Brownout in "Asia's world city"
Racism is back in the headlines, with "unserious" calls
to kick out foreigners in general or exclude brown-skinned people from
certain clubs and swimming pools on the grounds that servants cannot
be guests. Whether or not legislation is the right way to address the
problem is debateable, but the issue itself needs debating.It is, in
one sense, at the heart of Hongkong's search for post-1997 identity.
Is Hongkong indeed a world city which easily accommodates
all races, religions and nationalities? Or is it, post re-unification,
to be defined by reference to the singular and ethnocentric nationalism
of the mother country? In particular, if it is to be, as it claims,
"Asia's world city" it had better come to recognise that when it comes
to definitions based on skin colour and appearance Chinese, and indeed
northeast Asians in general, are outnumbered by brown people from the
Indian subcontinent and southeast Asia.
Unfortunately it is still living with its own as well
as the European colonial notions of racial hierarchy. The colonialists
at once regarded themselves as superior but also accorded, through the
law, special status to ethnic Chinese regardless of where they were
born. A Peruvian or Malaysian of Chinese descent, for example, could
easily settle here regardless of whether he could speak Chinese or was
in any way conversant with the culture.
The successor form of discrimination is that which enables
people from, for example, Canada who speak no Chinese but "look Chinese"
and have Chinese sounding names get job preferment - for example in
the media - over locally-born people of Indian origin who speak the
language and know the territory. Do not ask me to name names. You know
that is true.Equally those who frequently come through the airport here
can see that immigration and customs officials routinely take longer
dealing with those with darker skins.
Debate about racial issues must however start from a
basis of understanding our terminology. Many from the west who preach
most fervently against racial discrimination may sometimes make things
worse by indulging in their own generalisations and failing to draw
important distinctions. Recently I received a readership survey from
The Economist, a magazine which prides itself on its ability to draw
distinctions and avoid simple categorisations. Yet this august publication
was asking readers to identify their ethnicity by ticking boxes labeled
with such definitions as "Middle Eastern" - at best a geographic description
-- and "Hispanic", a linguistic one.
This nonsensical categorisation is essentially American.
The US, despite its multi-ethnic reality, is still bedeviled by the
language of its segregated past. Hence people who are partly black,
in the sense of having some Afro-American ancestry, are placed in that
category though in reality they may have an equal claim to be white,
or Caucasian. How "black" is Colin Powell?
This literal black/white divide dates back to the time
when the law, at least in some states, required people to be one or
the other. Doubtless today it is kept alive partly by those who make
a living from race-based politics. But it is surely in decline.
Tiger Woods is one to have taken a lead. Despite the
efforts of some African-American groups to claim him as their own, he
has refused to be categorised, acknowledging his very mixed ancestry
by describing himself as a "Cablinasian".
In the US, as in Hongkong, the word "Asian" is normally
used to refer to east Asian, those from China, Japan, Korea etc. Those
from elsewhere in Asia are often ignored when the media identifies the
"first Asian" to do this or that, or wants a quote from an "Asian" organisation.
Some of these "Asian" organisations turn out to be exclusively Chinese.
Others have a wider east Asian representation but in practice exclude
Filipinos on the grounds that they are "Hispanic" simply because most
have Spanish-origin names, though in reality browner skins may be the
bigger issue. Indonesians and Malays also tend to be ignored by "Asian"
organisations as though cultural identification with Confucius was a
necessary component of Asian-ness.
European immigrant groups always identified themselves
by reference to their original nationality - Poles, Greeks, Italians
etc. It would make sense for the Chinese, Filipinos, Vietnamese etc
to insist on doing the same rather than be categorised by reference
to broad and largely meaningless term Asian which in practice, albeit
with the best intentions, encourages racist thinking on all sides.
The same is true in Britain. There the word "Asian" applies
almost exclusively to those originating from the Indian subcontinent.
That usage is simply the result of the fact that large numbers of migrants
that have come from there compared with from other parts of Asia. But
the blanket use of "Asian" and the failure of the British media to draw
distinctions between different people from the subcontinent is not helping
race relations there.
There have recently been riots by "Asians" in the depressed
northern cities of Bradford and Oldham. Coverage has given the impression
that Asians in Britain as a whole are impoverished, discontented and
prone to rioting. The rioters may be "Asian" but to define the problem
in those terms rather than look at the specifics is liable to undermine
race relations in general.
The fact is that there are several very different south
Asian communities in Britain. They may look much the same but are divided
both by religion and place of origin. They are to be found at both ends
of Britain's income and education spectrum. In very broad terms, Indians,
and particularly those who came from East Africa, are upwardly mobile,
excel at school and in small businesses, have adapted to local customs
and have low unemployment. At the other end are the Bangladeshis huddled
in self-created ghettos in northern cities, attending their own Muslim
schools, strongly opposing inter-marriage and trying to maintain their
traditional ways of life. The result: segregation, poverty and high
Of course, all generalisations - including the above paragraph
-- on racial issues are dangerous. Recently I read of a survey showing
that most other Americans thought those of Chinese origin were "untrustworthy".
This was interpreted as proving that anti-Chinese racism was still strong
in the US. But the very same survey also said that Chinese were hard-working,
valued education, made good businessmen etc - all the positive stereotypes
of overseas Chinese.
Positive comments about one race are by implication criticisms
of other races. A survey which produces no negative opinions is useless.
Just to ask the questions could be deemed as racist. Yet the answers
are instructive and stereotypes usually have some basis in fact.
There is anyway no point in pretending these issues do
not exist in Hongkong. They also matter. Some countries may be able
ignore racial issues by maintaining ethnic and religious homogeneity.
But that cannot be the case for Hongkong, where more than 5% of the
population is from an ethnic minority and which aspires to be as global
as New York or London. ends
OF THE PAGE