White babies, please. No Eurasians for me.

This has got a lot of buzz in my networks. From Slate's "Dear Prudence" column:

My wife, who is infertile, and I have recently decided to have children—we’d like eventually to have three—using an egg donor. (We decided against adoption because we would have no biological connection to our children.) We have just settled on this option but it has thrown open a whole new dilemma for me. I am white and my wife is East Asian. Her race isn't a problem for me and I would have had no difficulty raising mixed race children, but frankly, now that I have the choice, I’d prefer my kids to be white. We live in a fairly homogeneously white area and at the end of the day I want my kids to look like me, their cousins, and the kids they'll go to school with. I don't think my wife has ever experienced racism, but I think she might understand my point of view. Then I think I maybe I’m just convincing myself about this. I really could use a second opinion before I broach the subject with her.

—Want To Be a Dad

You can read Prudence's response to this dude at the link above.

Now, if the wife is fine with this, then whatever, although that raise issues of its own about her. There's a lot of stuff that people are free to do in this world, but in doing so it reveals them as being messed up in the head. You gotta question the guy's thought process about this. It's so important for his child to look like him - which it will - but he doesn't consider that his wife might want the child to look somewhat like her. With a white child, it will be obvious throughout her life that she is raising a kid that is not genetically hers. That may not be a big deal, but it's an additional layer of scrutiny from onlookers that she may find difficulty to deal with, especially as some women might feel inadequacies (or have them projected onto them) from not being able to conceive naturally.

It's possible that he is actually genuinely concerned about half-Asian kids being the brunt of racist treatment in an all-white area. But is racism against half-Asians really such a huge area in this day and age so as to make their very existence worth negating? I've experienced a bit of racism here and there as a half-Asian, and some minor identity crises, but all in all those problems are far outweighed by  the good things. Being half one thing and half another is pretty cool. Unless "Want To Be a Dad" is living in Klansville, Mississippi or something, his half-Asian kids shouldn't have too much to worry about. His line about "I don't think my wife has ever experienced racism" is also strange. Has he never spoken to her about it? For an Asian-American woman to never have experienced even a small amount of racism is unusual indeed.

It's almost like his wife's East Asian-ness is an inconvenient fact. Or it's something he can handle in small doses, but no more than that. Perhaps he can take comfort in knowing that a lot of half white, half East Asian kids pass for white quite easily, and raised in a predominantly white environment, will likely turn out fairly white in their mentality. But perhaps that's not enough. I wonder if it's a kind of narcissism at play. One of the things people love about their own kids is that each child partly looks like themselves, as well as being reminiscent of their partner. Perhaps this guy wants to go the whole hog and have the kids look like as much as him as possible, and now he has the opportunity.

But it's also a reflection of the reality of some interracial relationships: an unhealthy intersection of appreciation for the person and appreciation of the race that they belong to. Some fetishists are attracted to a partner because of their race, while some others are attracted to a partner in spite of their race. Neither is healthy. No person is merely the sum total of their racial composition, but neither is it a trivial detail that the letter-writer seems to hope it can be.

Leslie Jones loves white people

To be honest, I'm not sure I really needed to hear another "the difference between black people and white people is..." -type joke, but this is pretty good.

Larry Wilmore on "Caucasiastan"

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Democalypse 2012 - Larry Wilmore & Caucasiastan
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

The idea that whites invented everything

A reader emailed me to ask this question:

[A fellow student] said that whites have made the most accomplishments in the world, a statement which makes me angry because he continues to insist that other races or cultures are unpleasant or inferior. What can I say to him to argue that this is not true? 

The assumption that person is making is a fairly common one. White Westerners have been at the forefront of so much technological and socio-cultural achievements in the modern world, so it follows that there must be something superior about white people. Right?

The question of whether one racial group is more or less intelligent than another is not one I'm going to get into here. While it is a relevant question to this discussion, I don't think it's necessary.

There are two other points that I find more pertinent:

(1) What is now, has not always been.

To look at the 20th Century in isolation, one might conclude that there is something superior about white people; the most powerful countries (the USSR, the USA, Germany, England, etc) were all basically white. Even looking at the preceding few centuries, before the rise of the US as the world's pre-eminent superpower, Europe dominated the world stage in terms of inventions and accomplishments.

But if look back in time a little further, the theme of European superiority is revealed for what it is: a phase. If we studied the world prior to the 15th century (the start of the colonial era) and wondered which country would eventually achieve the most linguistic and cultural dominance over the world, England would be one of the last nations you would pick. That small island off the coast of Europe had, in the scheme of things, very little going for it.

Instead, you would look at China, the Mongol Empire, and the Arabs, and think it was only a matter of time before one of them enveloped the whole world.

 For most of known human history, Northern Europe did very little of note. Countries like Iran, Ethiopia, Iraq, Cambodia, India and Peru are hardly regarded as examples of modernity today, yet they boasted relatively advanced civilizations at a time when Northern Europeans were worshiping trees and getting invaded by their more advanced and aggressive neighbours.

But civilizations rise and fall. Angkor in what is now Cambodia, and Axum in present-day Ethiopia, are just two nation-states that for whatever reason didn't last, while others nearby flourished. The earliest cities were in the Middle East, yet several thousand years later, that region has lagged behind others in its advancements. Then through the discovery of oil, several Middle Eastern nations find themselves amongst the world's wealthiest again. China was the world's largest and most advanced nation for longer than any other, far ahead of even Rome at its height. China then began to stagnate from the 15th Century onward while Europeans aggressively sought out new expansions, yet the 21st Century sees China rising again and soon to displace the US as the world's main mover-and-shaker.

Saying that "whites have made most of the accomplishments in the world" reflects a very limited short-term understanding of world history. It's like spending 5 minutes looking at the darkened sky at night, and then concluding that the sky has always been dark.

(2) The importance of opportunity

But even given my previous point, it still begs the question: why do some cultures and ethnic groups seem to be responsible for more inventions and advancements? Why do the people of North America, Europe and East Asia tend to wealthier and more advanced societies?

The best book that answers this question is Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel. But assuming that you're not going run straight out and read that book now, I'll break it down briefly for you.

During the colonial era, European societies had electricity, the wheel, paper, gunpowder, and many other cultural advancements. Many of the world's tribal cultures - the Australian Aborigines, for example - had nothing approaching these things. So it is frequently assumed that there is something inherently backward about either Aboriginal culture, or Aboriginal people themselves.

Now without wishing to belittle the great things that have been accomplished by Europeans, there is one clear reason why they were able to do lots of things that indigenous Australians weren't: opportunity. To independently invent something truly significant - let's say, the sailing ship - you need to have certain things available to you already. For example, you need to have knowledge of more primitive forms of boat,such as the rowboat. You also need to be around large bodies of water. It should come as no surprise that people living in deserts did not independently invent sailboats. It's not because they weren't smart enough.

The Australian Aborigines never knew the art of agriculture. This would seem like a fairly basic step in human cultural development, so why did they never learn it before the Europeans arrived?

Well, the Europeans didn't invent agriculture either. They knew how to farm because thousands of years ago, someone in the Middle East invented it, and this knowledge gradually worked its way into Europe where it was adopted. Australia, by contrast, was isolated from developments happening elsewhere, and was not possessed with suitable flora and fauna anyway.

Europe succeeded largely because it had a relatively temperate climate, and had access to the innovations developed in other parts of the world.

Another important point to remember is this: European countries became so powerful in the colonial era because they decided to invade other countries. They were obviously not alone in this activity. But contrast that with China. China was the most advanced and most powerful nation in the world for thousands of years, yet at the time when European powers were looking for new territories to exploit, China decided it was content with what it already had. Had China really wanted to conquer the world, it probably could have.

Power and dominance throughout human history has not come merely through being smart. People and nations became powerful because they had not just the means, but the desire to kill, conquer and enslave those who stood in their way. Was this noble, a sign of greater civilization? It depends on your perspective. It is notable that when Japan became a colonial power from the late 19th century onwards, they were guilty of activities that we now quite rightly regard as barbaric. Yet they were really just doing what the Europeans had been doing for centuries.

Australian TV's White Australia Policy

Thoughts?

Shit White Girls Say…to Black Girls

Created by video blogger Chescaleigh (aka Franchesca Ramsey), this clip has swiftly become a viral sensation. Apparently she posted it, went to work, and by the time she had come home it had already amassed a million hits. Of course, it has stirred up some controversy too - the obligatory "if a white girl made the same thing about black girls, it'd be called racist" and so on. Which misses the point of why someone would make a video like this in the first place. It's also worth pointing out that this is a parody of another recently popular viral video, Shit Girls Say".

I like it not just because it's funny, but also because Ramsey has a rather unnerving resemblance to my own partner (hair aside).

Hotness

So a friend of mine and I were lunching at a cheap-but-effective Indian eatery recently. When it came time for the waitress to take our orders, she offered the standard array of spiciness options that you are frequently faced with in Indian restaurants: Would you like mild, hot or medium?

My friend plumped for “medium”, while I asked for “mild” instead. Interestingly, my dish (mild shahi paneer) turned out to be spicier than his dish (medium eggplant masala), which was not particularly spicy at all. We speculated on the reasons for this... had they just got the order wrong? Or had they decided to have mercy on a poor white guy who didn’t know what he was getting himself into? (He is white, while I am, well, 50% less white than he.)
Now I am quite partial to spicy food, yet I regard asking for anything other than the “mild” option to be fraught with risk. Because I’ve had allegedly “medium” things before that were hotter than the breath of Satan and threatened to burn a hole in my stomach; yet other restaurants serve “medium” dishes that would have any self-respecting Indian labeling it as being tasteless and asking to pass the extra chilli.

So as there is no universal measure of spiciness that every restaurant adheres to, how does one adjudge the right level to ask for?

I figure you can make an educated guess from the clientele of the restaurant. A place which mostly caters to a middle-class white crowd will probably have a completely different idea of "hot" than a place that caters to fresh-off-the-boat Indian students. So when they ask how hot you would like it, you might need to look around to decide whether "hot" means "hot for Indians" or "hot for white people", because the two things are quite different indeed.

(Cross-posted at Brown Pundits)

I do loves me some Onion.

On being tried while black. Sort of.

As brilliant as The Onion is, sometimes the funniest thing about them is the Youtube comments from people who think these stories are real news. This is why canned laughter was invented for TV comedy.

Heineken's "The Date" ad

Ok, so check this new ad from Heineken. It's called "The Date" and it's pretty cool. But there was something in it that sorta piqued my interest.

Yes, it's the white guy/ Asian girl pairing.

Now, before some of you start to get your back up, let me say something first up. There are some Asian guys out there who have a degree of hostility to that kind of relationship, and who would dismiss the guy as a rice chaser and the girl as having some kind of self-loathing. I'm not really one of those people. I'm a product of such a relationship, for a start, and I'm in a inter-ethnic relationship of my own (she's Indian).

I like to see Asians get some representation on the screen. But the problem is that it's primarily Asian women, and when those Asian women get some lovin', it is almost always with a white guy. Of course, white guy/ Asian girl couples are commonplace in real life, so it's expected that you'd see them a bit on screen. Yet the clear majority of Asian women in Western countries choose to date or marry Asian guys, and portrayals of Asian-Asian couples are surprisingly rare. Perhaps there is a limited amount of Asian-ness producers think their audiences can handle, and two Asians in a relationship is one too many.

And a white woman with an Asian guy? According to TV and film, such a thing may as well not exist. (Note to pedants: there are exceptions to this, I know, but I'm talking overall.)

So while the frequent portrayal of white guy/ Asian girl couples does to some extent reflect reality, bear in mind that popular culture doesn't just reflect reality, it shapes it. And the portrayal of Asian men in popular culture tends to vary between poor and non-existent. When the highest profile Asian male actor in the West is Ken Jeong, best known for exposing his very underwhelming penis in The Hangover, you know that things aren't that healthy.

So as you watch the dashing white dude in the above video, sweeping the hot Asian girl off her feet in an Asian restaurant (aka "her natural environment"), ask yourself this. Why did it have to be that particular racial combination?

In isolation, it's just a couple, and their racial combination is no more significant than any other racial combination. If you look at it as part of an overall trend, then it might start to bother you a little.

Learn to cook Malaysian food... from Rick Stein and Gordon Ramsay? Um...

I caught a bit of Australian Masterchef this week, in which two contestants won a trip to Malaysia to receive a cooking lesson and introduction to Malaysian food from British celebrity chef Rick Stein.

So what's wrong with that picture?

Rick Stein, of course. No disrespect to the guy, I don't mind his shows, and he has actually championed Malaysian cuisine in Britain in the last couple of years. But it's rather odd that Masterchef would send contestants to Malaysia - where there are presumably a large number of Malaysian chefs - and then present as the Malaysian culinary expert a fellow from England, who only really discovered the cuisine around 2009 as part of his Rick Stein's Far Eastern Odyssey series.

So how did Rick do? Well, he made a serviceable curry laksa, but did several things that were not authentic. Which is not a crime, but if you are going to be shown "the flavours of Malaysia" by an "expert", surely you'd want to experience proper Malaysian food and recipes, right?

No, because Masterchef repeats a well-worn idea in mainstream television that Western audiences can only understand Asian food through a Western interpreter.

Malaysian cuisine seems all the rage in UK celebrity chef circles now, as evidenced by Gordon Ramsay also doing a show in Malaysia. He spends a week observing various aunties making food, and by the end of it is presented as having mastered the cuisine, as he comes second in a nasi lemak-making competition despite apparently not knowing how to use a rice cooker. All that in only one week, Gordon? My, aren't you smart.

Perhaps Gordon is taking his inspiration from Sam Worthington's character in Avatar. White dude parachutes into a foreign land, is bamboozled by their exotic ways, yet in no time manages to beat the natives at their own game. Flirting with their women all the way. You win again, Mighty White Man.
You can watch Ramsay in Malaysia below.


Gordon Ramsay in Malaysia from Joseph Teo on Vimeo.

Race and Representation: Idris Elba in "Thor", and why it's nothing to complain about

This. Watch this. That is all I have to say.

Courtesy of The Escapist.

The underprivileged white male

Only one of these is a joke

As much as I love hip-hop, it's a genre that is ripe for sending up. What with hip-hop artists' love of posing and posturing, and the genre's obsession with the macho and materialistic. And white people getting into hip-hop culture is always good fodder for satirising (given that the genre itself stems from a quintessentially African-American aesthetic of cool). Examples include numerous songs from Saturday Night Live, most notably Dick in a Box and I Just Had Sex.

But because so many artists in the genre take themselves so seriously even when being frankly ridiculous, it's sometimes hard to know whether they are playing it straight or being knowingly silly. In addition, satirical performers can sometimes be so good at their work that a lot of viewers won't get that it is a joke.

With that in mind, check out these two clips. Musical merits aside, both artists seem not only extremely lame but serious about what they are doing, at least on the surface. Yet one of them is tongue in cheek and the other is apparently deadly serious. It probably won't be too hard for you to guess which is which, but have a look.

The first one is Young Con Anthem by The Young Cons.


The second is Go Grab My Belt by Slick Mahony.


Did you pick it?

Upon first viewing The Young Cons' work, my reaction was that it was an SNL-style joke clip, based on a fairly hilarious comedic concept: a couple of lame white guys in suits rapping about their conservative values and trying to make it cool to be a Republican. I mean, c'mon... from the moment that guy said "Yo, one time..." you thought it was a joke, right?
But it soon became clear that this is not comedy; these actually are a couple of lame white guys in suits rapping about their conservative values and trying to make it cool to be a Republican.

I'm not a conservative. But if I was, The Young Cons would make me seriously reconsider my outlook on life. Let's all just accept that the Left has a lock on all the coolest musicians and actors. Right-wingers rarely pull off coolness very well, it's like a suit that just doesn't really fit. And Republican rappers? Nah. As Ice Cube declared in his 1991 track A Bird in the Hand, "Blacks are too f*ckin' broke to be Republican."

Slick Mahony, on the other hand, is a joke, although as joke tunes go, it's a totally mad one. His dance moves are to die for. He's one of the crew from Turquoise Jeep Records, responsible for one of my favourite songs from last year, Cavities by Flynt Flossy with Pretty Raheem and Whatchamacallit. All their songs are tongue-in-cheek, but just real enough to cause a little confusion among those urban music fans who aren't so good with irony.

To my mind, if you are the kind of artist who inspires people to ask, "Is this for real, or a joke?" it's kinda lame to actually be for real.

Difference makers

Now and then you hear a nice story about how one inspiring person can make a huge difference on the world. Somali doctor Hawa Abdi is one such person, who got some much-deserved shine on ABC News this week.


And then there are those people who need to find better callings to base their lives around. Roy Den Hollander is one of those people. Stephen Colbert and his crew treat Roy with the ridicule he appears to deserve.

Roy has what some might refer to as "white people problems" (see here and here).

"Akira" to be remade with white people

Did any of you ever find it weird that Arnold Schwarzenegger, with his unmistakably thick Austrian accent, used to play characters with such Anglo names as Harry Tasker, Douglas Quaid, Ben Richards and The Terminator?

If you answered yes, then how will you feel about watching a movie filled with white guys with such distinctively Japanese names as Akira, Tetsuo and Kaneda?

If your first thought is "Hmmm, that sounds kinda f*cked up", then welcome to the club.



How white will Akira be? This white.



But that's precisely what's likely to happen as Warner Brothers prepare to make their live-action version of the landmark 1988 Japanese anime Akira, about teenage bikers with psionic powers in futuristic Neo-Tokyo. For the two lead roles, the script has been sent to the sort of actors you'd expect to play people with Japanese names: Robert Pattinson, Andrew Garfield, James McAvoy, Garrett Hedlund, Michael Fassbender, Chris Pine, Justin Timberlake and Joaquin Phoenix.

Obviously someone at Warner Brothers watched Akira and loved it, except for the fact that it's just too, well, Japanese.

Now preferably, they would have just left it well alone to begin with. But obviously Hollywood simply can't resist taking every awesome foreign film ever made and making their own lifeless facsimile to appeal to the kind of audience who won't watch the original because it's in another language and it doesn't have any actors they've ever heard of. And if it becomes a success then audiences will exclaim, "Oh, The Departed was so awesome! Scorsese, what a genius!"

This version of Akira is apparently going to be set in Neo-Manhattan rather than Neo-Tokyo, yet they are keeping the Japanese names. You'd think then, that it would be a perfect opportunity to use some Asian-American talent. Or even Asian-Asian talent (ie. Korean star Rain). Wrong.

Of course, the obvious defence of Hollywood is this: "Where are the Asian male leads who could carry these roles? There are simply none with the profile of Pattinson and so on."

Which makes sense... except that it begs the question: "Why not?"

If there are no Asian-American male actors famous enough to carry this movie, it's because Hollywood has not given them the chance. Was Pattinson a star before Twilight? No. And the other names on the list, with the exceptions of Phoenix and Timberlake, are hardly household names anyway.

But as you probably well know, it's just Hollywood doing as Hollywood does, continuing a tradition that includes 21, The Last Airbender, and Dragonball Z.

(Hat tip: Racebending, via BigWOWO)

UPDATE (27th March):
Thai-American playwright and performer Prince Gomolvilas has this video up that captures this issue quite brilliantly. Check it:

Louis CK - White people problems

Jokes.com
Uncensored - Louis C.K. - White People Problems
comedians.comedycentral.com
Jokes Joke of the Day Funny Jokes

"The Red House" ad - furniture that both black and white people can enjoy

This is now officially my favourite thing ever.


It's a real commercial, for a real place and featuring the actual staff, but it is created by comedians Rhett and Link. They are the two guys standing outside singing.

More awesome furniture ads here.

OkCupid and "The REAL Stuff White People Like"

The other day my homie Bonoboboy sent me a link to this story, at the blog of dating site OkCupid, and it is a quite fascinating post.

By analysing enormous amounts of data, the writer and his people were able to analyse the various racial categories of people who use that site, and then break down which interests and traits were most common to each racial category. Thus they have worked out the things that white people like, what black people like, as well as Asians, Latinos, Indians, Pacific Islanders and Middle Easterners. It is conspicuously US-centric so I'm not sure if they are factoring in non-USians as well.

We selected 526,000 OkCupid users at random and divided them into groups by their (self-stated) race. We then took all these people's profile essays (280 million words in total!) and isolated the words and phrases that made each racial group's essays statistically distinct from the others'.

So if you are wondering if certain stereotypes are true about the various ethnicities, you might find some validation here, or some surprises. And you can measure yourself against their findings to determine how close you are to the mainstream tastes of your ethnicity.

Do bear in mind the context: this is only about the sort of people who frequent OkCupid (whoever they are - I guess it is somewhat representative of the broader population), and relies on what people say about themselves (which may not always be as accurate as you would hope). I don't know how much stock anyone should put in any of this, but it's an amusing and enlightening read, and makes me wonder about what I'd need to pretend to be interested in in order to hook up with women of different races. Not that I would ever do such a thing.



Some things I found interesting:

"Philippines" and "Filipino" pops up a lot under the Pacific Islander category, but not at all in the Asian category. Which shows what I believe to be an almost entirely US phenomenon of Filipinos seeing themselves as not being Asian.

The analysts rate the Indians' profiles as being the most sophisticated. How they measure this I have no idea, although it does correlate with Indians being the most highly educated immigrant group in the US.

The people who described themselves as the most serious about religion also correlated with the least sophistication in profile essays; this trend is true or mostly true for all religions.

The second most typical phrase for black men was "I am cool". Which is pretty funny. If I tell people I'm cool, will they just accept me at my word?

White people really like "boating". I never really thought about that.

My favourite few lines of the post: "I have to say that the mind of the white man is the world's greatest sausagefest. Unless you're counting Queens of the Stone Age, there is not even one vaguely feminine thing on his list, and as far as broad categories go we have: sweaty guitar rock, bro-on-bro comedies, things with engines, and dystopias."

Asians are REALLY into food ("a foodie", "food", "pho", "sushi", "sashimi", "noodle", "asian food", "cookbooks", "cooking and baking", "food network" and "chocolates" are all among their list of most typical key words). And if you figured that Asian men were studious and focused on getting a "good job", then these stats prove you right. Appearing in their list of most typical words were "software developer", "mechanical engineer", "pursuing my", "an engineer", "entrepreneur", "analyst", "finance", "accountant", "investing", "investment", "electrical engineering" and "currently studying". By contrast, the white male and female lists of most typical words do not contain a single term relating to their career or studies.

Other (stereo)typical words that appear on the Asian lists: "gadgets", "surfing the net", "computer games" and "my cellphone".

Indian men liked cricket far above and beyond anything else. If you know any Indian men you are unlikely to be surprised at that. Indian men are also as focused on careers and studies as (East) Asian men, if these lists are any indication: they include "software engineer", "an engineer", "MBa", "finance", "exams", "investment", "trading", "analyst", "maths", "entrepreneur" and "consultant".

Black women are seemingly the most religious out of all the groups. On their list you'll find the typical words "God-fearing", "gospel", "The Lord", "God's plan", "my church", "God and family", "God's love", "to church", "blessings" and "faith in God".

MUSICAL TASTES: Some things are completely unsurprising; white males like "mostly rock". Black males are into rap, and black women are into neo-soul and R&B.
Other stuff is not quite so obvious; Middle Eastern women are really into Nina Simone, Cat Power and Manu Chao. In contrast with Middle Eastern men who are more likely to like "Nickelback and electronic music".

READING TASTES: White males really like Tom Clancy novels. Like, REALLY; it's the most typical word for them. Both Indian and East Asian men really like reading "Freakonomics". (And why not, it's an awesome book, and is very relevant to this whole post.) Indians and Middle Easterners are unified by their love of "The Kite Runner", although whether that's the book or the movie is unclear.


If I were picking a prospective female mate based solely on the most typical words in these lists, I'd have to go for... Middle Eastern women. Based on this, they seem quite interesting! ( I mean, I'm sure they are interesting in real life too.)

Are white people more racist than everyone else?

The answer to this question is... no. Or yes. It depends on what you think "racist" means.

It may seem like a provocative question, but I ask it not because I necessarily believe it to be true, but because it is an issue many people think about.

There are plenty of white people who ask questions like, "How come it's only racist if white people do it?"

Likewise, many non-white people, surveying the historical legacy of white people on the world, have wondered, "What is it about white people that makes them do so much f***ed-up racist sh*t?"

Before we start this discussion, we need to first ask: what do "racist" and "racism" actually mean? You may think this is a stupid question with an obvious answer, but exact definitions are disputed.

* The basic definition of racism is the belief that racial groups have inherent differences that make them superior or inferior to others.
* The most common, man-in-the-street definition of racism is probably technically closer to racial prejudice; in other words, having negative views of others due to their ethnicity.
* The sociological definition of racism (which you'll often come across in anti-racist circles) is that it equals racial prejudice plus power.

You could also take issue with the terms I am using here such as "white", "non-white", and "race"; indeed all are problematic, but I'm going to use them as they are generally understood.


So back to the main question: Are white people more racist than everyone else?

If we follow the sociological definition of racism, we can answer that question easily: yes. Under that definition, as it applies to Western countries, white people are the dominant group who control the bulk of social, political and economic power. Non-white people in these countries can certainly have prejudice; however, since they do not have the same degree of power, these prejudices do not systematically impact on the lives of those they are prejudiced against. Thus, going by this definition, a non-white minority in a white-dominated country cannot be racist; it follows that white people are obviously going to be more racist than everyone else.

Case closed?

Not really, because while I'm not going to say that such a definition is wrong, I do feel nonetheless that there are problems with it. Firstly, while it may have currency in academic circles, it is not the definition of racism that is understood by the average person. Try to tell the average person in the West that only white people can be racist, and they'll think you are bullsh*tting them; it just does not ring true. Many would see it as an idea propagated by educated elites to disempower the common man. And this is extremely significant because the battle against racism is primarily fought in the world of the average person, not in academia.

The other problem I have with "racism = prejudice + power" is that power is not just insitutional, but situational. A POC (person of colour) operating in a white system may not have much institutional power; but if a group of POC decide to attack a lone white person because they are prejudiced against whites, their numbers give them significantly greater power to cause harm than the white person.


So let's assume instead, for the sake of this discussion, that we are talking about racial prejudice, which is what most people seem to understand racism to be.

Are white people more racially prejudiced than other races of people?

You could certainly find plenty of evidence to prove that they must be. The histories of Africa, the Americas, Asia and Australia have been irrevocably shaped by the racism of European powers (primarily England, France, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands) in the colonial era until today. Nations like Australia and the US are founded on the racist notion that indigenous peoples had no claim to the land that was worth respecting. The same people whose Bible clearly instructed "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not kill" had few qualms about stealing land and resources and killing anyone who tried to stop them; because racism allowed them to see non-Europeans as not sufficiently worthy of such respect. Even into the 20th century, a white nation systematically executed 6 million of its inhabitants who were white, but somehow not white enough.

If we were to compare the impact of white racism over the last few hundred years with the impacts of East Asian racism, or black African racism, or indigenous American racism, there would be no contest. If we base our judgement solely on a body count, then white people are far more racist than anyone else.

But is that the best way to judge these things? Some would say yes; however there is a major problem with such an analysis. If the impacts of the racial prejudices of non-Europeans did not have such a major effect on world history as that of the Europeans, why was that? Are non-white people intrinsically less hateful to others on the basis of their race?

There are some who say yes. But if we look at history, including modern day events, it is clear that white people certainly have no monopoly on cruelty, barbarism and hatred. While the legacy of colonialism cannot be overlooked, it was not Europeans who practised the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda and Burundi that led to almost 2 million people being murdered. Neither was it Europeans who massacred the ethnic Chinese minority in Indonesia in 1965, or who participated in the Rape of Nanjing.

If we look beyond horrific ethnic conflicts and think about personal prejudices, whites and non-whites are little different. It may have been white Americans and not the Chinese who enslaved Africans and treated them as third-class citizens for several hundred years; but today the average Chinese person is probably just as prejudiced towards black people as the average American, if not more. I personally know a great many people of a variety of ethnicities who have dated Asian people (be they Cambodian, Indian, Chinese or whatever), only to fall foul of the deep-seated prejudices of that Asian's parents.

This is not to let white people off the hook for their legacy. As heinous as the effects of racism by non-whites can often be, white racism is simply more of a problem, at least in the Western world. And it comes back to power. A non-white person may have power in a particular situation, sure. But looking at the bigger picture, Western nations are dominated by white people in terms of population, in terms of wealth, in terms of political leadership, in terms of status and influence. A Barack Obama may be able to achieve the highest office in the USA, but while the political and legal decision makers, media players and CEOs remain overwhelmingly white, non-whites lack real power. So white racism has effects that are much more far-reaching than say, Indian racism or African-American racism.

I mentioned earlier about the historical legacies of colonialism and how white racism has been one of the major forces to shape the world in the last several hundred years. This is because whites had the means and opportunity. But what if the tides of history had turned out differently?

While the empires of Western Europe (Britain, Spain, France, etc) dominated the world's landscape since the 15th century, there were other empires that flourished during and before that time. At various times the Turks, Mongols, Chinese, Persians and Arabs (among others) have controlled large chunks of the world map, primarily through violence. No doubt racism was a factor in those conquests as well. Had fate dealt Sub-Saharan Africa a different hand, we could have seen Europe overrun and conquered by armies of Zulus or Somalis. Were that to happen, I do not doubt that they would be capable of just as much brutality and racism as Europeans have shown themselves capable of.

But at the end of the day, we must deal with reality. And in reality, no matter the potential for other races to inflict their racism on the world on a grand scale, it was white people who put it into action. It is their racism that effects everyone else the most.

But those who would claim that this is proof of the instrinsically racist or evil nature of whites, or claim that "the white man is the devil" (as some black radicals have done and continue to do) are way off base. That sort of thinking ignores the fundamentally flawed nature of human morality; we are all capable of great good and great evil, and the latter often happens when we think we are doing great good. If whites are guilty of doing some of those evil things more often, it is only because they have greater opportunity to do so.

White people are not really any more racist than anyone else. But given the context of the present and past, their racism simply matters far more than that of anyone else.

A bit about Asian men and white women

Ok, so there's a post up at the moment on a blog (Ask Bossy) attached to one of Australia's major newspapers, and it's entitled, "Why don't Anglo women like Asian men?"

You can read it here; some of the comments are particularly interesting, especially if you find ignorance interesting.

While there are certainly white women out there who favour Asian men, and many who will consider anyone regardless of race, the overall trend is that AM/WW couples are rare, far rarer than WM/AW.

Most people date within their race; that's obvious and understandable. You go with what you know. And particularly if you are white in a white-majority country, because there are simply far more white people to choose from. But even in areas where there are plenty of Asian guys available, white women seem not go for them to any great degree.

As you might understand, there is some definite resentment from Asian males about this phenomenon. I confess that I have noticed this sentiment in myself, despite being a product of the very kind of relationship (WM/AW) that spurs this ill feeling. The resentment stems from several factors. One is the sense of unfairness that white guys are cherry-picking women from the Asian dating pool, but the same interest is not being shown to the Asian man, with the implication that Asian men are somewhere near the bottom of the hierarchy of desirableness. Secondly, it is the traditional and sexist consternation about outsiders taking "our women". Thirdly, it is the feeling that this is another manifestation of the racism suffered by Asian men, related to the unflattering perceptions of them propagated by popular culture. This goes along with the suspicion that Asian women are brainwashed into falling for a Western standard of attractiveness. As well, I think many Asian men subconsciously associate this with a kind of Western imperialism; a sort of "dating colonialism" if you will, a modern extension of the European powers invading Asian countries and appropriating their riches.

Pictured above: Rupert Murdoch and Wendi Deng

Below: Lolo Soetoro and Ann Dunham. Dunham's son Barack Obama is on the right of the picture.

So why are there comparatively so few AM/WW couples?

Let me say first up that this isn't a totally one-way street. Asian guys are not really breaking down doors en masse to date white women. Asian men tend to prefer Asian women, as you would expect. And given the high importance placed on family approval, many Asian men feel pressured to date, and certainly marry, only within their ethnicity. However, there is certainly a degree of interest there. Especially when you factor in that the greatest number of available women in a Western country are white, and how popular culture prioritises white women's beauty above all others. I think it is fair to say that there is somewhat more interest from Asian men towards white women than there is vice versa.

A point is frequently made that Asian men are generally less likely to approach white women. I believe this to be true. And while you could ascribe this to a lack of interest in white women and/or a lack of confidence among Asian men, I think both of those factors are entwined with the negative stereotypes about Asian men. The perceptions of the Asian male as being less masculine and less well-endowed mean that even when those are untrue, an Asian man might be more reluctant to approach a non-Asian woman, because he assumes that those beliefs are being held about him.  In the game of attraction, it doesn't really matter if Asians really are less manly; if a significant segment of women think they are, then that is a significant enough obstacle.

And like it or not, that is a very real perception. So many of the female commenters on Ask Bossy echo the same lines - "nothing against them, I just don't find Asian males attractive - they seem less masculine to me."

What is that based on?

We all have particular ideas about what defines masculine and feminine. Some of these are biologically programmed, but some are also culturally specific and thus a result of our socialisation. An example would be how African cultures prefer fuller-figured women than today's Western societies; paleontologists also suggest that prehistoric Europeans, based on some of their works of art, also prioritised fuller figures. So to simply categorise certain characteristics are simply either masculine or feminine is problematic, since each culture has its own variation on these themes.

We ascribe certain physical qualities as being masculine - height, a strong build, and a hairy body. Likewise, certain personality traits are considered masculine - loudness, dominance and control, toughness and so on.

One thing to consider is that a white woman might judge Asian men not simply on how he measures up to these stereotypes, but importantly, how a white woman might measure up to these stereotypes if she is partnered with an Asian man. It is quite likely that in any potential AM/WW pairing, the white woman will be as tall or taller than the Asian man, and possibly have more body hair. This may make some white women feel less feminine in comparison, and this might be a disincentive to date an Asian man.

One factor that doesn't get mentioned much is age, or more correctly, one's apparent age. It is generally accepted that all things being equal, people of Asian background tend to look younger than Caucasians of the same age. Height and the amount of facial hair also play a part in this perception. Now while a more youthful appearance is generally seen as a good thing, for males looking for a mate it can be a hindrance. The general trend is for women to seek a man of the same age or older; many women are less interested in a younger man, or at least one who seems younger. A man who looks younger might be seen to be less authoritative and powerful, which are attributes closely tied to masculine appeal.

Personality-wise, Asian men do not tend to display quite the same kind of machismo that is more prevalent in some Western cultures. Of course, Asian men are no less chauvinistic or egocentric than other types of men; but they do not always express them in the same ways. (An example is that while Asian societies are often quite violent in their own way, you are far more likely to be beaten up for no reason by drunk young men in Australia than anywhere in Asia.) The dominant stereotype of the young Asian male is someone who wears glasses and studies really hard at school; this does not fit the Western preconception of young manhood.

A few people commenting at Ask Bossy bring up that old stereotype, penis size. Now since many of those are women, I'm a little surprised; I didn't realise many women were superficial enough to disregard a guy based on how big they assume his penis might be. While I'm obviously not a woman and therefore don't know, overall I don't think it's a large part (tee hee) of what motivates women when choosing a mate. I've asked plenty of girls out in my lifetime, and not once has anyone said, "Maybe, let me inspect your penis first and I'll think about it." Which personally, I'm quite glad about.

Of course, many of the commenters who raise the small penis stereotype appear to be white men. Now it has long been my theory that white men are the primary cultivators of this stereotype, as a way to make themselves feel superior. Personally I find it odd that otherwise heterosexual men would spend so much time contemplating the Asian penis, so I figure that it is ultimately tied into some deep-seated subconscious machismo-and-racism combo.

(As to whether the stereotype is true - well, I'm not an expert in phalluses other than my own, but I'm pretty sure they come in all shapes and sizes. In every racial group, there will be some big, some small, and many average. There's probably some truth in the stereotype overall - given that Asians tend to be physically smaller in stature anyway -  but if so the average difference is unlikely to be greater than an inch, really.)


I've avoided talking about black people in this discussion so far, especially as in the Australian context, they are not all that numerous. But in the popular imagination, people of African descent occupy a particular role when it comes to ideas of masculinity and femininity. Africans are often seen as somehow more masculine, due to perceptions such as the black athlete, and of the stereotypically large African penis. With Asian men occupying the opposite end of this spectrum of stereotypes, white men occupy their usual position - the middle, as "the norm".

I've heard this referred to around the place as the "Three Bears Effect". As in the story of Goldilocks, who tasted three bowls of porridge, one too hot, one too cold, but one that was "just right". So when we factor other racial stereotypes into the equation, we have a complete picture of how these stereotypes seem set up to benefit white males. Black males are manly but dumb and uncivilised; Asians are smart but are not manly; while white males are "just right".

Whether you agree with this idea or not, it is important to recognise that in the West our entire way of thinking conditions us to see the white male as "the norm", around which everyone else is measured.

Thus under this way of thinking, an Asian male's comparative lack of body hair might be seen as a sign of femininity. Through an Asian mindset, in which an Asian body is the norm, white men might be considered too hairy.


So, is it racist for white women to find Asian men less attractive?

No. Well, not really. Sort of.

Attraction is not something you choose. We all have our own individual preferences for certain types of people, be it based on height, colour, gender, sense of humour. So you can't just decide you are going to be attracted to someone if you are not inclined to find them attractive.

I personally have been attracted to people of every racial category that I have met; however, I instinctively find myself paying the most attention to women of East Asian or South Asian background. It was not always this way; as a teenager, growing up in a more Anglo-centric environment, I had very little interest in Asian girls and found white girls much more attractive. But my perception of what is normal, and what is attractive, shifted as I moved from high school to university and into a circle of largely non-white friends.

But how does it get to be that we are attracted to certain types and not others?

It has a lot to do with how we are conditioned. Whatever culture or society you grow up in has its own social conditioning which encourages you to see certain characteristics as being more attractive than others. In a country like Australia, we are conditioned to regard thin Nordic (fair haired, light eye colour) women as the epitome of beauty. This is changing gradually of course, but that unconscious perception is deeply embedded in our consciousness.

Which is one reason why so many Asians, and non-white people in general, decry the way they are portrayed in the media, because it is the media that helps perpetuate these ideals. If we saw more leading male Asian actors on our TV screens, there would be a shift in this perception, to some degree at least. Contrast that with the number of attractive Asian women on TV; they are probably still underrepresented, but not to the same degree as Asian men.


At the end of the day, whatever the overall trend, it doesn't have to impact on individual encounters. Whatever your race, you need to assess someone for who they are, not what race they are. Asian brothers, if a white woman dismisses your approach because she has some twisted perception that you are less manly, then don't worry; you don't need her anyway. There are plenty of women out there, white and otherwise, who will appreciate you for who you are.



See also:

Jen Kwok: "Date an Asian (or at least f**k one)"

The Asian penis in popular culture

Race and Dating: "What is it with you and Indian chicks?"

Interracial dating trends in the USA