劉龍珠律師反駁吳華楊（Frank Wu）教授種族言論（中英對照版）

劉龍珠律師反駁吳華楊（Frank Wu）教授種族言論

（中英對照版）

文 / 劉龍珠律師

Frank H. Wu吳華楊, 加州大學法學院教授，近期發文試圖解釋亞裔美國人之所以不被待見的原因。該文有可取之處，但作者邏輯有瑕疵。

先把種族歧視（racial discrimination）和種族主義（racism）的定義明確，話才講得清楚。

種族歧視是指一個人因種族、膚色、血統、國籍、血統族裔或移民身份，而導致其在同樣環境中遭受劣等待遇。

種族主義，照《布萊克法律詞典》的解釋，是一個人或一群人，針對不同種族人群而提出的一套政策，常常是敵對性的。是基於一個人的人種特徵而做出的一種假設，認為他們低智低能、無關緊要。

1. 吳教授說亞裔美國人“不在美國的歷史記載中”。

吳教授宣揚的是，如果亞裔美國人不在歷史記載中，那就暗示著種族主義。而我的推論是：恰恰相反！實際上，就美國南北戰爭和洲際鐵路（這是吳教授給出的兩個例子）而言，如果歷史書中沒有提到某一特定群體，並非是針對這個群體的種族主義暗示。如果歷史書籍特意寫明亞裔美國人參與了修建鐵路，這正表明亞裔美國人和其他族裔美國人或多或少被區別對待了。為什麼要特意提到一個特定的種族群體參與修鐵路呢？其後果是，這個族裔被區別對待了。不提特定種族，正好就不是種族主義和種族歧視所定義的範圍。刻意將一個族裔群體強塞進歷史書裡，而不管這種硬塞實際上並不合適，或者，這個群體對一個特定的歷史事件沒有實質貢獻，這種做法其本身就是種族主義，因為種族主義就是一個種族遭受區別待遇。在美國南北戰爭和修建洲際鐵路的歷史事件中，特意將某個種族指出來，正是對這個種族的區別對待，其實是不公待遇。

就說你到丈母娘吃飯，吃完後幫丈母娘洗了兩個碗，回頭你說：“我洗了兩個碗。”巴不得丈母娘記住你。說這話的人，是把自己當客人，因為如果他把自己當主人，他就不會說這種話了，主人不洗碗誰洗，有什麼必要說出來呢？大而言之，為自己的國家修鐵路，有必要非要記載在歷史書中嗎？美國難道不是你自己的國家？作為美國人為自己的國家修鐵路不很正常嗎？中國人為中國修鐵路，從沒聽說過誰會為是否記載在歷史書裡而耿耿於懷的。

同樣，有華裔血統的林書豪，從哈佛大學校籃球隊起家，一路打到NBA成為籃球明星。林書豪去哈佛讀書，這不叫新聞，亞裔被錄取到常青藤大學再正常不過。有新聞價值的是，林書豪，一個典型的華裔書呆子，可以把籃球打得這麼好，這種新聞本身就是種族主義，因為它在暗示亞洲人體育不行。

2. 吳教授說“亞裔美國人不是’正統‘美國人，表現在亞裔美國人總是會被人問到：’你從哪裡來？‘”

美國是個新興國家，有了移民才有了美國。只要你不是印第安人或水牛，那麼你就是“從”其它地方來的。人們總是自然而然的對不同文化和種族有所好奇。所以，如果有人問起：“你從哪裡來？”，絕多時候提問者並非種族主義者。相反，提問者是出於對不同文化、語言和風俗的好奇才問的。除非他又講了一些侮辱的字眼，否則這個問題就沒有任何歧視在裡面。

比方說，有人頭髮是紅色的，總是被人問是不是愛爾蘭人。別人問她，並不代表提問者恨愛爾蘭人。何況，好多“白”人也同樣會遇到各種類似的問題，僅僅因為他們的法國口音、德國口音、或英國口音。其實就是美國不同地方的人，例如德州、明州或波士頓等，也同樣會遇到這種事情。其實人總是有好奇心的，就這麼簡單。

3. 吳教授批評亞裔美國總是以學霸固有形像示人，因此引發了其他美國人的憤怒

吳教授寫道：“一個種族群體給人的概括性印象，儘管其表現上似乎積極，而實際卻僅是一種疑似。”種族歧視的確切定義，正是指一個人因種族、膚色、血統、國籍、血統族裔或移民身份，而導致其在類似環境中遭受區別待遇。

並且，說什麼亞裔美國人是學霸，佔了更多便宜，因而引發了憤怒、仇恨以及沒人同情，顯然不是事實，吳教授離題太遠了。他聲稱亞裔美國人成績好到沒朋友，沒人同情，他們受到的恭維都是假的。而實際上，吳教授認為亞裔美國人需要人同情，這才是不平等。亞裔為什麼需要人同情？不等於自己承認自己是弱者嗎？不等於承認自己被歧視嗎？

絕大多數種族主義的根源在於固有的、概括的印象，並不代表所有的概括性印象都是種族主義。換言之，諸多亞裔美國人容易成為學霸，並非表示所有的學霸都是亞裔美國人。這個法學院學生必備的基本邏輯，作為法學院院長的吳教授好像還拎不清。

4. 吳教授聲稱“既非黑人，又非白人，意味著既不是多數族裔，也算不上少數族裔。”

我不確認拉丁裔、美洲原住民、中東人、以及那些被視為“白人”的意大利人和猶太人會不會同意吳教授的觀點。歷史上，很多不同族裔人們受到迫害才來到美國尋求自由。吳教授說，“歷史上黑人民權運動”主要是一場為亞裔美國人爭取公平的鬥爭，其結果是，人種最終被框架為黑和白兩種。然而，這種推斷並不準確。以川普總統為例，我們的國家被劃分為非法拉丁裔移民和其他人，或者劃分為來自穆斯林國家的移民和其他人，這種劃分比之前的任何時候都更明確。川普總統建“牆”的長期規劃是要把拉丁裔阻隔在外，而他的行政令是要禁止那些來自穆斯林主體國家的移民，不讓他們進入美國，即使有簽證也不行。這說明，很多美國人眼中的種族主義，並非是簡單的黑與白，包括川普總統。

最後我想說，我一向不同意川普總統的觀點，但這次例外。

A Letter to Frank Wu About Racism

By Attorney Long Z. Liu

Frank H. Wu, a professor at UC Hastings College of Law, recently released an article attempting to explain why Asian-Americans face hatred and disrespect.  The article has a couple good points, but Wu’s logic is flawed. 

It is beneficial to begin with definitions of racial discrimination and racism. Racial discrimination is when a person is treated less favorably than another person in a similar situation because of their race, color, descent, national or ethnic origin or immigrant status.  Racism, as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, is a set of policies that is exhibited by a person or persons toward a group of people of a different race. Often antagonistic and confronting. The assumption of lower intelligence and importance given to a person because of their racial characteristics. 

1. Wu states that Asian Americans “have been written out of history books.”

Wu proposes that if Asian-Americans don’t appear in history books, that is an indication of racism.  I would venture to say just the opposite. The fact that a particular group is not mentioned in a history book with regards to fighting in the civil war or building the transcontinental railroad (the two examples Wu gave), does not indicate racism towards that group. If history books had mentioned that Asian-Americans helped build railroads for instance, that indicates that Asian-Americans are somehow different from other Americans. Why mention a particular group who helped build railroads? The effect is that it treats that group as being different. This is the exact opposite of the meanings of racism and racial discrimination. Deliberately inserting a group of people into a history book, where that group would not naturally fit, or when that group’s race had nothing to do with the particular historical event, would be racism in itself, as racism occurs when a racial group is treated less favorable than others.   

Pointing out a particular race fought in the civil war or built transcontinental railroads is treating that group as different, and less favorable. Wu’s claim that Asian-Americans should be acknowledged for their service to America in building the railroads, equates Asian-Americans to house guests who look for acknowledgement for helping a host clean up after a party. The only reason that the house guest and Wu are looking for special acknowledgement is that neither is “at home,” as they are merely guests in someone else’s space.

For example, Jeremey Lin is an American basketball player for the National Basketball Association, and he is of Chinese decent.  Lin first played for his college basketball team, at Harvard University. It did not make news that Lin got accepted into Harvard, after all, it is not news-worthy that an Asian was accepted into an Ivy-League school.  The fact that it is news-worthy that Lin, a typical nerdy-Asian and Ivy League graduate, can play professional basketball at the highest level, is in and of itself racism, because the implication is that Asians are not athletic.

2. Wu mentions that “Asian-Americans are not “real” Americans, reflected in the persistent question of ‘where are you really from?’”

The United States is a new nation, a nation that was founded with immigrants. Unless you are Native American, or a wild buffalo, you are “from” somewhere else. People are naturally curious about different cultures and ethnicities.  If someone asks another person where they are from, most of the time it is not because that person is racist. On the contrary, it indicates that person is curious about another’s culture, language, or customs. Unless that question also comes along with other, disparaging comments towards the person’s race, there is nothing discriminatory about that question.

For instance, a person with bright red hair may continually get asked if she is Irish. Just because someone inquiring about her possible Irish background does not mean that the inquirer hates Irish people.  Further, there are many “white” people who receive the same question whether it be due to their French, German, or British accents.  Even people from different parts of the United States, such as Texas, Minnesota or Boston are posed that question. It simply comes down to human curiosity.

3. Wu criticizes the stereotype that Asian-Americans are generally “overachievers” as promoting anger from other Americans

Wu states that “a generalization about a race is suspect even if it appears positive.”  However, the very definition of racial discrimination is that a person is treated less favorably because of that person’s race, color, descent, national or ethnic origin or immigrant status.

In addition, going so far as to say that people thinking that Asian-Americans have more than their fair share promotes anger, resentment, and a lack of sympathy is simply not true. Wu claims that due to this “false flattery,” Asian-Americans receive no sympathy. But the fact that Wu asserts that Asian-Americans need sympathy to begin with fuels the notion of inequality.

 Just because racism is based on stereotypes or generalizations, does not mean that all generalizations are racist. To put it a different way, just because many Asian-Americans tend to be overachievers does not mean all overachievers are Asian-Americans. Wu, a distinguished law professor, has trouble with this simple logic, which ironically is a prerequisite to get into law school.

4. Wu claims that “Being neither black nor white means not counting, not quite, as minority or majority.”

I’m not sure that Latinos, Native-Americans, Middle-Eastern people, and even groups that are considered “white” such as Italians and Jewish people would agree with Wu’s statement.  Many different ethnic groups and people from certain counties have been persecuted throughout American history. Wu states that the “historic Black Civil Rights Movement” was primarily a fight for African-American equality, and that as a result, race is framed as literally black and white. However, this assertion is inaccurate. Take President Donald Trump for example. Now, more than ever, our country is divided with regards to illegal Latino immigrants, as well as immigrants from Muslim countries.  President Trump’s perpetual plan to build his “wall” to keep out Latinos, and his Executive order banning immigrants from Muslim-majority countries, even those with visas, from entering the United States, proves that racism is not just black and white, in the eyes of many Americans, including President Trump.

Finally, I agree with President Trump, on something.