Against Hashtag Warriors: Their Arguments and Why They are Wrong

For the last week, I have had a chance to survey the landscape of opinions regarding the #CancelColbert campaign. Here are the major arguments in favor of the hashtag war, and why they are wrong.

- The Main Argument:  "Regardless of what Stephen Colbert intended, the use of the phrase "ching chong ding dong" is reminiscent of the racism that Asian Americans face. (In other words, it is "triggering".) To remind Asian Americans of racism in such a manner is insensitive and racist."

This is the crux of the #CancelColbert supporters' argument. Note that, under this argument, context in which the phrase is said does not matter, and neither does intent. Whenever the phrase is said, it triggers. Whenever the sound of the phrase is heard, it is racist. This is "magic word racism," pure and simple: if you say the word X, no matter what the circumstance, you are being racist.

#CancelColbert was not a worthy effort in large part because it is just another rendition of the magic word racism. I made this point previously, but it bears repeating and amplifying: magic word racism causes real harm. It distracts the attention from racism's core, which resides in the heart rather than words. Magic word racism lends support to, for example, the incessant whining about why black people get to say "n-----" but not white people. (If word itself is the problem, why do some people get to say it?)

Only by being sensitive to context and intent can one avoid the pitfalls of magic word racism, but #CancelColbert demands that we look away from the context.

- The "What About Black People?" Argument:  "Stephen Colbert wouldn't use African Americans as a topic and use the n-word, would he? So why is it ok for him to use Asian Americans and 'ching chong?'"

This argument, again, displays lack of consideration toward context--in this case, a historical and social one. To state plainly, Asian Americans are not African Americans, and "ching chong" is not "n-----". Historically, we Asian Americans never experienced anything close to what African Americans experienced on account of our race. Even the darkest moments of Asian American history--Chinese Exclusion Acts, the World War II Internment, Vincent Chin--are not comparable to slavery, mass rape and lynching that African Americans historically endured. Currently, Asian Americans are not experiencing a comparable level of discrimination to which African Americans are subjected. There is no stop-and-frisk program targeting Asian Americans. There is no current Asian American equivalent of Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis.

Are African Americans accorded greater deference in the media than Asian Americans are? Yes, and rightly so, considering the historical and contemporary context. Black folks has gone through more shit, and are going through more shit, than Asian Americans have and are. To give African Americans a bit more breathing room is the right thing to do.

Critics of Colbert have argued that Stephen Colbert should not be allowed to try and support one minority group (Native Americans) by using another (Asian Americans) as a prop. But when they raise this argument, it is the critics who use the African Americans as a stepladder. 

(More after the jump.)

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.

- The "We are Getting Racist Attacks!" Argument:  "Suey Park received an avalanche of genuinely racist attacks, even death threats. If the Colbert Report is not racist, why do racists support it so extremely?"

This is frivolous. We are talking about the Internet, in which racism and death threats may as well be the wind and the rain. Thoughtful reactions count; crazy ones do not. That an argument attracts a lot of crazy reaction does nothing to support the initial argument.

If this is not obvious, consider this. Before Suey Park, another Asian American woman was subject to vile racism and death threats due to her outspoken position. Her name? Amy Chua. The amount of racist bile that Chua received after her Tiger Mother article was no less than Park's share. Now, ask yourself: did your opinion Amy Chua and the Tiger Mother theory change because of the racist attacks against Amy Chua? The only honest answer is "no." Same is true here.

- The "We Didn't Really Mean 'Cancel'" Argument:  "The word 'cancel' in #CancelColbert was a rallying slogan rather than a literal demand. Why do people focus on 'cancel' rather than focus on the real issue: the Colbert Report's racism against Asian Americans?"

Fundamentally, the answer is this: because there was no racism against Asian Americans in Colbert's joke. "Magic word racism" is not a valid approach, and it is not convincing to say that simply saying the word automatically equals racism.

But even one sets that aside, this is a strange argument. Suddenly, it is the #CancelColbert supporters who are calling for people to get past the semantics and focus on the intent behind the literal meaning of the words. Why can't they apply the same standard for Colbert's joke? If one can say "cancel" without actually conveying the meaning of the word "cancel," is it so inconceivable that a satirical comedian can say "ching chong" without conveying racism?

In an interview with the New Yorker, Suey Park claims that she had to go over top to make a point: “There’s no reason for me to act reasonable, because I won’t be taken seriously anyway. So I might as well perform crazy to point out exactly what’s expected from me.” 

This claim does not pass the laugh test. Suey Park is already an established writer of international fame, having recently come off of the very successful #NotYourAsianSidekick campaign. Park was already at a point where she could get herself published on a major platform at any time she wanted. (And she did, as she published a more detailed explanation of #CancelColbert campaign on the Time magazine.) If she did feel offended by Colbert's joke, Park would have had plenty of audience without having to "perform crazy." But she chose otherwise, harming others in the process. (More on this below.)

- The "But My Feelings!" Argument:  "Regardless of Stephen Colbert's intent, the phrase 'ching chong' really is triggering to a lot of Asian Americans, causing them to feel alienated from their country. Why is this so objectionable?"

It is objectionable because the #CancelColbert supporters are not simply expressing their feelings; they are calling for the cancellation of the Colbert Report.

Let me be clear: one has a right to feel anything and everything, no matter how frivolous and irrational. Such little irrationalities are important, as they may well be what makes us individuals. Who are we if not a collection of our random characteristics? Likewise, one has a right to express those feelings and discuss them among like-minded people. This is how, for example, great novelists make their names. Those feelings are valid, and so are the expression of those feelings.

However, arguments for a collective action are not like emotions unique to each individual. There is a threshold one must meet before one can persuasively demand another to cater to one's emotions. There really is a line that separates serious arguments from frivolous ones, strong arguments from untenable ones. The precise location of that line may be difficult to nail down, but there should be little dispute that disproportionately shrill reaction to a nonexistent offense falls on the wrong side of that line.

For that reason, #CancelColbert is on the wrong side of that line. It decries racism where there is none, and demands extreme measures to that fictional racism. The argument is indefensible.

- The "What's it to You?" Argument:  "Call me shrill, oversensitive, annoying, a social justice misanthrope without a sense of humor.  . . .  If I’m overreacting then why are you still bothered by it?"

Above are the words of Shawna F., who emailed me for my take. 

The #CancelColbert movement bothers me because it causes several concrete harms.

First, #CancelColbert is based on "magic word racism," which causes harm. It urges people to put a blindfold over themselves, so that they may ignore the intent behind words. Magic word racism does nothing to fight the actual racism, which resides in the intent. Instead, it encourages a version of racism that eschews those magic words while discriminating in a more subtle, insidious manner. Worse, it may be used as a cudgel to deprive self-determination from racial minorities. (E.g. "If whites cannot say the n-word, neither can blacks!")

Second, #CancelColbert distracts from the ongoing, severe issue that Stephen Colbert intended to highlight: the continuing insult to Native Americans in the form of a name of a major NFL franchise. 

Some have objected to this point by claiming that advocacy is not a zero-sum game. I beg to differ: public attention is a finite thing. If it were not, the people and entities who feed on public attention--political parties, media, writers, entertainers--would not be spending the money and effort to get themselves in front of people, trying to get their voice heard. If one topic becomes large enough, it does displace others from the minds of the public.

Do you think listening to the harmed party is important? Then listen to the Native Americans, who are rightly aggrieved that the movement against the offensive racial slur was hijacked by this stupid campaign. As an Asian American and a D.C.-area resident, I am mortified.

Third, #CancelColbert debases the legitimate battles that Asian Americans fight against media bias. There truly are worthy battles to fight in this area, and this hashtag war made a mockery of it.

Credibility is a precious thing: once you lose it, it is exceedingly difficult to regain it. Call this "respectability politics" if you want. All I know is what I have learned by being a licensed advocate my entire adult life: if you don't have credibility, you are finished. You are a Cassandra, over whose words the "mute" switch is on. The #CancelColbert supporters love to talk about how their viewpoint is "silenced." But when you destroy your own credibility, you are silencing yourself.

I am not optimistic that mainstream America would be so discerning to distinguish #CancelColbert from other, more worthwhile fight against media bias in the future conducted by Asian Americans. This hashtag war incurred a cost, and Asian American activists in the future will have to pay it down the line.

Fourth, #CancelColbert divides the Asian American community.

Let me be clear on this point: in certain contexts (hey, there's that word again,) speaking of an "Asian American community" is fallacious. Asian Americans are a hugely diverse group, within which there are a number of different ethnicity, languages, food, custom, socio-economic status, etc. Accordingly, there are many issues regarding which the Asian American community does not speak with one voice, nor should it. 

Media bias against Asian Americans is not one of those issues. Just in case the #CancelColbert folks still don't get it: no one disputes that there is bias against Asian Americans in the media. There truly are worthy battles to fight in this issue. Just to give a few examples: a troubling lack of Asian Americans in the lead role; stereotypical, two-dimensional Asian characters; cultural appropriation and debasement; whitewashing an Asian story or an Asian character. The list can go on.

Addressing this bias helps all Asian Americans, not just a select few. Media representation of Asian Americans will influence the perception of all Asian Americans, not just Asian American men or Asian Americans who are higher on the socio-economic ladder. This is an issue that ought not cause a split among Asian Americans.

Yet here we are. #CancelColbert has created a schism among Asian Americans. For example, there is now a hashtag civil war among Asian Americans, as those who disagree with Suey Park's tactics have begun a new hashtag campaign called #BuildDontBurn. As I wrote in the previous post on this topic, this is what happens when one chooses an unworthy battle to fight. A large swath of Asian Americans (by my count, the majority) simply cannot sign onto the argument that Stephen Colbert was being racist with that joke, because he was not. 

A large part of the blame for this must rest the feet of Suey Park and her coterie, and the take-no-prisoners tactic that they employ in their hashtag war. To this group, respectful dissent is a foreign concept. When a Native American activist complained that #CancelColbert was distracting from the original issue, Suey Park and her gang bullied her into silence. Any Asian American who disagreed with Park's message or tactics was branded as an Uncle Tom. Jeff Yang, journalist for the Wall Street Journal and arguably the most high-profile Asian American dissenter, was called "Asian in yellow face" and "merkin for the white man." In a height of irony, a white man who is friends with Suey Park called me a "white supremacist", apparently because I did not listen to the white man's directive that I should feel offended, even though I am not.

Juliet Shen, a co-activist for the #NotYourAsianSidekick campaign with Park, was not spared from this flame war. Her description of Suey Park's gang is enough to make one at a loss for words:

Let’s call this what it is: cyberbullying. I’m not saying it’s Suey, but I am saying that it’s her followers. There is a large group of people who have created an echo chamber that repeatedly enables and reinforces bad behavior. Harassment. Stalking. Name-calling. Character assassination. Misinformation. Emotional manipulation. Propaganda. This isn’t calling people out for racist, sexist, homophobic behavior — it’s using these terms so freely that we lose sight of the actual racists and sexists and bigots. It’s hurling the term gaslighting so often at other people and inaccurately while actually gaslighting the same people. I think that there are a lot of people who follow Suey for her politics while not knowing her tactics. I’d probably do the same if I wasn’t aware of the way she treated people. 

I guess this all leads to one question: what now? I’m still hesitant and I’m still scared. I don’t want to post anything and I don’t want to write about politics or feminism or racism. I have seriously considered going completely offline, just getting a job, moving to California, and pretending there aren’t a million things I want to say about the institutional and individual oppression we face every single day. Every time I tweet something relatively political, someone comes after me with academic rhetoric, claims of homophobia and racism, and accusations of being a sell-out. I’ve gone from confident and optimistic speaker glowing about the magic of social media in community organizing to scared and increasingly apathetic college student contemplating leaving activism behind.

Similar revelations from those who had been close to Suey Park and was burned are coming to the public as this saga drags on. With each story like this one, Park's credibility becomes lower and lower, circling around the drain. I wouldn't mourn the loss, except I know already that this will play out. It will play out in a way that damages not just Suey Park, but all Asian Americans.

To make up for the lost credibility, Park's gambits will become more and more outrageous. She herself signaled this exact game plan, in so many words: if people don't take you seriously, do crazy things. By becoming more outrageous, Park will guarantee herself a consistent level of public visibility in the media, which loves no one like it loves circus clowns. Park will join the long heritage of media clowns who generate far more heat than light, the likes of Coulter, Palin, Moore and Sharpton. Similar to those who came before her, Park will become that one example that the opponents use to discredit the entire Asian American experience.

This, to me, is the greatest harm that came from the hare-brained campaign of #CancelColbert, and this is why I am so angry at this stupidity.

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.