Photo by Tim Foster
How do you talk about racism when the perpetrator isn’t white? On 28 April, the Wall Street Journal published an article describing the racist treatment that black people endured in China as a result of Covid-19. African nationals in the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou were “subjected to forced coronavirus testing, barred from hotels and restaurants, and must observe arbitrary self-quarantines, regardless of symptoms or travel history.” Social justice advocates rushed forth to condemn this on social media, but found themselves unable to draw on the standard arsenal of critiques about whiteness. Because racist acts committed by people of color do not conform to the mainstream narratives of social justice, it is difficult to talk about these acts using the standard language of critical race theory.
The terminology that we use to discuss race relations in the United States centers on the dynamic between Caucasians and people of color, and often excludes the latter group from being potential perpetrators of racism themselves. As Carlos Hoyt Jr., assistant professor of social work at Wheelock College, puts it, the common dispute among people today is “whether the original definition of racism, the belief in the superiority/inferiority of people based on racial identity, should be revised to exclusively and strictly mean the use of power to preserve and perpetuate the advantages of the dominant social identity group—that is, white people in American society.” Most social activists and critical race theorists have adopted the latter definition, sometimes called prejudice plus power, arguing that racism against white people cannot exist because you can’t be racist against a group that has all the economic, social and cultural power.
However, the definition of racism as a tool to uphold the power of the dominant group, makes it far more difficult to talk about racial prejudice between non-white individuals, as illustrated by the example of anti-blackness in China. The Han Chinese, who comprise 92% of the Chinese population, are the dominant social identity group. Chairman Mao himself acknowledged this by coining the term Han chauvinism 70 years ago to describe local Han ethnocentrism. However, critical race theory’s conception of anti-blackness as stemming from the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the continuing subjugation that followed does not adequately describe anti-blackness in China. For most of its history, China was relatively closed off to foreigners. When black people visit China today, they are treated as spectacles, often photographed without their consent and pointed at as if they were animals in a zoo. In the United States, while black people are also treated differently on the basis of their skin color, you’d be hard pressed to find an American who has never seen a black person before, or would take an unsolicited picture of him or her. The exoticization and otherization of black people in China, while similarly immoral, cannot be attributed to the same reasons as America’s historical oppression of black communities.
It is important to acknowledge this difference so that progressives like myself do not adhere too closely to a predetermined framework of race relations for cases in which it does not apply, such as anti-blackness in China. While critical race theory is helpful for understanding many of the causes and manifestations of racism in the west, the common narratives espoused by critical race theorists do not comprehensively explain all acts of racial prejudice in the world—nor even in our own societies. We must not allow a limited definition of racism to pressure us into brushing aside racism by non-white perpetrators and imposing a western notion of race relations on situations to which it is not relevant. When we define racism in a way that is mostly designed to admonish one particular group, we will inevitably underplay racism committed by other groups. As an Asian-American woman, I want to be able to criticize racism from my own community. Similarly, I want to be able to criticize racism that I experience from other non-white communities. A definition of racism that exclusively incriminates white perpetrators makes it much harder to do this.
Critical race theory falls short when analyzing the racial tensions between non-white individuals because one can no longer attribute prejudicial behaviors to white supremacy. If racism continues to be defined as power plus prejudice, it will be difficult to label many instances of racial tension as racism, especially when they involve people of color themselves: one particularly salient example was the racially-motivated hate crime committed in Texas by a Latino man, who stabbed an Asian-American family of three because he “thought the family was Chinese, and infecting people with the coronavirus.” The perpetrator wasn’t white—so the act was not an instance of racism in the sense of “preserv[ing] and perpetuat[ing] the advantages of the dominant social identity group.” But it’s difficult not to see this as a blatant act of anti-Asian racism. If we don’t call it racism, what do we call it? Perhaps we will have to invent a new term that can encompass instances of bias from one group to another when neither group is the most powerful in society. But racial prejudice among people of color seems close enough to racism that even social justice advocates on the left, who might also argue that reverse racism doesn’t exist, would use the term racism to describe anti-blackness in China or a Sinophobic hate crime committed by a Latino man, even though they do not fit the precise definition of racism that requires the structural component of racial dominance.
A definition of racism that suggests that people of color and white people can be equally guilty of racism would resolve this issue. However, it would open the door to Rawlsian, colorblind judgments of racial issues, which do not reflect the historical realities of our society today. Absent acknowledgement that there exists a dominant group in society, events like Black History Month would be deemed racist because they show favoritism of one racial group over another. But context matters—during my K–12 public school education in the United States, the vast majority of historical figures I learned about were white men. It makes sense that we need to balance the scales a little. The question is whether a race-blind definition would leave enough room for historical and cultural nuance in race politics. Most people who accept a colorblind definition probably still see the necessity of Black History Month and other celebrations of African-American culture. A more difficult line to draw for many would be whether stereotypes and exclusion of white people, such as the recent social media trend of referring to white women as Karens, or the silencing of white people in conversations about race, should be deemed racist or not. Under a colorblind definition of racism, it would be harder to argue that they aren’t.
Ultimately, the question is: how do you address racism in a manner that recognizes the complicity of all people, regardless of race, while also acknowledging the importance of historical and social contexts? As an Asian-American woman, it’s a question that I have grappled with all my life. While I have witnessed members of my community both act as perpetrators of racism and be the targets of racism from other people of color, these examples rarely receive the same media attention as incidences that better conform to the mainstream narrative of who the perpetrators and victims of racism are. Although white supremacy is a useful epistemological framework for analyzing racism that is perpetuated by white people, it is by no means a comprehensive explanation of all instances of racial prejudice. We should not be so tied to the dominant academic discourse on racism that we cannot criticize instances of racial prejudice that are morally repulsive, but do not draw the attention of ethnic studies scholars. What is most important is that our disagreements about the definitions of racism do not preclude us from denouncing racially-motivated acts of violence and hostility when we see them. Regardless of what you want to call the discriminatory treatment of African nationals in China, and regardless of whether you believe that all individuals can be perpetrators and victims of racism, we can at least agree that the inhumane treatment of black people in China on the basis of their race is morally reprehensible.
21 comments
I think Daedalus is on the right track. I’ve considered that maybe the R=P+P equation might be salvaged if we are just flexible enough in determining who has effective, practical power in any given situation. There are a lot of situations where the person with the most power isn’t white! But it still feels contrived.
The word “Asian” itself in this context is problematic, as it is a blanket term covering different cultures and ethnicities and which obscures racial prejudice within that context. The experience of racism is (obviously) going to be different, but no less racist for that.
The Chinese experience in Taiwan might be fruitfully examined: the relationship between the Han Chinese people and the indigenous Taiwanese is in part a racialist history; no question. Naturally enough, it’s not a replication of the experience in North America but that shouldn’t detract from the inherent racism at it’s heart. After 1895, though, the Chinese suddenly found themselves no longer dominant, replaced by another group of imperial racists – the Japanese. To a certain extent, they may have imitated (White) Western practices/ideas, but that there was an inherent race-based prejudice also at work shouldn’t automatically be dismissed because of that, again especially with respect to the indigenous peoples. Racial prejudice exists today amongst both the Han Chinese and Japanese as distrust towards other ethnicities – so again in Taiwan, ethnically Han Chinese Taiwanese routinely look down upon other South East Asians (Thai, Filipinos, Indonesian, etc.) in particular, without even recognising that there is a problem. Indigenous tribal people meanwhile more or less have to conform to Han Chinese notions of what a tribal people is, while also facing officially-sanctioned discrimination (eg, it’s only in the last five years have indigenous people been allowed to have a name that reflects their own language.)
Ultimately, the more abstract discourse surrounding race has itself come from or been largely informed by the Black American experience and in so doing made assumptions that may be unwarranted, or definitions that are too restrictive, when looking at other cultures. Maybe part of the problem is that two things are being examined and put together: power on the one hand, and prejudice on the other.
In Africa, tribal identity led to genocide in Rwanda. The incident sure looks like a racial incident. The Japanese are very prejudiced against Koreans. In some US big cities, blacks do not like Korean shop-owners and have burned their shops to the ground during riots. In every place at every point in history people have looked down on other people whether they have power or not. In China for centuries outsiders were “barbarians” and not viewed positively even when those outsiders were ahead of China in technology. A view based only on the US is to ignore human nature.
95% of people know what racism means. The “power plus prejudice” definition was practically invented last week as far as a Joe and Jane Average are concerned.
No matter who you are, prejudiced ideas about you derived merely on the basis of your skin colour sure feels like racism.
What an amazing series of verbal contortions and mental gymnastics just to avoid admitting your definition of racism is wrong, the ideology underpinning it is wrong, and that you need to rethink your position.
I’d post the Principal Skinner gif (“Am I so out of Touch? No, it’s the children who are wrong!”) if allowed by the web code.
Dear Somsai,
A few different perspectives on your argument(s):
1) “Black racism in China existed a long time before Covid 19. That said the racism in Asia is less hateful.” – First, you’ve sighted no evidence that racism in Asia is less hateful. I know nothing of the issue, so let’s assume you are correct and that racism is worse in the States. Critical race theory hardly ever distinguishes between racism and worse racism, unless it serves its own social justice ideology. Mostly, however, CRT finds a way to make all racist acts or misconceptions equivalent. It may just label it differently, such as microaggression. Any act of racism is equivalent, so long as it, as many would say, perpetuates uneven power dynamics against marginally and historically oppressed people to serve the interests of the dominate group. So, by what I presume is your own theoretical lens based on your argument contents, are you not being “complicit” with a form of oppression by describing it as a lesser form of oppression? You’ve called it racism, but argued it was not as bad as states. So, a critical race theorist would say this argument perpetuates oppression. This is one of the issues of critical race theory – it has it’s own special form of color blindness when reality does not match up with it’s teachings.
2) “I’ve never felt vulnerable anywhere in Asia strictly based on race” – one person’s experience is not generalizable to a population. I’m gay and would say I’ve never had a problem with homophobia – so, is the U.S. not homophobic? A gender theorist would definitely have a problem if I were to propose that my experience speaks for the rest. Glad you have never felt the oppression this article discusses, but your experience is your own, and has no external validity as stated.
3) “In the US racism is defined by a very small subset of privileged and often intergenerationally wealthy folks with time on their hands, and has little to do with most people’s experiences in the real world.” – Priviledged people in the U.S. do not “define” racism. According to CRT, they may perpetuate it, but they don’t define it. Racism in the structural sense has been defined by academics and adopted by their students and other academics. If you asked a billionaire to define racism, I bet you they would respond something along the lines of “KKK”, which does not match up with your definition.
4) “I’d much rather be called a lao wai with a smile than have my photo taken without permission by a wealthy person as I do hard labor.” – This isn’t really an argument, but the way it reads, I assume you’re using it as evidence to say that racism in China isn’t as bad as in the U.S. First, again, your opinion is not fact and is not generalizable. It’s your truth, which is, again, great and valid. But, it does not apply to a larger population, pending any correlational studies (I see none cited). Second, CRT philosophy would surely take this as a sign of complacency towards structural racism, just because it is not as bad (as claimed, whether real or no) as in the U.S. Should we say that, since we no longer condone Jim Crow laws, that racism is not as bad as before, thus no worries?
See – logical inconsistency is and always will be CRT’s downfall. It’s own arguments can be used against it.
“Perhaps we will have to invent a new term that can encompass instances of bias from one group to another when neither group is the most powerful in society.”
But the Han are the most powerful in Chinese society. How does someone write something like this with this kind of blindness? Especially an educated person?
I’m getting the idea that the highly educated aren’t as great as they tell us they are. But applying critical thinking – who told us that the highly educated are the best in society, whose lead must be followed? It was themselves! I love spotting self-serving behavior, it is so transparently obvious to spot now, and it is always bullshit. Thanks, critical thinking!
“events like Black History Month would be deemed racist because they show favoritism of one racial group over another.”
Black History Month is undoubtedly racist. However it is acceptably racist.
“we can at least agree that the inhumane treatment of black people in China on the basis of their race is morally reprehensible.”
We can’t agree on that. Criticizing Chinese people is racist, according to your own standards. Racism isn’t about intent. It’s also about outcomes. Racism can occur without anyone having to be a racist. This is standard social justice rhetoric. It’s also the Christian concept of original sin recycled, but we’ll avoid talking about that.
The first quote you put was talking about the anti-Asian racism committed by a Hispanic man
Pick one: Han can’t be racist to blacks. Han can be racist to blacks.
How is there such a confusion of thought that you can’t follow your own principles?
The whole point of the article is that Han Chinese can also be racist against black people. There’s no logical inconsistency.
1) Han Chinese oppressing Black people is racist, by either definition.
2) Racism can’t just be defined as power+prejudice, which the situation of the Hispanic man attacking an Asian family elucidates.
Black racism in China existed a long time before Covid 19. That said the racism in Asia is less hateful. The most common label for black people I heard in Taiwan was black devil, and in China the word for whites is the pejorative “lao wai”. Few African American tourists spend long in China. Despite all that I’ve never felt vulnerable anywhere in Asia strictly based on race.
In the US racism is defined by a very small subset of privileged and often intergenerationally wealthy folks with time on their hands, and has little to do with most people’s experiences in the real world. I’d much rather be called a lao wai with a smile than have my photo taken without permission by a wealthy person as I do hard labor. And that has happened. Often. In America.
Oh come on. “Laowai” is not a pejorative. It’s a neutral term used for everyone who isn’t Chinese. Trust me, Chinese has a specialized vocabulary of derogatory terms for whites dating from the Mao era. But Laowai and Waiguoren are not pejoratives no matter how many whites get their feathers ruffled by being reminded that they are not in the Chinese ingroup.
Dear Somsai,
A few different perspectives on your argument(s):
1) “Black racism in China existed a long time before Covid 19. That said the racism in Asia is less hateful.” – First, you’ve sighted no evidence that racism in Asia is less hateful. I know nothing of the issue, so let’s assume you are correct and that racism is worse in the States. Critical race theory hardly ever distinguishes between racism and worse racism, unless it serves its own social justice ideology. Mostly, however, CRT finds a way to make all racist acts or misconceptions equivalent. It may just label it differently, such as microaggression. Any act of racism is equivalent, so long as it, as many would say, perpetuates uneven power dynamics against marginally and historically oppressed people to serve the interests of the dominate group. So, by what I presume is your own theoretical lens based on your argument contents, are you not being “complicit” with a form of oppression by describing it as a lesser form of oppression? You’ve called it racism, but argued it was not as bad as states. So, a critical race theorist would say this argument perpetuates oppression. This is one of the issues of critical race theory – it has it’s own special form of color blindness when reality does not match up with it’s teachings.
2) “I’ve never felt vulnerable anywhere in Asia strictly based on race” – one person’s experience is not generalizable to a population. I’m gay and would say I’ve never had a problem with homophobia – so, is the U.S. not homophobic? A gender theorist would definitely have a problem if I were to propose that my experience speaks for the rest. Glad you have never felt the oppression this article discusses, but your experience is your own, and has no external validity as stated.
3) “In the US racism is defined by a very small subset of privileged and often intergenerationally wealthy folks with time on their hands, and has little to do with most people’s experiences in the real world.” – Priviledged people in the U.S. do not “define” racism. According to CRT, they may perpetuate it, but they don’t define it. Racism in the structural sense has been defined by academics and adopted by their students and other academics. If you asked a billionaire to define racism, I bet you they would respond something along the lines of “KKK”, which does not match up with your definition.
4) “I’d much rather be called a lao wai with a smile than have my photo taken without permission by a wealthy person as I do hard labor.” – This isn’t really an argument, but the way it reads, I assume you’re using it as evidence to say that racism in China isn’t as bad as in the U.S. First, again, your opinion is not fact and is not generalizable. It’s your truth, which is, again, great and valid. But, it does not apply to a larger population, pending any correlational studies (I see none cited). Second, CRT philosophy would surely take this as a sign of complacency towards structural racism, just because it is not as bad (as claimed, whether real or no) as in the U.S. Should we say that, since we no longer condone Jim Crow laws, that racism is not as bad as before, thus no worries?
See – logical inconsistency is and always will be CRT’s downfall. It’s own arguments can be used against it.
I have never agreed with the new definition of racism being prejudice plus power. Racism is prejudice based on perceived racial characteristics and has nothing to do with political or social power. The black legislator who referred to her Asian primary opponent as a ching chong was expressing racism. The legislator’s being black does not make her racism impossible. There are numerous examples of nonwhite racism, by Africans against Indians in Uganda and by the Japanese fascists against whites and non-Japanese Asians to name just two.
When Shaquille O’Neal said, “Tell Yao Ming I said ching chong wing wong tinky peeky ah so” it was not racist.
Good article. These are just more examples of why the R=P+P definition needs to be dropped and why the universal definition is a much better tool for the job of calling out clearly racist incidents as mentioned by Canwen. I had identified some of the absurdities that the R=P+P idea inevitably leads to some years ago in the early days of this magazine (link below) so it’s nice to see others continuing to point out real world examples of how it doesn’t work in practice. Also, from what I have seen and heard China is far more racist to Africans and other foreigners than any western country as of 2020.
https://areomagazine.com/2017/06/16/racism-does-not-equal-prejudice-power/
R=P+P is absurdly toxic even on the face of it. It could only have escaped academia on a wave of joyous hatred.
Yeah, CRT has made the conversation about race increasingly provincial, but I guess Americans weren’t about to start learning about the rest of the world anyway…
Along similar lines to this piece, I recommend https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/anti-racism-erases-anti-semitism on why current ideas around race aren’t a good fit for understanding antisemitism.
Also https://www.academia.edu/6526768/The_Pedagogy_of_the_Meaning_of_Racism_Reconciling_a_Discordant_Discourse for an academic paper on the merits of changing the meaning of racism. Or if that is too dense https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/19/the-fight-to-redefine-racism is also interesting.
Whereas Hoyt’s “original” definition of racism is fairly straightforward, the newfangled one does requires some contortionist thinking. At one time, I (white) worked in an all-black dishwashing crew with a black supervisor by day and supervised bar staff (including a black barback) at night. So if I held view x, could that view be racist by night and non-racist by day? Similarly, if a Chinese person of whom Xu speaks is racist against Africans today but moves to Africa tomorrow, where they are the underdog, does this mean the same exact view held by the same exact person is racist on Monday but not racist on Tuesday?
Yeah, I don’t think the prejudice + power definition is a very good definition even on its own terms, because it depends on the similarly redefined “power”. An ordinary person on heading this definition might think this means that a white person can experience racism if they work for a prejudiced black boss, but this is not what critical race theorists mean by power! In the course of narrowing the definition of racism to mean only structural racism, the definition of power has been implicitly narrowed to mean only structural power that is based on race.
I’ve seen reports it’s not just black Africans that have been subjected to this in China, white’s born in Africa holding African passports have been similarly treated too. Though now Australian’s, due to their Governments stance on the CCP’s covering up of Covid-19, are now also being ‘targeted’ for special attention as well.