by Catherine A. Traywick
Placed in Hyphen Magazine
Tagged with Asian America, Race
Catherine is a disillusioned former feminist activist trying to make sense of her shattered ideals...via modern technology and the global distribution of the internet.
[Originally published at Hyphen on March 18, 2009]
The Prox, a Princeton University blog hosted by the Daily Princetonian, published a piece earlier this week about an incident of purported racism in one of its classrooms:
Raphael Balsam ’11, a Bloomberg Hall resident, was working on a computer in the third floor computer room when he noticed Chinese written on the blackboard last Sunday. He was surprised to learn that the writing translated to:“White people can’t see this / White people can’t read this / White people can’t understand this” and immediately notified an RCA, Carrie Carpenter ’10.
Evidently the chalkboard scrawl has caused a bit of a stir, inciting an investigation into whether or not the message was a violation of the university’s Rights, Rules, and Responsibilities.
According to Roger Wang, a photographer for the Princetonian, most of those present when the message was deciphered treated it lightly, but, “I feel that there was a true concern regarding how the writing could be seenas a joke while an attack in English would suffer severe consequences.”
Perhaps more puzzling than Balsam’s initial reaction to the seemingly benign message is the clear subtext of Wang’s account: the shared perception of unfairness underlying the students’ certainty that the English version of such a message would generate a lot more (unjustifiable) outrage. The implication, of course, is that ethnic minorities enjoy a certain amount of joke-privilege that not only excludes white people, but is often exercised at their expense. After all, if Miley Cyrus is shunned for referencing a particular race while innocently “goofing around,” why should anyone be able to reference any race in any way ever?
While I often have the pleasure of hearing white folks around me decry “reverse racism” when confronted with their own prejudices, this case is particularly close to heart because it so clearly illustrates a major flaw of the “reverse racism” myth: That it fails to take into account the inherently asymmetrical connotations of different prejudicial acts.
The students were concerned that a message written in Chinese which said “White people can’t see this / White people can’t read this / White people can’t understand this” would not be taken as seriously as a similar message written in English. To be clear, a similar message in English would be “Chinese people can’t see this / Chinese people can’t read this / Chinese people can’t understand this.” Obviously these two “similar” statements, similarly written on a chalkboard at Princeton, have disparate implications.
The first — written in Chinese in a place where Chinese is not widely visibly recognized, read, or understood by whites — could very well be a statement of fact. Would I expect cleverer graffiti from Princeton students? Yes. Does that mean it’s racist? No. On the other hand, the second message — written in English in a place where English is widely visibly recognized, read, and understood by Chinese — implies that Chinese students at Princeton don’t know English. See the difference, there?
Now, I know the second message is only hypothetical but — well, actually, wait a second… doesn’t it kind of remind you of that time when the Princetonian published a joke article lampooning a particular Asian American student who had been denied admission? It went something like this:
“Hi Princeton! Remember me? I so good at math and science. Perfect 2400 SAT score. Ring Bells? Just in case, let me refresh your memories. I the super smart Asian. Princeton the super dumb college, not accept me.”
That’s almost… straightforwardly racist. Nevertheless, the Princetonian’s Managing Board justified the article, saying:
“Using hyperbole and an unbelievable string of stereotypes, we hoped to lampoon racism by showing it at its most outrageous… We embraced racist language in order to strangle it.”
Kind of makes the whole Bloomberg Hall chalkboard incident seem rather trivial, doesn’t it? Perhaps those leading the investigation which it sparked will come to think so too.
On a side note: They “embraced racist language in order to strangle it?” Really? Don’t these kids go to Princeton, for crying out loud??
- Similar Post: Asian Girls and the Guys Who Fetishize Them (100%)
- Similar Post: The Perils of Internet Research, and More on “Reverse Racism” (100%)
- Similar Post: That ‘Single Asians’ Video and Other Cultural Comedy (100%)
Racism is all about power — which is why the text in Chinese is only funny but in English would be offensive. Kind of rubbing one’s nose into one’s marginalization.
This is my email, btw. Send me yours, please.