Is it worse for a white screenwriter to say the n-word, or for him to write it and have a black actor say it?
Is it worse for a white journalist to pen a sinophobic article, or to find someone with a Chinese name with the same opinion to appear on the byline?
There lies the problem with the red herring of diversity as appearance. Instead of promoting a genuine diversity of thoughts, this placates it. It creates a false sense of harmony, but for whom?
There is an irony that the US, which has one of the most immigration-driven populations in the world, is also among the most monolingual ones. The celebration of genetic diversity while suppressing the true diversity of language and culture and thought is worse than no celebration at all. In a way, it is worse than outright racism, it is eugenics with a smiley face, it is a cultural genocide without graves.
I have read my fair share of sinophobic pieces from the New York Times and the Washington Post — because liberal outlets at least bother to perform minority ventriloquism, although conservative ones are beginning to catch on these days, just to keep up with appearances.
I expect NYT and WaPo to report everything with a sinophobic neoliberal leaning as much as I expect them to report in American English.
“I’m not saying you’re self-censoring — I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying; but what I’m saying is, if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.”
— Noam Chomsky, during an interview with Andrew Marr in 1996.
Personal implicit bias is impossible to overcome by definition, and so an editorial board is there to decide the kind of story that can be published. But because of this hierarchy, the editorial board (which tends to be less diverse because higher-level positions tend to be less diverse) would override the diversity of the editorial staff — if there is any true diversity of thoughts among the staff in the first place.
Having a Chinese friend tell you that they think Uncle Roger is funny doesn’t mean that his comedy is objectively non-problematic.
Let me put this another way. Having a black friend tell you that it’s okay for you to use the n-word doesn’t mean that it’s okay for you to use it.
Having a Chinese American reporter write about China shouldn’t give the story any more credibility than a white reporter — if they share the same ivy league education and hold the same position on US foreign policy.
“Why don’t you go back to China?”
With the constant questioning of one’s patriotism, there is no shortage of Chinese immigrants in the US who would vilify their ancestral homeland in exchange for being seen as one of the “good ones,” in exchange for being accepted by the local majority. I do not blame them for this, but their victimhood — whether they acknowledge it or not— does not excuse the hawkish international policies that they often help perpetuate.
The use of minority ventriloquy when reporting international geopolitics is especially sinister. It is dangerously effective in removing the doubt in even the most staunchly anti-war liberal — which may be an oxymoron as US Democrats are no less pro-war than Republicans, at least not by any substantive measure. Minority ventriloquy will always remain undetected by the majority.
Who is a white American going to trust as an expert on China? A white American or a Chinese American? A conservative may choose the white American, a liberal may choose the Chinese American, and as they bicker over who’s being more racist, neither would even consider reading anything written by someone from China.
Because, why would you even bother? A Chinese expert from China? They are all state actors don’t you know? All 1.4 billion of them, including this one.
