The Language Police do a lot of annoying things, but one of the most annoying is their habit of taking a term for a group of people that was once the preferred term, declaring it to be a slur, and castigating anyone who hasn't gotten the memo and continues to use it.
Justice Thurgood Marshall continued to use the word "Negro" in his opinions long after it was regarded as decidedly uncool, only switching to "Afro-American" near the end of his tenure. He still used "Negro" when speaking to a group of reporters the day after his retirement. To my knowledge, no one ever insinuated he was a racist for using a formerly preferred but now disparaged term, but other people have been targeted that way.
Among the numerous attacks made on Sentencing Commission nominee (and C&C blogger) Bill Otis is this one by Kimberly Yam of the Huffington Post. Ms. Yam posts in a huff that Bill used the term "Oriental," which she says is a "derogatory term," in a comment in the thread discussed in this post.
Is it derogatory? I first asked my very favorite person from the Far East, my wife, Lada. She doesn't think there is anything derogatory about the term. She prefers it to "Asian," a term she never liked. And, Lada asks, who elected Ms. Yam to speak for all people of an entire racial group and decide what terms can be used? She doesn't recall receiving a ballot.
Justice Thurgood Marshall continued to use the word "Negro" in his opinions long after it was regarded as decidedly uncool, only switching to "Afro-American" near the end of his tenure. He still used "Negro" when speaking to a group of reporters the day after his retirement. To my knowledge, no one ever insinuated he was a racist for using a formerly preferred but now disparaged term, but other people have been targeted that way.
Among the numerous attacks made on Sentencing Commission nominee (and C&C blogger) Bill Otis is this one by Kimberly Yam of the Huffington Post. Ms. Yam posts in a huff that Bill used the term "Oriental," which she says is a "derogatory term," in a comment in the thread discussed in this post.
Is it derogatory? I first asked my very favorite person from the Far East, my wife, Lada. She doesn't think there is anything derogatory about the term. She prefers it to "Asian," a term she never liked. And, Lada asks, who elected Ms. Yam to speak for all people of an entire racial group and decide what terms can be used? She doesn't recall receiving a ballot.
For another, similar perspective, there is this article in the L.A. Times from a couple of years ago by Dr. Jayne Tsuchiyama (emphasis added).
The disagreement over terminology may be largely generational. Older people continue to use the words that were considered perfectly okay in their youth, were preferred by the group in question at that time, and continue to be preferred by many of the older members of that group to this day. A little more tolerance of legitimate differences is in order.
Beyond terminology, on the merits of the point Bill was making, it is important to remember, again, the context of the discussion. The underlying controversy is about overall rates of incarceration and crime across the large racial designations, so the comment is about overall tendencies, not about individuals or delving into the issues of particular subgroups. Barry Latzer's thorough study The Rise and Fall of Violent Crime in America notes that there are indeed differences in crime rates in different groups and that "Asian and Eastern European immigrants, for the most part, engage in low levels of criminality."
Bill's comment essentially said just that and attributed the difference to cultural elements. How can anyone take offense at that? It's true, as a sweeping, overall tendency, which is the topic of discussion.
Well, among Politically Correct Asian-Americans, any compliment becomes an insult. Pointing out the fact of lower overall crime rates among Asian-Americans "perpetuates a false representation of Asian-Americans as 'model minorities.' " Huh? How does it do that?
"Aarti Kohli, executive director of Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus, told HuffPost in an email that Otis' comments essentially paint a broad picture of the Asian-American community, ignoring the complexities within the minority group." It's a blog comment for God's sake, not a treatise! Of course it doesn't delve into "the complexities." Of course there are subgroups that vary from the overall average, but going into all that is vastly beyond the scope of a blog comment.
"While little data exists on the Asian-American prison population, the research available shows that it has not been exempt from contact with the criminal justice system." Not exempt? Nobody said anyone was exempt. Bill certainly didn't. This is the Straw Man Fallacy on steroids.
Ah, there it is. The "R-word." No, Mr. Yang, a correct statement of an overall trend within a group does not "stereotype." Stereotyping establishes a fixed set of characteristics for a group and assumes that every member of the group fits that pattern. Simply noting overall group tendencies is not stereotyping.
For the same reason, saying that valuing, e.g., education tends to be stronger in some groups than others does not mean that all members of a group fit that pattern. It is an unfortunate but undeniable reality that some young people do not receive the kind of encouragement and reinforcement for educational achievement from family and friends that others receive, and this deficit is more common in some racial groups than others. That's how the world is at present.
Pointing out reality is not racist. On the contrary, burying our heads in the sand and denying problems exacerbates those problems and makes it difficult, perhaps impossible, to correct them.
More candor and less hypersensitivity is what we need today. This article is prime example of what we don't need.
It is now politically incorrect to use the word "Oriental," and the admonition has the force of law: President Obama recently signed a bill prohibiting use of the term in all federal documents. Rep. Grace Meng, the New York congresswoman who sponsored the legislation, exulted that "at long last this insulting and outdated term will be gone for good."
As an Oriental, I am bemused. Apparently Asians are supposed to feel demeaned if someone refers to us as Orientals. But good luck finding a single Asian American who has ever had the word spat at them in anger. Most Asian Americans have had racist epithets hurled at them at one time or another: Chink, slant eye, gook, Nip, zipperhead. But Oriental isn't in the canon.
And why should it be? Literally, it means of the Orient or of the East, as opposed to of the Occident or of the West. Last I checked, geographic origin is not a slur. If it were, it would be wrong to label people from Mississippi as Southerners.* * *Erika Lee, director of the Immigration History Research Center at the University of Minnesota and author of "The Making of Asian America: A History," offered a similar explanation to NBC News: "In the U.S., the term 'Oriental' has been used to reinforce the idea that Asians were/are forever foreign and could never become American. These ideas helped to justify immigration exclusion, racial discrimination and violence, political disfranchisement and segregation." Lee also claimed that continued use of the term "perpetuates inequality, disrespect, discrimination and stereotypes towards Asian Americans."
I don't see it that way; I see self-righteous, fragile egos eager to find offense where none is intended. A wave of anti-Oriental discrimination is not sweeping the country. Besides, the term has been steadily falling out of circulation since the 1950s, and it's mainly used today by older Asians and the proprietors of hundreds if not thousands of restaurants, hotels, shops and organizations with Oriental in their name. The well-intentioned meddlers will create trouble for exactly the population they want to defend.
The disagreement over terminology may be largely generational. Older people continue to use the words that were considered perfectly okay in their youth, were preferred by the group in question at that time, and continue to be preferred by many of the older members of that group to this day. A little more tolerance of legitimate differences is in order.
Beyond terminology, on the merits of the point Bill was making, it is important to remember, again, the context of the discussion. The underlying controversy is about overall rates of incarceration and crime across the large racial designations, so the comment is about overall tendencies, not about individuals or delving into the issues of particular subgroups. Barry Latzer's thorough study The Rise and Fall of Violent Crime in America notes that there are indeed differences in crime rates in different groups and that "Asian and Eastern European immigrants, for the most part, engage in low levels of criminality."
Bill's comment essentially said just that and attributed the difference to cultural elements. How can anyone take offense at that? It's true, as a sweeping, overall tendency, which is the topic of discussion.
Well, among Politically Correct Asian-Americans, any compliment becomes an insult. Pointing out the fact of lower overall crime rates among Asian-Americans "perpetuates a false representation of Asian-Americans as 'model minorities.' " Huh? How does it do that?
"Aarti Kohli, executive director of Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus, told HuffPost in an email that Otis' comments essentially paint a broad picture of the Asian-American community, ignoring the complexities within the minority group." It's a blog comment for God's sake, not a treatise! Of course it doesn't delve into "the complexities." Of course there are subgroups that vary from the overall average, but going into all that is vastly beyond the scope of a blog comment.
"While little data exists on the Asian-American prison population, the research available shows that it has not been exempt from contact with the criminal justice system." Not exempt? Nobody said anyone was exempt. Bill certainly didn't. This is the Straw Man Fallacy on steroids.
John C. Yang, president and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice - AAJC, said that Otis' comments pit racial minorities against each other.
"Otis' statement is racist because it stereotypes and suggests others do not value family, work and education," he told HuffPost.
Ah, there it is. The "R-word." No, Mr. Yang, a correct statement of an overall trend within a group does not "stereotype." Stereotyping establishes a fixed set of characteristics for a group and assumes that every member of the group fits that pattern. Simply noting overall group tendencies is not stereotyping.
For the same reason, saying that valuing, e.g., education tends to be stronger in some groups than others does not mean that all members of a group fit that pattern. It is an unfortunate but undeniable reality that some young people do not receive the kind of encouragement and reinforcement for educational achievement from family and friends that others receive, and this deficit is more common in some racial groups than others. That's how the world is at present.
Pointing out reality is not racist. On the contrary, burying our heads in the sand and denying problems exacerbates those problems and makes it difficult, perhaps impossible, to correct them.
More candor and less hypersensitivity is what we need today. This article is prime example of what we don't need.
Translation: “We do not agree with the conservative positions of Bill Otis, so we will find a token Orien...er, I mean Asian-American, to help lodge an unsubstantiated accusation of racism.”
They cannot win on the merits of their position, so of course Bill is a racist.
The article is a perfect example of why there will never be a “national conversation about race.” They are not adult enough to have one.