|
|
ARTICLES:
Politics and Society
The
Problem With Terms and Labels By Abbie (Miyabi) Modry March 2003 Does it matter what I choose to call myself or how you choose to call me? I change what I call myself depending on what language I am speaking and whom I am talking to. But if I were not trying to communicate to other people who I am—in a way inoffensive enough to me and comprehensible enough to the other person—I would say that I was "Japanese and Jewish," a true "jap" because "Jap" is a derogatory term for the Japanese and "JAP" stands for Jewish American Princess, yet another derogatory term for Jewish American females. I don't mind that they are both derogatory terms since it's the only word that encompasses both of my identities in a single word, without using an "and" or a hyphen. Or, in Japanese, if people had any clue what it meant, I would say that I was a "yudaya-kei-nihonjin" (Jewish Japanese as opposed to a Japanese-Jew). Actually, the Japanese terminology seems to encapsulate best who I am if I need to box myself. Now, most people choose to label me with one of the following terms, in order of frequency: "half," "half-and-half," "Hapa," "mixed," "Eurasian," "double." I have feelings about each of these terms, some strong and some not. Yes, they are feelings, which are an entirely personal matter, but my reasons for having them are not entirely personal. Before I go onto elaborate on the connotation of each of these terms though, let me diverge a bit. On an e-mail list that I subscribe to, once happened a quite heated debate about the term "mulatto." I watched as some people huffed and puffed about whether it was a degrading term, or not, or that it once was, but now was the time to reclaim the term. Plenty of people presented their perspectives coolly, but as often happens with personal issues, the overall tone of the online debate was heated and I thought I could see the steam rising from the screen. Historical usage was the primary way people legitimatised the way they felt or explained other list members' reactions. The "mulatto" debate has lot in common with the controversy over politically correct (also known as PC) terminology. People create alternative terms (like "mixed" or "biracial") because the original term (like "mulatto") becomes loaded with negative connotations. When the people concerned (who originally disseminated the PC term) sense that the change in terminology is not causing the change in mindset that they wanted, various terminology springs up to try to rectify that problem. The birth of politically correct terms has to do with people's idea that what you say influences what you think and feel. So, what does it mean that there are so many terms about racially diverse individuals? It probably means that there is no unifying community or organization that officially announces, "Yes, our community approves the rest of you (the media) calling us ----," "No, we reject being called ----- because we find it offensive/derogatory," etc. A minority without a voice (yet), I guess. Now back to my feelings about the connotation of each of the terms that attempt to describe me and people like me. I hate the term "half" or any numerical quantifiers (like "quarter," "eighth," "a drop," etc.) because I think, "Why the hell can you think that I, or any person can be dissected so easily?" This also leads to people's mentality of "Since you are "half" something so you should also look half that." And that means???? That you should have slanty eyes and a high-bridged nose if you have biological parents who are Chinese-Singaporean and British? Oh, maybe you have the exotic golden skin because one of your parents is Caucasian and the other is Black (both "Caucasian" and "Black" encompassing so many different possible nationalities and ethnicities). I still can't forget the shock I felt when I was nine and a friend drew an imaginary line that split me in half and said (in Japanese), "well, since "ha-fu" means half in English, you must be American from this side on (gesturing towards the left of my body) and Japanese from this side on (gesturing towards my right), right?" So how strange it must have been that somehow my right leg wasn't shorter than my left, and that my eyes weren't blue on the left and brown on the right. Yes, she was only joking. But in the cultural and social context that it took place, combined with my personality, that was no joke and till today remains a vivid and hurtful memory fifteen years later. (As a side-note, the same friend is currently one of my closest friends, and one of the most sensitive to my self-identification.) Aside from a nine-year olds' insensitivity, the problem lies here in the terminology that can imply what she said. Half, taken to the extreme of its literariness, can mean what my friend did to me; easily divisible by lines. Oddly, people expect individuals who are "half" this or "quarter" that to embody that perfectly. Come to think of it, isn't that kind of strange? Just because you are racially mixed doesn't mean that you suddenly become a mix of two stereotypes of those races instead of a mix of two individuals with their own distinct features, some typical for their ethnic category and some not. Also, many people look more like their moms, dads, or even one of their grandparents instead of being a perfect mix, neatly half-and-half of both their parents. Here's an example of how ineffectual racial stereotyping can be: I happen to be large-boned and people always say, "that must come from your mother's side." Well.... Though my mother is the "white" one in the equation, as far as I can tell, both her parents and all her grandparents are small-boned. On the other hand, my dad, the one who should be "smaller" according to popular stereotype, had a mother who was large-boned and because of that, always appeared healthy and plump even when they were starving during and after World War Two. My suspicion is that my large-boned-ness actually comes from my dad, not my mom. The term "double" contains problems similar to the fractional terminologies (that is, "half," "quarter," etc.). It's like, "Oh, so I see one of you. And where is "the other" you? I mean just logically speaking, if you are "double," there are two of you, right?" Not that I've actually heard anyone say this (the terminology has not been in wide-enough circulation around me). But taking a term to its literal extreme helps in making its implications explicit. So, the strangeness of the term "double" is that if "half" makes you sound like you are only half a person, and therefore inferior to the non-half person, "double" makes you sound like you are two people in one person's body and that you are more impressive than a non-double person. Strange, huh? As an extension of that strangeness, it also contains the problem of burdening yourself to be just as "fully" one as the other. Another problem I have is its potential exclusivity. What do you call people with more than two racial heritages? "Triple," "quadruple," "multiple"? Is it starting to sound more like multiple births than a description of a single person? Well okay, I think I've reviewed enough of its "problems." One thing I really like about the term "double" and where you can sense the warm gaze and encouraging attitude of the parent who first came up with the term is that it emphasizes that we are "full" individuals in each and both of our communities, not only "half." By the way, I wonder how many people know where the term "Hapa" originally comes from? Somehow, I was under the impression that it was originally a Japanese dialect meaning "half-Japanese and half-White," very much the way "Eurasian" is being used in the U.S. today. I found out otherwise. According to the Merriam-Webster, it is apparently an abbreviated term from the Hawaiian term "Hapa Haole," which meant someone who was half Hawaiian and usually, half white. Well, this term, though it seems to be gaining popularity and stretching in its definition, I have strong feelings against for the same reasons I have problems with the terminology "half." The term "half" in Japanese is also used in the way "Hapa Haole" was originally used. "Ha-fu" (the Japanese pronunciation of "half") describes someone who is half-Japanese and half-white, though recently the definition is expanding a little more. The key in a (supposedly) monoracial society like Japan calling other people "half" is that you are seen as half-non-Japanese, that is, half-not-a-member-of-the-society. That's where the problem lies for me. The term "half" comes off a little differently than in the American case where you feel split between the two (or more) communities that you are supposed to belong to. The modern alternative to all this labeling for people who are Caucasian and Asian, without being quantified by numbers is to call them "Eurasian." I like this term and find it convenient. I don't need to answer the follow up question, "What (racial) mix?" since it's already been answered (at least vaguely): Asian and European. On the other hand, I have to admit to feeling a little strange using this term since Eurasia is actually a geographical location (including all the European nations and most of the Asian countries except for the ones floating in the middle of the ocean) and people who come from the middle of the Eurasian continent (like Kazakhstan) actually look like those of us who identify as "Eurasian." I wonder if the term "Eurasian" will start being a confusing term like "Indian"? Because, you know, when someone describes another person as "Indian" you usually have to think, "Wait, do you mean East Indian, like someone from the country India, or Native Indian, like someone with ancestors who lived on the American continent before Columbus and his friends arrived?" Well I guess there's no way of telling until it happens. Some people seem to reject the term "Eurasian" because it sounds exclusive, but come on, all the terminologies are originally exclusive. Terminology only becomes inclusive through people using it inclusively or through creating a brand new one all from scratch. The modern neutral term is "mixed." It's also the least specific term and often invites the follow-up question, "Well then, what mix?" like it's a kind of flavor: Are you a chocolate-vanilla mix? Or cookies n' cream with a dab of banana? Because "mixed" is the least problematic, it then highlights some of the reasons why people care to distinguish whether someone is "mixed" or not and why suddenly "mixed-ness" has become a label. For some, it is an issue of looking for role models who look like you or your loved ones in our heavily visually-centered society. For some, it's a fetish. Yet, for most others, it's probably just because they want to know. Innocent enough-"just because." But why so many people "just want to know" is because it means something. If it truly didn't matter, then neither would it matter whether the question was answered. If it really didn't matter, people who "look mixed" would not be bombarded with the same question all the time. What does it mean then? It might help to see what the possible antonyms to "mixed" are: One possibility is "non-mixed," but there must be another more common word..... Oh! "Pure." That's it! No? But strange then, isn't the opposite of pure, "impure," "contaminated," "diluted" etc? Yeah, well, that's often the connotation "mixed" carries. If you feel like a "mixed" person is cooler than a "pure-blooded" or "non-mixed" person though, it's only because of a certain value reversal that happened recently. Just the way being a "minority" didn't used to be a cool thing until recently. Now the values have been completely reversed to the point where people who don't come from a "minority" culture start feeling as if they are a no one, they are "too bland." Being "just white" is not cool or anything admirable anymore (though this still depends on your social circle). The sad thing though is that the value reversal is entirely superficial because it still maintains the same mentality of neatly categorizing people along the same old lines. In fact, it reinforces the feeling that the categorizations are somehow authentic and natural, which I think is a notion that needs to be challenged. I think categorizations are convenient, but beyond pragmatic usage, it has no place in society. Is there a happy alternative to the "pure vs. mixed" terminology? I have seen people use the term "monoracial" as opposed to "multiracial." Of course, to offer my tweak, I would change the "race" part to "ethnic," but that's a minor point right now. The terms that seem better to me are simply so because they are too new to have accumulated connotations negatively or positively. Idealistically, I would not differentiate between people who were "multiethnic" and "monoethnic." Those categories exist to somehow privilege or discriminate people for their backgrounds they had no choice about. I'm just not a fan of discrimination or counter-discrimination (which can take the form of privileging). If I had my way, I would just call everyone a Swirlie (a term coined by Jen Chau, the founder of Swirl, Inc.). After all, we are all a rich swirl of our biological parents and cultural upbringings. Maybe some day happy Swirlies (because we are not clones) will sit around a cafe table sipping our choice of hot drinks discussing our different but same swirls. About
the Author
|
Articles
|
|