THIS IS NOT THAT
Racism is a very serious allegation and we should be very harsh in our condemnation of acts of racism – even more so than we are today. Commensurate with this we should also be extraordinarily careful when and where this label gets applied – and equally aggressive in our condemnation when it’s misapplied. (There simply must be repercussions for the flagrant misuse of a label that can destroy a person’s reputation for all time.)
Based on a few recent news articles, and how I hear the term being used casually in public, it seems we are so eager to find examples of racism that we’re content to call it out even where it is very obviously absent. Racism is a special kind of evil that is clearly defined. Racism is: “Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.” (I read three clear components here: bias, racial difference, and superiority.)
So how is the word being used? A perfect example is an article published on CBC’s website on November 2nd that talked about cries of racism being levelled against a UBC researcher, Andy Yan. Mayors, city councilors, pundits, consultants, and journalists have volunteered their expert opinions that this research and research like it is racist and will only breed further racism. And, as a result, they tell us such data collection should be avoided at all cost.
So what was Yan up to? Yan’s latest work looked at housing affordability, and specifically the likelihood of foreign ownership driving up real estate prices in Vancouver. To do this he collected information relating to property sales in Vancouver’s three most expensive neighbourhoods, and did so over a period of six months. The data showed that a majority, 66%, were bought by people with non-Anglicized Chinese names, which he tells us is evidence that they are of Chinese descent and new arrivals.
Now, before you claim this approach to be racist, Yan explains in his report that the name analysis method he used follows closely those applied in all modern Asian American Studies, Political Science, and Public Health research; and, furthermore, his research was informed by several specific, popular, peer-reviewed works investigating just this type of name-based ethnicity classification. In fact, further still, an external review of Yan’s research showed it unlikely that mis-categorization would result from the methodology he used. So, far from being racist, Yan applied the best available academic practises the Social Sciences have to offer.
While his research did show that the more someone spent on their home the more likely they were a recent arrival from China ($2-$3 million, 56%; $3-$4 million, 78%; $4-$5 million, 94%), it also shows that only 18% of these folks paid for their new home outright. The rest of them, 82%, took on the burden of a mortgage. So, there does appear to be a correlation between house price and non-Anglicized Chinese name within these three neighbourhoods; but, importantly, Yan’s research also acts as a pretty strong counter to a common stereotype. His findings showed the vast majority of Chinese home-buyers are taking on mortgages, just like most Vancouverites. So Andy Yan’s research appears to be anti-racist: he’s actually normalizing a group of people while also providing real data about what’s actually going on, to contrast with all the speculation and othering that is far more common.
To make this clearer still I will remind you that words have meanings! In this case, not only is “Chinese” not a race but it’s not even an ethnic group. While China’s Han population vastly outnumbers other groups within its borders, the Chinese ethnosphere is composed of more than fifty self-identified groups. As a result, referring to people who identify as Chinese as a race is not unlike referring to Canadians as a race. Of course you’re welcome to do so, but if you do I don’t know what you’re talking about. (And I don’t think you do either.) Yes, you’re right, people with ancestors from a certain geographic and political region called “Asia” get lumped together as “Asian” (though, like other “races”, only if they fit a certain visual description that doesn’t actually correspond to any region.) But, if you read Yan’s research he does not use the term “Asian” and is not interested at all in race. (He’s not being racist.) On top of this, the researcher in this case (maybe you noticed) is of Asian descent, though he was born and raised in Vancouver. So, even if he was attacking “Asians” for their “Asian-ness”, which he did not do, this would still not fit any definition of racism I’ve read. (He’s simply not being racist.) Further, the researcher said nothing at all, in any way, implying the superiority of any group over any other group. Doing so would not just be archaic and racist but also unacademic (not to mention far outside his purview as a professional urban planner.) Instead, Yan just gathered data that others have not. (He did so while TOTALLY avoiding being racist by any approximation, WHILE being himself “Asian” and “Chinese”, and was STILL labelled racist! Now I wonder why no other researchers have done this work? Could it be for fear of being unjustly tarred and feathered? No doubt.) So Andy Yan’s work is a lot of things, and may be worthy of any number of labels, but “racist” is not one of them.
You might not like Yan’s research findings or his methods, and you might even be offended by the spirit of the inquiry; fine, but at the very least you need to find a different label. Racism is a serious charge with serious consequences for everyone. And it should be. Yet we’re crying wolf far too often and, I fear, diminishing its significance. I mean, shouldn’t it sting a little when someone, or half the city, accuses you of racism? You shouldn’t be able to blow it off and count yourself among a very large group of the most distinguished and cosmopolitan of professionals, academics, and intellectuals...)
Rather than exposing racism, I think the response to Yan’s work sheds light on a much more important and interesting problem. Here, it seems, we have a large, co-ordinated group of senior administrators and professionals who have a hair-trigger warning and responses system in place, a kind of missile shield, to immediately shoot down anything that may even be perceived as a potential attack on other elites. Here the defense of the globetrotting millionaire and billionaire class came so blindly and immediately that there wasn’t even any evidence of actual wrongdoing, or even anything close to an intention to do so. Notice this! Homeowners hadn’t even the time to take offence before Yan and his excellent research was publicly attacked, simultaneously, by leaders in government, business, and media. And who were they so quick to defend? Not a persecuted and neglected minority but the most privileged folks anywhere, and in the history of our species. In some cases we’re talking about students and housewives (the unemployed) purchasing ten million dollar luxury properties, outright – and doing so because purchasing a one million dollar townhouse ten minutes away would not suit their lifestyle and the appearance they’re trying to maintain. We can actually see folks stumbling over themselves defending the most supremely advantaged among us against the horrific crime of good researchers attempting to collect good data, using with the best available methods, (a mission they’re on so that we have a vaguely legitimate picture of reality to help us make sensible policy decisions.)
So quit it. Just quit it! Quit defending folks who don’t need defending, especially when there is no shortage of others who could actually use your help. And quit accusing people of committing offenses they haven’t committed, especially when even these accusation can be highly indelible. Quit it already!
コメント