enormously wealthy, highly intelligent and as an
exemplary paradigm of the successful minority.
This perpetuation of the model minority myth is a form of racism
in itself as it is founded on unquestioned assumptions. In reality,
the API community is more complex than its idealistic
portrayal.
The notion that APIs are largely a first-generation immigrant
population is false. Many Chinese and Japanese Americans have
ancestry dating back over five generations on U.S. soil. Asians
were instrumental in the building of America’s historical
landscape. Thousands of laborers were recruited from Asia in the
mid-19th century to construct the first transcontinental railroad.
Charles Crocker, a prominent California political figure of the
period, believed that the "Asian race that had built the Great Wall
of China could also build (his) dream" of an expansive railway
system.
Yet many of these newly arrived citizens were treated as slave
labor. They were tolerated as lowly workhands but attitudes toward
them were hostile and discriminatory.
The introduction of Asian immigrants provoked great resentment
and hatred. When Leland Stanford became governor of California in
1862, he stated in his inaugural address that: "To my mind it is
clear that the settlement among us of an inferior race is to be
discouraged by every legitimate means. Asia, with her numberless
millions, sends to our shores the dregs of her population."
The question, then, is why would a world-renowned university
bears the name of someone so blatantly racist and intolerant?
Mainstream society is often unquestioning of statements given by
those in a high, powerful position. The experience of APIs in this
country is founded on denouncements that they are "inferior" and
savage creatures.
Though the status of Asian Americans nowadays has improved, it
is still shrouded by racialized notions. The prejudice is not
overt, but exists in a more subtle form.
The Asian population at UCLA, for example, constitutes nearly
half the student body. Yet how many APIs are tenured as professors
outside of a few ethnic studies and language courses?
APIs generally do not advance into the upper echelons of
society, despite their qualifications. How many chancellors, deans,
CEOs or high political figures are Asians?
If APIs are as successful as stereotypically portrayed, why
haven’t they achieved gains proportional to their qualifications?
Though Asians have made significant progress, a "glass ceiling"
seems to prevent their advancement. This theory rests upon the
notion that an intangible fortress sustains racism and prevents
larger gains.
To stereotype all APIs as having attained high educational and
prosperity levels is false. The immigration of Southeast Asians
(i.e. Laotians, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Indonesians and Thais) into
the United States within the last few decades is the result of
histories and circumstances many are unaware of.
These Asians are granted refugee or immigration status as a
result of Western colonialism, imperialism and exploitation.
Significant portions of them live below the poverty line.
Classifying these communities as an example of "rich, successful
Asians" is misleading. The stereotype only undermines those who
truly need social assistance.
The extent to which Asians are generalized as wealthy and
prosperous is also taken out of context. When a new wave of Asian
immigrants proliferated into the United States in the 1970s and
’80s, many entered under the jurisdiction of the 1965 Immigration
Act.
This law specifically dictated that those with high professional
and educational backgrounds be given priority for citizenship.
Because many Asians entered this country with wealth and
prosperity, it is little wonder then that some have achieved a
comfortable, middle-class status.
The preference for the elite and highly qualified is also
indicative of the United States. If the most educated citizens of
other countries all immigrated to the United States, what would it
do to the more impoverished nations?
Many Asian countries desperately need trained professionals and
are adversely impacted by emigration. The United States is draining
these countries of a valuable resource. By allowing only the cream
of the crop to immigrate, not only are other countries harmed, but
false misconceptions are created in this country.
The qualifications and achievements of all APIs are immediately
dismissed if one examines the portrayals of Asians in society.
Despite the enormous impact of Asians on this country, history
textbooks make only brief mentions of Chinese and South Asian
Indian laborers or the Japanese internment experience. Even these
token references are misleading and biased. Racism towards the
Chinese is not acknowledged; the injustice of imprisoning innocent
Japanese people is ignored.
Representations of APIs in the media are equally detrimental.
The non-existence of positive portrayals of APIs is extremely
problematic. The most popular television programs for young people
– "Dawson’s Creek," "Beverly Hills 90210" and "Friends" (among
others) – have no central Asian characters. The one Asian cast
member on "Ally McBeal" is exoticized with the foreign name Ling
(while her real name is Lucy Liu) and depicted as a rude, sniveling
female. Asians are often stereotyped as doctors and engineers, but
where are the Asian doctors on "ER"?
Portrayals of APIs in films are also greatly distorted. They are
seen as either martial art fighters or subservient figures with
heavily-accented tongues. Males are often witless and asexualized
while females are over-exoticized.
The question remains whether skewed representations are better
than none. Both situations are derogatory and unacceptable.
The current standing of APIs in society has also led to enormous
political implications. The recent ban on affirmative action
programs, for example, has harmed more than benefited Asians. It is
argued that the large numbers of UC-qualified Asian students
exclude them from affirmative action benefits. Yet this idea is
false and misleading, as it does not account for the pool of
underrepresented Southeast Asian students who do not have the same
opportunities or advantages of other Asians.
Furthermore, the rhetoric of former governor Pete Wilson, the UC
Regents and other proponents of Proposition 209 reveal a lot about
bigotry. The assertion that many qualified APIs would benefit from
Proposition 209 aligns them with Caucasians and pits the two groups
against African American and Chicano/a students who would be
significantly disadvantaged by the initiative.
This claim is unqualified because it not only clumps all APIs
into a single category, but it also disregards the entire history
of Asians in this country, a history that has seen racism and
injustice. Such unfounded statements also belie the benefits that
society as a whole receives from progressive social reform.
Asian Americans exist along a precarious standpoint on today’s
social scale: they are at once very wealthy, yet greatly
impoverished – and not only financially.
APIs are a diverse group, and should not be judged based on
racist assumptions.
Such racist beliefs are still perpetuated today through the
notion that APIs are hard-working, successful intellectuals or
business owners.
It appears that the model minority myth elevates Asians to a
higher status – but a more critical examination of all societal
facets reveals another story.
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]