“Asian Privilege”: Racial Stereotyping 101

o'reilly mouse ears

File Bill O’Reilly under “unoriginal” and “unsound.”

As the Ferguson crisis continued to roil this week, the Fox News talking head chimed in to deny the existence of “white privilege” in the United States. The implication, of course, was that deeply-rooted, historical patterns of anti-black racism had nothing to do with African American poverty, unemployment, disenfranchisement, and criminalization. To prove his point, O’Reilly turned to “Asians,” trotting out decontextualized numbers to “prove” that our nation is a land of unlimited opportunity for those who conduct themselves in the right ways—including people of color. “Asians” succeed in America because “their families are intact and their education is paramount.” Furthermore, he implied, “Asians,” have figured out that social mobility requires toeing the line of respectability. Unlike black people, they understand “civil behavior, right from wrong, as well as how to speak properly and how to act respectfully in public.” African Americans do not, and will not get ahead until they embrace “personal responsibility” and “cultural change.”

This is an argument that is both tired and flawed. O’Reilly’s words could have been lifted straight from the playbook of a long line of public figures who have crowned Asians the nation’s “model minority” since the 1950s and 60s.

But the bigger problem is his logic, which rests on the presumption that culture explains how Asians have managed to out-white the whites.

Asian American history reveals this line of reasoning to be defective. It turns out that the model minority image is an invented fiction rather than timeless truth. As I recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times:

 Before the mid-20th century, the Tiger Mom did not exist in the national imagination. Instead, Americans believed that Chinese culture was disgusting and vile, viewing U.S. Chinatowns as depraved colonies of prostitutes, gamblers and opium addicts bereft of decency. Lawmakers and citizens deployed these arguments to justify and maintain the segregation, marginalization and exclusion of Chinese from mainline society between the 1870s and World War II. Those efforts were more than effective: to have a “Chinaman’s chance” at that time meant that one had zero prospects.

There is danger in offering culture as a formula for success, because our ideas of culture are hardly fixed. The history of Americans’ views about Chinese immigrant behaviors shows that “culture” often serves as a blank screen onto which individuals project various political agendas, depending on the exigencies of the moment.

During World War II, white liberals agonized that racism was damaging the United States’ ability to fight a war for democracy against the Axis powers. Many felt that the Chinese exclusion laws, which had barred migrants from China from entering the country or becoming naturalized citizens since the 1870s, risked America’s trans-Pacific alliance with China against Japan. A coast-to-coast campaign emerged to overturn the laws. The Citizens Committee to Repeal Chinese Exclusion recognized that it would have to neutralize deep-seated fear of “yellow peril” coolie hordes. So it strategically recast Chinese in its promotional materials as “law-abiding, peace-loving, courteous people living quietly among us.” Congress repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1943.

In the 1950s, journalists, social scientists and policymakers recycled this fledgling idea, circulating it further and wider as they groped for a solution to what they perceived as a national juvenile delinquency crisis. The New York Times Magazine emphasized that Chinese youths displayed “unquestioned obedience” toward their elders, while Look magazine celebrated their “high moral sense.” U.S. Rep. Arthur Klein of New York praised his Manhattan Chinatown constituents for their “respect for parents and teachers,” “stable and loving home life” and thirst for education.

These narratives gained traction because they upheld two dominant lines of Cold War-era thinking. The first was the valorization of the nuclear family. Popular portrayals of Chinese American households that attributed their orderliness to Confucian tradition resonated with contemporary conservative mores. The second was anti-communism. Observers who lauded stateside Chinese and their “venerable” Confucianism effectively drew contrasts between U.S. Chinatowns and Mao Tse-tung’s China to suggest that superiority of the American way of life.

By the 1960s, the concept of strong, disciplined families became the basis of the new racial stereotype of Chinese Americans as “model minorities”: domestic exemplars, upwardly mobile and politically docile. In the midst of the black freedom movement of the 1960s, numerous politicians and academics and the mainstream media contrasted Chinese with African Americans. They found it expedient to invoke Chinese “culture” to counter the demands of civil rights and black power activists for substantive change.

In 1966, then-Assistant Secretary of Labor Daniel Patrick Moynihan defended his controversial claim that the too-strong emphasis on matriarchy in black “culture” was to blame for the “deterioration” of African American communities by pointing to the “enlightened family life” of the relatively well-to-do Chinese. The magazine U.S. News & World Report unequivocally made the same charged comparison: “At a time when it is being proposed that hundreds of billions be spent to uplift Negros and other minorities, the nation’s 300,000 Chinese Americans are moving ahead on their own — with no help from anyone else.”

Then, as now, Asian Americans were troubled by what they saw as untrue juxtapositions. For one, the stereotype glossed over the myriad difficulties their communities faced: poverty, drugs, suicide, mental illness. Ling-chi Wang warned in UC Berkeley’s Asian American Political Alliance newsletter (1968) that Chinatown’s problems “will forever be neglected by the government” unless the community liberated itself from “the tyranny of this Chinese myth.”

Moreover, critics disliked the ways in which ideas about Asian Americans reinforced the denigration of African Americans. Writing for Los Angeles-based Gidra magazine in 1969, Amy Uyematsu resented being implicated in “white racism” by being “held up” before other minority groups as a “model to emulate.”

Today, the “model minority” concept both fascinates and upsets precisely because it offers an unambiguous yet inaccurate blueprint for solving the nation’s most pressing issues. The obstacles Americans face in the global economy, our declining prospects for socioeconomic mobility and the uncertainty of parenting in difficult times — all are real challenges. But “culture” cannot explain “success” any more than it can serve as a panacea for the dilemmas of the new millennium.

O’Reilly and company: stop recycling the mythology of Asian American “success.” It is a red herring designed to distract from the real issue at hand: the urgent imperative for all of us to guarantee justice, peace, and dignity for African Americans.







Avatar photo

By Ellen Wu

Ellen Wu is associate professor of history and Director of the Asian American Studies program at Indiana University, Bloomington. Her research and teaching interests focus on Asian/Pacific America, immigration, and race. Her first book, The Color of Success (Princeton, 2014), tracks the invention of the Asian American “model minority” stereotype in the mid-twentieth century. Ellen has also written for the Los Angeles Times, History News Network, NPR’s Code Switch, Densho: The Japanese American Legacy Project, AsAm News, and Nikkei Chicago. She is currently at work on her new book project, Asian Americans in the Age of Affirmative Action, a history of race-making and policy-making in recent times.

6 replies on ““Asian Privilege”: Racial Stereotyping 101”

Everyone plays a certain role in the America. In the past, the role of Asian as “model minority” was some kind of an acknowledgement from the public. It was a good start for new comers to automatically gain such reputation. However, time has changed.
One dimensional “analysis” of Asian Americans is oversimplified. The price that Asian American paid is profoundly ignored. The suicide rate of Asian Americans is higher than other minority.

In sum, public funding for the support of American Asians should not be justified by the labeled of “model minority”. Because every family has a skeleton in the cupboard.

My show Urban ChitChat (Youtube-Urban ChitChat-Funding For Your Passion) goes very in-depth with this issue! It is to bad that we lost our Asian-American Hostess last week but she did talk about this a lot! I am glad that this website is here because there are very few Asian-Americans that speak on this!

Comments are closed.