Model minority myth detrimental to everyone

Published: Monday, March 1, 1999

Monday, March 1, 1999

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?