Minority groups—who are at a historical disadvantage, who are suffering in some capacity, and many of whom are currently resisting together—are not one and the same through and through.
In this time and climate of revolt against long-standing oppressive values and systems, I find it allows society as a whole to see social revolutions continuing today between two groups: white supremacists and the rest of the world.
So it becomes very easy in these generalizations to overlook details that may not seem too important or worth deep, ongoing consideration. What I want to call attention to is that as minority groups are banding together, it is important not to totally conflate their experiences.
I am not going to write as if I am especially well-versed in this topic, but rather I am writing to challenge you to think critically about your own assumptions and to explore different perspectives related to minority dynamics.
My attention to this issue was sparked recently by an NPR article discussing the ‘Model Minority’ myth and why it is so harmful. The author wrote the piece earlier this year in response to off-hand comments by prominent American writer and political commentator, Andrew Sullivan.
Sullivan wrote that Asian-Americans (and Jews, whom he mentioned in passing), in contrast with other ethnic groups, succeeded in America’s racist society through their strict work ethic and solid family structures, among other things. The issues which brought on so much backlash, concerned his enormous generalization of the Asian-American community, and, in particular, the unfair contrast he makes with the African American community.
This brings me to my argument against amalgamating different minority groups into one common history. In terms of where many minority groups stand today against the various social, political, and economic institutions, using an umbrella term, can be great to an extent. The problem comes when that uniformity is extended into the past, and groups are made to come from the same settings and conditions. Sullivan could make his claims precisely because he created this false symmetry through the ‘Model Minority’ myth, which is the apparent collective success of one minority group then contrasted with the case of other groups.
These ideas skip to the bottom line and miss key differences in the Asian and African American experiences, despite both groups experiencing oppression from white colonizers. While Africans were brought in as slaves, Asians, particularly the Chinese, came years later as lowly-regarded and severely abused labourers for work on railroads on the west coast. Both groups faced codified, legal discrimination in different capacities. Slavery was law, and so were immigration bans on many Asian countries.
These injustices happened in fundamentally different ways. So of course, their responses (mostly the second half of the 20th-century) would be different in nature and provoke different treatment from oppressors.
Even within the minority groups themselves, there was variation in responses and ways of dealing with unique dynamics. This is why conflation can be dangerous. Their plights cannot be likened to one another because they were both inexcusably horrible in characteristically different ways.
Personally, I have mostly considered minority relations through the lens of my own life. I myself am Canadian, with parents from Ghana and Barbados. Growing up, most of my neighbours belonged to various minority groups, especially from Asia. My friends again were part of various Asian minority groups.
I naturally gravitated towards people with a shared experience of some sort: the minority experience. Whenever I felt like the odd one out more than usual,“at least we are all minorities” shaped my thinking. My way of thinking was wrong; I assumed our positions as minorities were static.
The truth is that we were all different. Our histories shaped and separated us. And I have found that increased awareness of our several distinct histories deepens and strengthens bonds across races.
