Please note that because this article deals with contentious issues, it is important to read through the whole piece before making any assessments on its content.

I think Asian cultures have some very unhealthy traits, both socially and psychologically. Having spent a lot of time with people of Asian descent, I’ve come to resent the way certain Asian cultures treat women and the way parents use guilt and duty to control their children’s lives. Seeing as I am as white as you can get, such a statement would undoubtedly label me as a racist or at least a bigot. If I say I also oppose the way Israelis treat the Palestinians and that I think many Jewish people suffer from a superiority complex, I will promptly be labeled an anti-Semite as well. The truth is I am neither. In fact, I don’t think race, colour, creed, sexual orientation or any other distinction has any relevance. Period.

The labelling of someone as a racist, bigot or anti-Semite has become an easy way of silencing cultural or political criticism and the terms are now being used as weapons rather than true labels, thus draining them of their value. There are true racists, anti-Semites and bigots out there and that is a serious problem that needs to be properly addressed and dealt with. But today these terms are used so haphazardly and often to gain advantage or turn the attention away from serious underlying issues that they are losing their true meaning. This prevents us from dealing with problems embedded in our multicultural society and sometimes even aggravates them. The label “racist” no longer means racist but encompasses a whole series of different attitudes. To put it in academic terms: We need a demarcation between the word “racism” and cultural stereotyping, prejudice or bias.

According to the 1966 United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination:

“the term ‘racial discrimination’ shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”

Reading this definition, it should be clear that my earlier statements are in no way racist. They are simply criticisms of cultural and political traits. If I had said that all Asians are abusive towards their children or that all Jewish people are war criminals instead, such a label would have been appropriate. Do you see the difference? The problem we are facing is like so many others: A confusion of terms. Much of what is today labelled racism is in fact social, cultural or political stereotyping or even specific descriptions of one or a limited number of individuals and their actions.

Take Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick as an example. He stands accused of a multitude of crimes including cruelty to animals and gambling. The case is clear-cut yet many people are trying to turn it into an issue of race. The claim is simple: Michael Vick is being unfairly treated because he is black. This type of criticism has a long history in the US and has more often than not been proven correct. But in this instance, there is no racial prejudice. Mr. Vick’s racial heritage, or colour, is irrelevant. But his cultural heritage is not. If you wanted to question the prosecution of Michael Vick, what you need to look at is whether or not the prosecutors understand Vick’s cultural background. In some African American communities throughout the US, dog fighting is a common occurrence. That could explain why Mr. Vick does not see this as a serious problem. At the same time, you could never argue that all black people are dog fighters. That would be racist. Dog fighting is a predominantly American subculture that is not found in other black communities in the rest of the world. You also can’t ignore the fact that dog fighting is also found in other cultures.

On the flip side, we have Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama. In a recent debate, a question was raised over whether or not Senator Obama was “black enough.” The question did not come from a white person but a black community leader. Its meaning: that the colour of Mr. Obama’s skin is more or less irrelevant. Being “black” in this case is a cultural identity. By asking this question, the community leader made a clear distinction between the real black people and the others. And by doing so, he stated that only someone from black culture can understand black culture. Simply grouping all African Americans based on their skin colour doesn’t work. They, like all other cultural or ethnic groups, come in all shapes and sizes, from all political and social strata and from all walks of life. Referring to their skin colour only really works as a tool to pick them out from a crowd. This is precisely why racial profiling does not work. Simply piling all people who look the same in one group doesn’t actually give you a homogeneous group with predictable behavioural patterns. Not all Arabs are terrorists. Not all black people are gangsters or dog fighters. Not all Indo-Canadians are gang members. Not all Asians are bad drivers. In fact, these stereotypes apply only to very small groups of people and these groups are not defined by race.

My point here is this: We need to call the monster by its true name. Racism is still a menace to society but cultural stereotyping is a much more serious one. When a news reporter classifies a perpetrator as Indo-Canadian, Chinese, Muslim or Arab, he/she is implying that the act committed is somehow related to this person’s cultural heritage and thus that all people who fall under these categories share the same characteristics. The cultural stereotyping becomes clearer if you turn the example on its head: If a white person is shot by a white person, no one is going to say the crime happened in a “white neighbourhood.” Such a statement has no value because no one is going to attribute the act to all white people. This is cultural stereotyping at its worst and it has nothing to do with racism. The reporter isn’t discriminating against a whole race but making a sweeping statement about all members of one culture based on the actions of an individual.

We see the same problem when looking at the issue of Francophones vs. Anglophones. The grouping of all Francophones transcends both racial and ethnic lines and is solely based on the culture surrounding their common language. So when people speak in negative terms about Quebecers, they are not being racists (because there is no one race to target) but they are being culturally prejudiced. This also applies to Hispanic culture in the US, or Kurds in Iraq. These groups are cultural rather than racial and as such their discrimination is one of culture.

The conclusion is simple: If we clean up the way we use the term ‘racist’ and introduce the term culturally biased and cultural stereotyping in our vocabulary, we will achieve a clearer definition of the problems we face and open up to a more constructive debate over the problems that form within multicultural societies and how to solve them.