You may have noticed, in this blog, the many times I call out people by their racial groups. You would have to be incredibly unobservant to not notice my discussions on Asian and Asian American culture. But more than likely, you noticed all the times I called out “White guy” this and “White girl” that. You may have taken them as a slew of negative epithets, as though there was a specific condescending tone attached to those descriptions of White people.

I think it’s important for me to point out that my calling out of people’s races is absolutely intentional. For one, I like to paint pictures of characters in my readers’ minds. Often the easiest way to throw a palette onto a blank face is to start off with their racial attributes, which often (not always) define their physical features and complexions. I also try to give my characters multiple dimensions by attaching personality or unique situational characteristics in either the first or second part of their monikers.

Examples:

• Portly White Guy from “HOT AZN GIRLS – Introducing Yellow Fever.”
• Nerdy Asian Man from “Some retail experiences are meant to be shared.”
• Random-Ass Round Black Man from “Leave the pheromones at home!”

Now, back to all my White people this, White people that. Why all the White people? I am no more obsessed with White people than their men are with me. (Hah! That was off color.) My decision to call out White people as White people is a very conscientious one, part of a one-person movement to treat blogworthy characters equally based on their racial attributes.

If you ever found yourself alarmed, to any degree, by my constant direct references to White people, it’s probably because you’re not used to seeing White people referenced. This is not the reading public’s fault. Writers and editors define scary Black men as scary Black men, accomplished Latinas as accomplished Latinas, and immigrant Asians as immigrant Asians. Writers and editors do not define scary White men as scary White men, accomplished Whites as accomplished Whites, or immigrant Whites as immigrant Whites. Writers and editors would call them Scary Man, The Accomplished, or The Immigrant.

As can be perceived by the mixed reception of Stuff White People Like, characterizing White people sends mild shock throughout the general American public. My post on Yellow Fever sparked some mild hub-bub by a reader who felt I was villainizing White men, when really, I was describing a very popularly observed interpersonal trend. People want to call it segregationist. People want to call it reverse racist. I call it calling the alleged majority exactly what they are, and not acting like the only people who pick up newspapers, subscribe to magazines, or read blogs are all from the same biological background.

If the decision by American press at large is to save on ink and precious character allotments, rendering the necessity of majority tags on majority news characters obsolete, the argument is completely imbecilic. Writers always want to add color to their storytelling voice; maybe calling out minority peoples and ignoring majority members makes stories seem more colorful and vibrant? I’m sure it’s not either of these. I’m sure it’s just American writers and editors being used to American writing and editing, writing and editing which is completely devoid of calling out the White majority the same way they call out the non-White minorities.

Writing is relative. When I’m writing and considering the strangers who read my blog, I define my background as is necessary to the story. Often, this involves mentioning my American Asian household. If I don’t point that out, new readers would probably think I’m a White girl blogger who is oddly fascinated by Bai Ling and pandas. Whether or not my identity adds interestingness to the story, it absolutely makes a difference. It’s all about context, and, quite frankly, I don’t see any reason why a Caucasian’s being Caucasian is any less of a telling adjective than a minority’s being a minority. In cases where people’s color don’t detract or add to a piece of writing, the writing should still be done fairly and squarely: If you call out one person’s color, gotta call ‘em all. Instead of just pointing out the Token Iranian Friend.

People balk at me saying things like “This White girl came in today,…” and misconstrue their surprise at my categorization of the White girl for distaste toward White people. The same can be said for any other time I call out the race of an anecdote’s character. I once wrote about how a creepy Black man grabbed my wrist. My editors censored out the “Black.” To me, that felt like lying because it was not telling the whole truth. It’s not like I wrote that description for the creepy Black man because I think all men are creepy Black men. I wrote that description because the creepy man who grabbed my wrist was Black.

I know I’m idealistic, and this is a very heady debate for a population that probably doesn’t read into racial discourse as much as Ethnic Studies majors do, but I feel it should be The American Standard to describe news characters all in the same way. If you never mention their ages, never mention their ages. If you describe how they are out of the ordinary, also describe what the ordinary is. Writers and editors should at least practice consistency within each contained piece of writing.

Time to get off my high horse…
The American Standard will never reach that point. In the meantime, I’m going to pull the race card on everyone I discuss. I just calls ‘em as I sees ‘em.

Editor’s Note: I am philosophically against with the use of the term “reverse racism,” but that’s a post for another time.