This morning I came across this article -
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/10/12/497063888/asian-americans-continue-to-drift-away-from-republicans-but-it-s-a-complicated-s
And I found it interesting. For a number of reasons.
First off, let's try to define what "Asia" is. I think that those in Far East Asia consider themselves as "Asians", but where do you draw the line? Traditionally it's been the Ural Mountains, a roughly north to south mountain range that extend from the Arctic to the Aral Sea. That's all well and good, if you're looking at Russia - which is a vast, complex country that spans two continents. Are the Russians in the eastern part of the country Asian?
And there are countries that are considered part of Asia, but whose citizens are not like other "Asians" - India, Pakistan, Arabia, Farsi, and the whole "Middle East" deal, with it's Palestinians, Turks, Jews, Kurds, Iraqis, Jordanians, etc.... People don't often logically associate the Jews with the Chinese, or the Malay people with the Kazakhs... But they're all grouped in together. Never mind that the Philippines is a tropical island country and Nepal is the most elevated (literally and figuratively) country in the world. Never mind that the Arabs and the Japanese are vastly different peoples. These are all so very different that it's almost ridiculous to try to group them together, and it speaks to a racist past that in many ways and for many reasons needs to be put behind us.
How do we do this? I think the first step is understanding the inherent complexity in individuals, in cultures, in regions, in countries, and in the world overall. It's very strange to me that even in our post-modern society we want to group "Asians" into one category, even if they're American citizens. We do the same thing with Latinos, but at least they (for the most part) share a common (or similar) language and history, and even their religion is predominately Catholic, with all that that entails... These are people who represent four of the five major world's religions, but they're each vastly different. Buddhism is really not much like Islam, and Judaism is almost nothing like Hinduism. Throw Christianity into the mix and we've got as complex a system of beliefs as to make any attempt at trying to reconcile the differences a moot point.
And why would we try? Rather than looking at ways to consolidate people and their ideas into neat shoeboxes and pigeonholes, shouldn't we rather take a step back and enjoy the wonderful mosaic and strength and beauty that is inherent in such lovely diversity?
This graph from the article is what grabbed me:
I don't know why these were the groups that was picked, if they represent a certain percentage of the "Asian" population, and if these are just the ones likely to respond. The source information on the bottom is interesting - almost 2000 Asian-American and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (these are official Census racial designations, although they commonly get grouped together for reasons that simply defy understanding...). While you don't see the NHPI group represented in the graph, I wonder how many Koreans (for example) is considered a representative sample. Even assuming an even distribution of the population amongst the 8 groups of Asian-Americans, you're looking at 210 people from each nationality. I don't know how many Korean-Americans there are in the US, but is 210 a representative sample? Meaning, 106 people who responded and who are Korean-American said they vote Democrat, while 46 said independent and 48 said Republican... Is that representative? Is it even illustrative? I think it's misleading, and I think that it's damaging.
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/10/12/497063888/asian-americans-continue-to-drift-away-from-republicans-but-it-s-a-complicated-s
And I found it interesting. For a number of reasons.
First off, let's try to define what "Asia" is. I think that those in Far East Asia consider themselves as "Asians", but where do you draw the line? Traditionally it's been the Ural Mountains, a roughly north to south mountain range that extend from the Arctic to the Aral Sea. That's all well and good, if you're looking at Russia - which is a vast, complex country that spans two continents. Are the Russians in the eastern part of the country Asian?
And there are countries that are considered part of Asia, but whose citizens are not like other "Asians" - India, Pakistan, Arabia, Farsi, and the whole "Middle East" deal, with it's Palestinians, Turks, Jews, Kurds, Iraqis, Jordanians, etc.... People don't often logically associate the Jews with the Chinese, or the Malay people with the Kazakhs... But they're all grouped in together. Never mind that the Philippines is a tropical island country and Nepal is the most elevated (literally and figuratively) country in the world. Never mind that the Arabs and the Japanese are vastly different peoples. These are all so very different that it's almost ridiculous to try to group them together, and it speaks to a racist past that in many ways and for many reasons needs to be put behind us.
How do we do this? I think the first step is understanding the inherent complexity in individuals, in cultures, in regions, in countries, and in the world overall. It's very strange to me that even in our post-modern society we want to group "Asians" into one category, even if they're American citizens. We do the same thing with Latinos, but at least they (for the most part) share a common (or similar) language and history, and even their religion is predominately Catholic, with all that that entails... These are people who represent four of the five major world's religions, but they're each vastly different. Buddhism is really not much like Islam, and Judaism is almost nothing like Hinduism. Throw Christianity into the mix and we've got as complex a system of beliefs as to make any attempt at trying to reconcile the differences a moot point.
And why would we try? Rather than looking at ways to consolidate people and their ideas into neat shoeboxes and pigeonholes, shouldn't we rather take a step back and enjoy the wonderful mosaic and strength and beauty that is inherent in such lovely diversity?
This graph from the article is what grabbed me:
I don't know why these were the groups that was picked, if they represent a certain percentage of the "Asian" population, and if these are just the ones likely to respond. The source information on the bottom is interesting - almost 2000 Asian-American and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (these are official Census racial designations, although they commonly get grouped together for reasons that simply defy understanding...). While you don't see the NHPI group represented in the graph, I wonder how many Koreans (for example) is considered a representative sample. Even assuming an even distribution of the population amongst the 8 groups of Asian-Americans, you're looking at 210 people from each nationality. I don't know how many Korean-Americans there are in the US, but is 210 a representative sample? Meaning, 106 people who responded and who are Korean-American said they vote Democrat, while 46 said independent and 48 said Republican... Is that representative? Is it even illustrative? I think it's misleading, and I think that it's damaging.
Comments