Ethnic Origins: The Adaptation of Cambodian and Hmong Refugees in Four American Cities

10. Group Stereotypes

184 Chapter 10 Group Stereotypes I n everyday life, inequality often manifests itself as prejudice, a prejudging of individuals on the basis of their group membership. Stereotyping is one of the central mechanisms in prejudice (Fiske 1998). People with prejudices have preexisting negative beliefs about particular groups, and they apply these stereotypical generalizations to individuals whom they identify as members of these groups. Coming to terms with group stereotypes is thus an inevitable part of immigrants’ racial and ethnic adaptation. Walter Lippmann (1922/1965) provided one of the first widely accepted definitions of stereotypes, and he emphasized that they are irrational . Lippmann contrasted their origins in our imagination with their reduction via factual learning: “We are told about the world before we see it. We imagine most things before we experience them. And those preconceptions , unless education has made us acutely aware, govern deeply the whole process of perception” (59). Stereotypes can be completely false depictions of groups but they can also be inaccurate exaggerations based on a few real, but rare, events. Social scientists have concluded that prejudiced people ignore evidence refuting stereotypes in order to preserve rigid generalizations about the social world (Allport 1958). Stereotypes, although false or inaccurate, remain a powerful component of social inequality because people use them to rank one group above another, usually to justify existing inequalities (Bobo and Massagli 2001). For example, whites in Los Angeles have group-specific stereotypes about blacks (“prefer to live off welfare”), Latinos (“speak English poorly”) and Asians (“tend to discriminate against others”) rather than broad stereotypes about all nonwhites (Bobo and Johnson 2000). The same groupspeci fic stereotypes are prevalent in different regions of the United States, leading Lawrence Bobo and Michael Massagli (2001, 132) to caution “against a view of stereotypes as highly localized and context-specific.” Research on racial and ethnic stereotypes usually seeks to explain why some people endorse them (Bobo and Massagli 2001; Fiske 1998). Much less is known about how the targets of stereotypes react to them. For second-generation Asian Americans, anti-Asian stereotypes lead to feelings of vulnerability and displays of hyper-Americanism in order to disassociate themselves from recent immigrants whose “foreignness” is often the raw material for these stereotypes (Kibria 2002; Tuan 1998). For those recent immigrants from Asia, learning about the existence of antiAsian stereotypes is part of their racial and ethnic adaptation. Most Cambodians and Hmong in the Midwest know that some Americans think they eat dogs, lack a work ethic, and don’t belong here because they are foreign-born. Two videographers, Kati Johnston and Taggart Siegel, in their extraordinary film Blue Collar and Buddha (1987), captured on film groups of whites in Rockford, Illinois, expressing these views. Surprisingly, the refugees exhibit a wide range of emotional reactions to these blatantly offensive stereotypes. Some feel angry while others do not. Their different ethnic origins, and to a lessor degree the different places where they live, explain this variation. Responses to Stereotypes Cambodian and Hmong survey respondents rated their reactions to three stereotypes: “An American who thinks Cambodians/the Hmong eat dogs”; “An American who thinks Cambodians/the Hmong don’t want to work”; and “An American who thinks Cambodians/the Hmong should go back to Cambodia/Laos.” On a scale of 0 (not bothered) to 10 (extremely angry), all the numbers were chosen—and 10 percent of respondents picked all 10s. Twenty-two percent, however, selected a score of 0 for at least one of the three stereotypes. The refugees’ perceptions of anti-Asian stereotypes are clearly very nuanced and also vary by ethnicity and place of settlement in the United States (see table 10.1). Group Stereotypes 185 Table 10.1 Sensitivity to Anti-Asian Stereotypes, by Ethnicity and City, on a Scale of 0 (Not Bothered) to 10 (Extremely Angry) Hmong Cambodians Eau Claire Milwaukee Rochester Chicago “Eat dogs” 6.5a 6.0 6.1 4.7 “Should go back” 7.0 7.8a 7.1a 5.6 “Don’t want to work” 8.9a,b 8.5a,b 7.0 6.3 Mean score* 22.4a 22.3a 20.2a 16.6 Source: Author’s compilation. Note: N = 48 in Eau Claire, 49 in Rochester, 32 in Milwaukee, and 50 in Chicago. *Scores range from 0 to 30 representing the sum of responses to all three stereotypes. aSignificantly higher than Cambodians in Chicago (p < .05 or less). bSignificantly higher than Cambodians in Rochester (p < .01). When the scores for all three stereotypes are combined, the Hmong in Milwaukee have a significantly stronger reaction than do Cambodians in Chicago (p < .001). Similarly, Cambodians in Rochester have a stronger reaction than their compatriots in Chicago (p < .05). Thus, the refugees’ sensitivity to anti-Asian stereotypes appears to be correlated with both their ethnicity and where they live. Sociologists will generally not accept a correlation between two variables , such as ethnicity or city size and sensitivity to stereotypes, without first checking for the effect of other variables. For example, perhaps this correlation could really be the result of the fact that the Hmong in my sample have more years of U.S. education than Cambodians or of Cambodians in Rochester reporting greater proficiency in English than those in Chicago (see appendix A). If these differences strongly influence respondents’ attitudes then sociologists would call the initial relationship between ethnicity, city size, and sensitivity to stereotypes a misleading or spurious correlation. Many sociologists use a statistical technique called multiple-regression analysis to resolve such questions. This technique can determine whether it is still reasonable to conclude that two variables are correlated with each other after having taken into account or controlled for the influence of other variables. What variables should be controlled for in analyzing the relationship between ethnicity, city, and sensitivity to anti-Asian stereotypes? Sociologists know that being male or female is one of the most significant determinants of a person’s social experiences and thus must be controlled for. Other variables are suggested by theories about immigrants’ racial and ethnic adaptation. According to ethnic-competition theory, immigrants with higher socioeconomic status compete most directly with natives and thus should be more sensitive to stereotypes. Years of U.S. education is a good measure of socioeconomic status. It also takes into account length of U.S. residence (refugees can’t have many years of U.S. education if they have just arrived) and age (younger refugees have more U.S. education than their seniors). Years of U.S. education is also strongly correlated with higher incomes among the refugees (r = .32; p < .001). Thus Hmong and Cambodians with many years of U.S. education are exactly the type of immigrants that ethnic competition theory predicts will know the most about American society and will interact and compete the most with natives. They are younger, have lived in the country for a considerable period of time, have learned about the United States in schools, and have higher incomes. Assimilation theory offers a different explanation for how immigrants adapt to American race and ethnic relations. According to this perspective, immigrants who are socially and culturally integrated into 186 Ethnic Origins a host society should be less sensitive to stereotypes because they feel accepted. Having become a U.S. citizen (rather than remaining a permanent resident) and identifying as a Christian (rather than with a homeland religion) are good indicators of the refugees’ assimilation. Even when controlling for variables suggested by ethnic competition and assimilation theory, a multiple-regression analysis confirms the important ethnic and urban differences in the refugees’ reactions to stereotypes (see table 10.2). Living in a big city reduces anger at anti-Asian stereotypes, whereas living in a small city increases their offensiveness. But the most powerful variable explaining why some respondents are less upset by stereotypes and others are very upset is being Cambodian or Hmong. Another interesting finding is that refugees who have become U.S. citizens are more offended by the prejudice shown by natives than those who have not, the opposite of the pattern predicted by assimilation theory. An even more precise way of statistically verifying the relationships among variables is to check for interaction effects, which means combining two related independent variables into one. Since the Hmong in both big and small cities have views of stereotypes much like those of Cambodians in a small city, it is logical to disaggregate Cambodians in a big city into a single variable. Thus, the variable “big city × Cambodian” compares the Cambodians in Chicago with all others (see table 10.3). This analysis confirms that Cambodians in Chicago are much less angry about anti-Asian stereotypes even when taking into account other factors such as years of U.S. education and having become a U.S. citizen. Group Stereotypes 187 Table 10.2 Standardized OLS Coefficients for Regression of StereotypeSensitivity Score on Ethnicity, City, and Other Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Years of U.S. education .12 .05 Christian .02 −.08 U.S. citizen .16* .17* Female .12 Big city −.16* −.13 Cambodian −.23** R2 .01 .03 .02 .12** Source: Author’s compilation. Note: N = 179 * p < .05; ** p < .01 Ironically, a separate analysis reveals that those Cambodians who identify themselves as Christian have almost identical responses to stereotypes as those who identify as Buddhist, a testament to the enduring influence of Buddhism in Cambodians’ ethnic origins even after conversion . Whatever new religious name Cambodians give themselves, their ethnic origins continue to minimize angry responses to stereotypes , particularly when they live in a diverse urban pecking order. Multiple-regression analysis is a sophisticated statistical technique that can tell us with a high degree of confidence that Cambodians living in a big city are much less upset by anti-Asian stereotypes than are the Hmong in both big and small cities and Cambodians in small cities. But the technique cannot explain why the Hmong have very similar views of prejudice regardless of where they live whereas Cambodians vary when they live in a big or small city. Qualitative data are needed to answer that question. When I conducted follow-up interviews I asked informants to explain why they picked particular numbers to represent their reactions to stereotypes about their food, work ethic, and nativity. “All the Hmong Suffer” In Milwaukee, Sy explained how he carefully evaluated different forms of native prejudice rather than just dismissing them all. Asked what he thought about while picking numbers on the 0-to-10 scale, Sy answered: I do have a friend who said, “Hmong people eat dogs.” I responded, “Not me! Some people may say yes. What others say I don’t know.” So when I picked that it was not for the Hmong as a group, it was for myself. So I have not eaten dogs. But when I picked a few of the other numbers like 188 Ethnic Origins Table 10.3 Standardized OLS Coefficients for Regression of StereotypeSensitivity Score on Interaction of City and Ethnicity Model 1 Model 2 Years of U.S. education .07 Christian −.10 U.S. citizen .14 Female .11 Big city × Cambodian −.28* −.27* R2 .08* .11* Source: Author’s compilation. Note: N = 179 * p < .001 [for the question on] “the Hmong don’t want to work” . . . I don’t believe that. Most Hmong do want to work. They don’t want to stay on welfare. But because the Hmong are still in a low or poverty level we do need welfare assistance from the state and federal level. In this statement Sy reveals how different anti-Asian stereotypes trigger different emotional responses. He uses the personal pronoun “me” as the basis for his response to the dog eating stereotype but uses the collective pronoun “we” to talk about the work stereotype. Sy is less angered by the dog-eating stereotype because he has a more personal response (“Not me!”). He even explains that this reaction “was not for the Hmong as a group, it was for myself.” He then shifts to a collective perspective to explain why he is much more offended by the work stereotype and states, “Most Hmong do want to work.” This distinction between individualized and collective perceptions of prejudice explains why the Hmong in both big and small cities have very similar emotional reactions to anti-Asian stereotypes. The Hmong tend to interpret experiences with inequality through the lens of their ethnic group rather than thinking of such incidents as isolated, personal tragedies. Teng, in Eau Claire, illustrates the profoundly collective view that the Hmong have of stereotypes. Like Sy he was deeply offended by the work stereotype, which he ranked a 9 on the scale. When I asked Teng why that stereotype angered him the most his answer took the form of a macro-level economic analysis of Hmong adaptation patterns: About that one on work, mostly they [Americans] don’t know my culture, parents. I think their parents, grandparents are similar. They used to be like us [immigrants]. We have a lot of kids because we are a different culture . We came to the United States but still use our own culture. Not so much the young, the young are changing. But people who came older than twenty or thirty years old, they don’t have a good education, can’t write and read, so they are not working. They think that the amount of money they would make from working and from the government helping their family is similar. They think if they work they will have to ask their brother to take care of their kids. They are not lazy. In my culture, in Laos, everyone worked, there was no welfare. Twenty-, fifteen-, ten-yearold kids worked. When that family comes to the United States, the middleaged and older people, they cannot change. They still are like farmers, like the culture in Laos. The remarkable feature of Teng’s statement is its total focus on the Hmong as an ethnic group and the complete absence of any expression of his own feelings or experiences. Chou, another Eau Claire resident, Group Stereotypes 189 provides a similar example of the way Hmong informants refer to their ethnic group to explain their reactions to stereotypes. She ranked her response to all three stereotypes as 10s, one of only seventeen survey respondents to do so. In the follow-up interview Chou asked her eighteenyear -old daughter to interpret for her, even though Chou is proficient in English, because she finds making even minor grammatical mistakes embarrassing. When I asked Chou why she picked 10s for all three stereotypes the following exchange occurred: Mother [as interpreted by daughter]: I’m very angry if they say that. Daughter [interjecting her own response]: Those are narrow-minded people. It bothers me, they don’t know but they choose to say like that. They don’t want to change. They’re ignorant and don’t want to change, be more open. Author: None bother you more than the others? Mother [as interpreted by daughter]: The ones that really bother me the most are go back and don’t want to work. They don’t appreciate why we came here, all the hardships in living. We should be able to live without that harassment. The great majority of Hmong work but they don’t see that, all they think about are the ones on welfare. But we pay taxes just like white people but they refuse to see that. Chou’s use of the pronouns “we” and “they” seven times in her last statement indicates that she is drawing upon a polarized conception of groups when reacting to stereotypes. Another way Hmong informants in both big and small cities express a collective interpretation of prejudice is by citing the experiences of Hmong people they know. Even when Cambodian informants refer to their ethnic group to explain their reactions to stereotypes they rarely discuss specific individuals other than themselves. Hmong informants, however, are much more likely to do that, particularly using close kin as examples to refute a stereotype. In Milwaukee, Ka is deeply offended by the work stereotype and explains her feelings by discussing the situations of other Hmong: Well for the Hmong it’s not like they don’t want to work, but old people got involved in the war, the Vietnam War. It affected them. Some [natives] say, “They only want food stamps.” But my mom was old when she got here so it doesn’t mean they don’t want to work, they just can’t. But when they do work they work the best to try to make Americans happy. They don’t feel lazy. 190 Ethnic Origins Close kin are also the focus of You’s explanation for why she is angered by the “don’t want to work” stereotype. A resident of Eau Claire, she commented during the follow-up interview: “We want to work, like my parents, grandfather, grandmother. They don’t speak English or drive a car so it’s hard for them to work.” I then asked her why the other two stereotypes (which she ranked an 8 and a 10) seemed to bother her about as much. You immediately answered: They bother me because we don’t want other people to think we are lazy. If a friend says that to you, you will think that even though you don’t know me. You will take his word and think [she is] lazy even though you don’t know me. You just heard that from him. So it goes around. Lazy. Don’t want to work. They don’t know so they think we are lazy. But most Hmong work and go to school. You’s strong kinship ties amplify the offensive content of the work stereotype since she interprets it not just in relation to herself but for signi ficant others in her social network. She also invokes the Hmong as an ethnic group and is concerned about the stereotype’s impact on her community (“We don’t want other people to think we are lazy”). Indeed, You has such a collective perspective of these stereotypes that she also examines them from the point of view of the out-group. She addresses me directly and takes my point of view as a native-born European American in order to show how friendship networks can transmit stereotypes (“So it goes around”). In Milwaukee, Kelly provides a final and even more compelling illustration of how the Hmong respond to stereotypes by weaving together their personal feelings, the relevance of the stereotype for close kin, and its impact on the Hmong community as a whole. She is equally offended by all three stereotypes (she ranked all three as 10s), and her explanation for these reactions focuses on other Hmong. I began by asking about her reactions to “an American who thinks the Hmong don’t want to work”: Kelly: Don’t want to work?! Before I worked with a Hmong lady who had five or six children. People our age do not have that problem. But those Hmong ladies and men who are older, they have that problem. I took one to social services and they said that to my face. Author: Who said that? Kelly: An African American and a white receptionist. I translated that. It was very negative. They [older Hmong] want to work but they don’t have a driver’s license, they have young children. How can they work with no license, no baby-sitter? If the government wants them to work it should Group Stereotypes 191 provide a baby-sitter. I’m very bothered by that. Many Hmong families cry. I feel bad whenever that happens. Author [pointing to questionnaire]: Do you feel the same way about the statement “The Hmong should go back to Laos”? Kelly: It bothers me. Hmong people were not willing to come to this country , they came by force, not the opportunity for school. Now there is no public assistance [due to recent changes in eligibility standards], so all the Hmong suffer. I feel so bad. Kelly’s poignant statement “All the Hmong suffer. I feel so bad” clearly expresses how Hmong informants link their own feelings about a stereotype to its effects for other Hmong. Cambodian informants, however, tend to have more individualistic interpretations and thus their social environment has a bigger influence on their emotional responses to anti-Asian stereotypes than the Hmong. “People Like That, They Look Down on Me” In Chicago, Sokorn illustrates the personal response to stereotypes typical of Cambodians. He ranked from 5 to 10 the items describing Americans who believe negative things about Cambodians. I asked Sokorn what he was thinking about when he chose these numbers: Sokorn: I don’t want to talk to people like that. If I do I will just get into a fight. People who talk like that think crazy. Author: So what was the reason you put down a ten for one of these but a five for this other one? Sokorn: Because I’m angry. People like that, they look down on me. They think I came here to take their job. But the government brought me here because of the war. I came with a passport, I got here by the rule. Sokorn’s remarks focus exclusively on his emotional response to prejudiced natives and he frequently uses the pronouns “I” and “me.” In sharp contrast to Hmong informants, Sokorn makes no reference to members of his ethnic group to explain his feelings about anti-Asian stereotypes. The difference between the collective-oriented views of the Hmong and the individual-oriented views of Cambodians is one of degree rather than opposites. Some Cambodian informants do express their reactions to stereotypes in ways that are indistinguishable from those of the Hmong. In Chicago, Buon was extremely angered by all three stereotypes , which she ranked 9 and 10. During the follow-up interview I 192 Ethnic Origins asked why, and she exploded, emotionally and verbally: “They should not say those words! It offends us. Not all eat dog. Not all are lazy. I work hard. They look down on us. Is it just Cambodians who are like that? There are a lot of bad Americans, too, who don’t work.” The collective sentiments in Buon’s remarks are obvious. They reveal that the responses of Cambodians and the Hmong to native prejudice do overlap a continuum from collective- to individual-orientations. Nonetheless, it is Cambodians who overwhelmingly occupy the individual end. Heng, another Chicago resident, is a good example of Cambodians’ highly personalized reactions to anti-Asian stereotypes, particularly when they live in a big city. He ranked the examples of negative stereotypes with two 0s and a 5. I asked Heng why he chose these numbers: Heng: If you judge me, why should I jump back, fight back? Why should I judge others? Why should I care about other people? It just stresses out yourself. If you say Cambodians eat dogs, that’s okay. It’s not true. If you say Cambodians don’t want to work, maybe, maybe not. There are different types of people in the world. In the refugee camp I knew one guy. All he did was drink [alcohol]. There are rich people and poor people. There are a lot of types of people. Author: Is “angry” the right word to describe your feelings about negative things some Americans think? Heng: You should not get angry. Think good things even if they hate you. Think why they do that. Among the many fascinating features of Heng’s comments is the total absence of any reference to his ethnic group. Instead he focuses exclusively on his own emotions and state of mind. Although Heng is an extreme example of how Buddhist values create a personalized response to suffering, the views of other Cambodian informants are much closer to his than to Buon’s. In Rochester, Carl’s explanation for why he is deeply offended by the work stereotype (which he ranked 10) reveals what can happen when Cambodians live in a small city. When I asked him why that stereotype angered him, he stated, “That’s preposterous. It just gets you upset. It’s not true.” In responding to a follow-up question, however, Carl discloses an additional basis for his attitude: Author: Okay, but there could be many reasons why it makes you angry. Carl: It just identifies you. It comes back to race, puts you in that category. “Cambodians don’t want to work.” Maybe that’s true for some, but everyGroup Stereotypes 193 body wants to better themselves and get educated. So if they know you are Cambodian then people will identify you with comments they are making. I mean, just that comment, it’s just a stereotype and people who hear comments like this from the media assume you are like that too. Carl is clearly concerned with the lack of factual accuracy of the “lazy” stereotype, wavering between rejecting it entirely for that reason (“It’s not true”) and admitting that it may be “true for some.” But in response to my follow-up question Carl reveals a second approach to evaluating the offensiveness of a stereotype: its consequences. He emphasizes that the work stereotype has the potential to cause him harm (“People . . . assume you are like that”). In fact, Carl goes so far as to state that it “puts you in that category,” a way of indicating how in small cities ethnic boundaries can become more polarized for Cambodians. But like Cambodians in Chicago, Carl uses the personal pronoun “you” rather than “we.” Contrast Carl’s views with that of Nao, a Hmong resident of Eau Claire with whom he shares many social characteristics. Both are single males in their early twenties who arrived in the United States less than ten years old and are now college graduates. On the survey Nao ranked the dog stereotype with a 0 but picked 10 to indicate his intense anger at the doesn’t-work stereotype. In the follow-up interview I asked him why he had such different reactions: That one about dogs, that’s not much offensive, a little bit negative. We are human beings and eat normal food. It bothers me but it’s [speech] like freedom of the press. These two questions [work and go back], they’re different , they bother me [he says “bother” slowly to accentuate the negativity]. It’s a first impression. It’s just like Caucasians, they just picture us one way and it affects the whole community. That bothers me big time. They’re uneducated . They don’t put it on the table and see if it’s true. Maybe some of us are creative, maybe they could learn from our community. Nao’s explanation for his strong reactions to the work and nativist stereotypes is completely different from Carl’s. Nao states that stereotypes “affect the Hmong community.” His use of the collective pronoun “us” and reference to “our community” clearly differs from the more individualistic perception of Carl and other Cambodians. Conclusion Ethnic origins strongly influence perceptions of anti-Asian stereotypes among Southeast Asian refugees in the Midwest. In both Eau Claire and Milwaukee the Hmong refer to their community to contextualize the meaning of native prejudice. They often use the pronoun “we” when 194 Ethnic Origins discussing why a stereotype is offensive and describe how other Hmong are affected by it. Linking personal experiences with the fate of the ethnic group as whole amplifies angry reactions to stereotypes. This collective perspective stems from the Hmong’s hermetic ethnic boundary and their polarized conception of group identities. In both Rochester and Chicago, however, Cambodians’ ethnic origins foster an individualistic perception of American prejudices. Their reactions are more personal and psychological and rarely include a consideration of how the stereotype affects other Cambodians. All immigrants experience a process of resocialization as they confront inequalities in the United States, but historical, political, and cultural experiences in their homelands shape how they adapt to social problems such as stereotypes. In addition, Cambodians’ perceptions of prejudice are also shaped by where they live—in a big urban center with a pecking order or in a provincial city where they experience small-town hate. Those who reside in a small city feel greater anger than those residing in a big city. This finding is an important reminder that ethnic origins do not predetermine immigrants’ racial and ethnic adaptation but form the basis from which they interact with their new social environment. Cambodians arrive in this country already thinking of group boundaries as porous and group identities as liminal; the diversity in Chicago confirms this worldview. Although some African Americans and Hispanic Americans do express prejudice toward Cambodians in Chicago, a diverse social environment provides a buffer for the refugees. The same prejudices are deemed more offensive when expressed by whites in small cities, where the refugees perennially feel like foreigners . Although the content of group-specific stereotypes reflects national history and macro-level hierarchies (Bobo and Massagli 2001), local context can influence emotional responses by members of target groups to being stigmatized. And localized stereotypes do exist. Whites generally do not think Asians as a whole prefer welfare to being self-supporting (Bobo and Massagli 2001), but in the Midwest this is a common belief about Southeast Asian refugees. The variation between Cambodians’ and the Hmong’s perceptions of anti-Asian stereotypes supports the ethnic-origins hypothesis, but in one respect the two groups are similar. Since the 1920s social scientists have considered stereotypes to be an expression of irrational thinking. But Cambodians and the Hmong do not react irrationally; instead they respond to anti-Asian stereotypes in a highly logical and reasoned manner . Most of them carefully evaluate the implications of each stereotype on the basis of their personal experiences and often that of other members of their ethnic group. Very few Cambodians and Hmong have identical reactions to stereotypes about their food, work ethic, and right to reside Group Stereotypes 195 in the United States. Two percent of my sample of 179 respondents report that they are completely unperturbed by the stereotypes; 10 percent state that all three stereotypes make them feel extremely angry; and the remaining 88 percent of respondents have more complex responses and usually consider the stereotype that they prefer public assistance to work more offensive than the stereotype that they eat dogs. For most Cambodians and Hmong, racial and ethnic adaptation involves a thoughtful assessment of natives’ prejudices toward immigrants rather than a simple rejection of them. 196 Ethnic Origins ...