Defining Ourselves

Note: I welcome your comments, but please read what I have written in it's entirety and think about what I'm trying to say before providing your feedback.  Not everyone is required to make a comment, but for those who feel so compelled, your careful consideration and attention are very much apprecaited. 

The other day I met someone from the Philippines.  We had a short conversation, but it was a conversation that I'm seem to have quite often since moving to Asia (and especially since moving to Hong Kong).  It goes something like this ...

Them: "Are you  Chinese?"

Me: "No, I'm American."

Them: "But you don't look American.  You look like you're from  China or maybe Japan."

Me: "Nope ... I'm from America."

At this point I realize that they're asking about my ethnicity, but I like giving people a hard time.

Them: "Are your parents Chinese?"

Me: "No.  My Mom is from Japan.  My Dad is from the U.S."

Them: "Ah, see?  I could tell you were from Japan.  Konnichiwa!  Is that right?"

Me: "Yeah, that's right.  But I'm not actually from Japan.  I grew up in America."

Them: "But your mother is Japanese.  Aren't you Japanese?"

Me: "Are you referring to my nationality or my ethnicity?"

Them: "Whats the difference?"

And that's a pretty significant question.  Because I've learned that in a region like Asia, dominated as it is by homogeneous populations, the line between one's Nationality and Ethnicity are often moot. 

What is the difference?  Well, in simple terms, Nationality is your country of residence (i.e. where your passport is from) and Ethnicity is your genetic background.  The reason it gets blurred in Asia is because those are often the same thing.  If you are a Chinese citizen, odds are you're ethnically Chinese.  Or if you are a Japanese citizen you're most likely ethnically Japanese too. 

When people who have spent their whole lives in a society where Nationality and Ethnicity are essentially the same thing, it tends to confuse them when they run across someone like me who has diverging ethnic and national identities.  When I hear the "You don't look American" what they really mean is "You don't look caucasian".  When I hear "Where in Japan are you from?" they really mean to say "Where in Japan is your family from?".  It might seem like I'm splitting hairs or being nitpicky, but I think that this actually speaks to a wider topic that is worth addressing.

First off, the question is really one of defining one's self.  How do each of us, as individuals, see ourselves in the grand scheme of the human tapestry?  Let's say that I chose to define myself as Asian.  Does that mean I'm not accepting my caucasian side?  Or vice versa as well.  Am I Japanese?  Or American?  Or Irish?  I know nothing of Ireland and I've never been there, but technically I am genetically half Irish. 

The truth is I'm not "half" Japanese and "half" caucasian.  I'm not "half" of anything.  I'm a whole human being.  I consider myself an Asian person and I consider myself a caucasian person.  I don't see those as being mutually exclusive in my case.

Of course, the rest of society generally doesn't see it that way.  To Asian people I'm viewed at as not completely Asian.  Especially in a society like Japan that is slightly xenophobic by nature, I'm pretty much a total outsider.  And by caucasian people, I'm certianly not seen as "one of them".  The double edged sword for people of mixed ethnicity such as myself is that they are simultaneous excluded from their ethnicities of origin, but also feel intimately connected to both.

But is this something that only people such as myself experience?  Certainly not.  Whenever you bridge a cultural, societal or ethnic gap you find a "some of one side, some of the other" decision taking place in the minds and hearts of those affected.

I was browsing some YouTube videos a while back and came across a video of Filipino-Americans having a debate with Filipinos from the Philippines.  They were debating the validity of the "Filipino-ness" of those people of Filipino descent who did  not grow up in the Philippines, might not speak Tagalog and had never visited the Philippines. 

The native Filipinos argued that the Filipino-Americans had lost their cultural identity in an attempt to fit in to their new country; that being Filipino was not just their ethnicity, but was reflected in their language, mannerisms and attitudes.  That their Filipino culture was being diluted by exposure to and acceptance of American cultural values.

The Filipino-Americans, on the other hand, argued that they still felt a strong sense of identity with their native home-land, even if they had never visited.  That, in the eyes of other Americans, they were viewed as Filipinos and that they were proud to be representing Filipino culture.  Yes, they might not speak the language of the Philippines, but that is because they grew up in America, where they were encouraged to blend in and adjust to their new cultural environment.

The thing I realized is, for each group, they were defining what being "Filipino" meant to themselves, not to others.  Each person has their own personal definition of what a certain ethnicity is and what is required to belong to it.  But the problem is, once you recognize we are all viewing each other through a singular viewpoint -- our own -- we also have to recognize that there are as many viewpoints as there are people.  And that every viewpoint is completely valid, as seen in the context of those who claim ownership.

And where does it stop?  How far do you need to go to create your own identity?  If you define yourself as Chinese, then what is the difference between those inside China vs. those outside China who have family from China?  Perhaps the person within China feels that they are "more" Chinese.  But even then, is the person who is Hakka Chinese from Guangzhou more Chinese or the etchnically Han person from Beijing?  Let's say you think being Beijing Han Chinese is more "Chinese" than the other.  Then what about the person who has distance ancestors from Mongolia, 10 generations ago?  Are they more Chinese than the person who can trace their roots back to infinity, were born in China, but actually grew up abroad?  At what point are you going to finally decide that it doesn't really matter either way.  That each person is who they are to themselves.  Hairs can't be split indefinitely.

Most people wouldn't go that far, of course.  If you feel that you are Chinese, or Lithuanian or French or whatever, then you most likely don't bother splitting those hairs between people within your ethnic group.  There is a certain point at which you stop using the definition of who are you to divide your existence from the mass of humanity and start to use it to create raport and unity between you and those you feel are similarly endowed.

And what about culture?  Perhaps you are ethnically Vietnamese, but culturally French?  Or what if you grew up half the time in Japan, half the time in Korea and your family is originally missionaries from Germany?  What if you have Nationality A, Ethnicity B and the Culture from C.  Not only that, but you speak the language from D.  Yet another way to pigeon hole an individual's identity and separate them from the rest of humanity.

True, for many of us, it is a natural inclination to desire significance in who we are.  It's nice to be special.  Some might argue that expressing one's individuality is a basic human need.  But who is to say that your ethnic or cultural identity is the only way to define your unique-ness?

The truth is, when you DEFINE something, you are not so much saying what something IS, but you're really saying what something ISN'T.  Definitions, especially with relation to human identity, can cause division.  Attempting to pigeon hole an individual's identity only serves to cause dis-unity, and only by accpeting the feelings and understandings of other individuals about who they are and what they see themselves as, can we work to end the disunification of human beings that seems to happen around us all the time.

And that takes an open mind and a willingness to observe the world from the viewpoint of another human being.  Not everyone is able to do that and it takes some effort to detach yourself from ownership of your viewpoint and impartially observe the diverse possibilities of the human condition.

But beyond being sensitive to the viewpoints of others, we can even take it one step farther.  There is a wealth of cultural treasures in the world that might not belong to your particular "people" but still speak to one's heart.  Maybe you love Salsa music but you've never been south of Nebraska.  Perhaps the works of great Iranian poets makes your pulse race, even though you don't know the first thing about Persian culture.  Do you feel your heart beat stronger when african djimbe's are pounding, even though you're paler than a piece of blank papyrus?  It's not unusual to appreciate the cultural treasures of cultures which are not your own.  In fact, it is one of our unifying factors.

I tend to look at the cultural treasures of various people's, not just as something which can only be appreciated or sympathized by members of the indigenous ethnicity, but that they are the treasures which all members of humanity have inhereted.  We can all learn to appreciate the artistry and emotion that goes into the rich tapestry of human endeavor and expression -- They are not the cultural treasures of a single group of people, but they are the cultural birthrights of all peoples of the world.

Our diversity need not be a cause to disunify humanity.  By viewing the diversity of human existence as something we all can claim ownership to, together, then you are able to see that true human unity is created, not in spite of diversity, but as a result of it.

I will leave you with a quote that I think speaks of this issue quite elloquently ...

"Should any one contend that true and enduring unity can in no wise be realized in this world, inasmuch as its people widely differ in their manners and habits, their tastes, their temperament and character, their thoughts and their views, to this we make reply that differences are of two kinds; the one is the cause of destruction, as exemplified by the spirit of contention and strife which animates mutually conflicting and antagonistic peoples and nations, whilst the other is the sign of diversity, the symbol and the secret of perfection, and the revealer of the bounties of the All-glorious.

Consider the flowers of the garden; though differing in kind, color, form and shape, yet, inasmuch as they are refreshed by the waters of one spring, revived by the breath of one wind, invigorated by the rays of one sun, this diversity increaseth their charm and addeth unto their beauty.

How unpleasing to the eye if all the flowers and plants, the leaves and blossoms, the fruit, the branches, and the trees of the garden were all of the same shape and color! Diversity of color, form and shape enricheth and adorneth the garden, and heighteneth the effect thereof. In like manner, when divers shades of thought, temperament and character, are brought together under the power and influence of one central agency, the beauty and glory of human perfection will be revealed and made manifest. ...

 - Abdu'l Baha, The Divine Art of Living

Note: I welcome your comments, but please read what I have written in it's entirety and think about it before providing your feedback.  Not everyone is required to make comment, but for those who feel so compelled, your careful consideration and attention are apprecaited.