Writing about Asia and Asians: American Black and White on Asian Black, Yellow and Brown?

I was recently struck by an article in "The New Yorker" titled "Images Spark Racism Debate in Thailand." The author, Newley Purnell, states "In Thailand, which is largely ethnically homogenous, many see racism as a Western issue—something for multicultural societies like those in the U.S. or the U.K. to debate. " Further it noted that in 2010 "non-Thais grew to nearly five percent of the population." 

Purnell actually begins the article with an American--an African American from Atlanta, Georgia, but why should the Thai be listening to Americans on the topic of racial sensitivity? What do Americans know about racism? What do Americans know about Thailand?

The images in question involve a model turning black after eating a Dunkin' Donuts. Presumably, Dunkin' Donuts wants you to eat donuts so turning black is a good thing, but it wasn't so good in the eyes of others. The ad campaign was considered racist. 

I thought the protest and at article leading with a comment by a person from Atlanta were a curious way of talking about Thailand because I have been to Thailand. Thailand is 75 percent ethnic Thais. Yet just what does that mean? There are also Thai Chinese who are about 14 percent of the population and smaller groups such as the Khmer, the Mon, Vietnamese, Hmong, Mein and Karen make up the remaining 11 percent. Then there are the foreigners from Europe, North America and India.

Comparing that to Japan, I learned that Japan counts people depending upon their nationality so that while 98.5 percent of the population is listed as Japanese, this style of census taking doesn't break down multiethnic members of the population. Further, the statistics don't differentiate between the multiethnic society that originally make up Japan--the Ainu, the darker-skinned "Polynesian-type" Jomon versus the lighter-skinned Continental Yayoi type. 

Then comparing Thailand to a European nation such as the United Kingdom, we can see that Thailand is more diverse than the United Kingdom because as of 2011, 87.1 percent of the population was listed as white (excluding Irish Traveller/Gypsy). Asian or Asian British are 7 percent of the population and black or black British are 3 percent of the population with British mixed being 2 percent. 

Thailand is more diverse than the United Kingdom although since history has divided the country by Catholic versus Protestant, that might be another issue. The United Kingdom is 71.6 percent Christian and 15.5 percent agnostic or atheist. In Japan, 96 to 84 percent of the Japanese are considered Buddhist/Shinto according to Wikipedia. In Thailand, 97 percent of the people are Theravada Buddhist with Muslims being 10 percent. Christians and Hindus make up less than 5 percent of the population of Thailand. 

Muslims only make up 2.7 percent of the United Kingdom population. 

In the United States, about 76 percent of the population is Christian (51 percent Protestant and 24 percent Roman Catholic). Only 1.7 percent is Jewish and 0.6 percent Muslim.  The USA is 72 percent white and 13 percent African American and 5 percent Asian American. 

So in Thailand, Muslims make up a larger percentage of the population than they do in the United Kingdom or the United States. 

These statistics would seem to indicate that Thailand is more diverse than the United States or the United Kingdom in terms of ethnic groups and the homogeneity of Japan can also be questioned. 

So I don't feel that explaining the lack of perceived sensitivity to black or African American issues can be blamed on the relative homogeneity of Thailand and I think other explanations should be used for Japan as well. Perhaps, it is rather a matter of Americans feeling they can somehow tell another country how it should act, particularly a country that is predominately non-white? 

One could suggest that this is a matter of African Americans unwittingly taking on the mantle of the "White Man's Burden" as outlined by Rudyard Kipling or distasteful remnants of Manifest Destiny.

When I was in Thailand a few decades ago, I saw black people there. They were NOT African Americans from places such as Atlanta, Georgia. Rather, they were Asians, people from India. It might be more important to see how Asian Indians feel the ads in question. The article notes that nearly five percent of the population is non-Thai and that some of these are "low-wage migrant workers" from neighboring countries, but they are not African Americans from Georgia. So this article is mixing up race and race identity. What an American thinks is probably less important than what a dark-skinned person from Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangladesh or Malaysia thinks. 

And one then has to wonder why we as Americans haven't taken a serious look at the Dutch and their long tradition of black face, Zwarte Piet? In 2001, Time magazine carried an article that criticized the Japanese, including toy and gift manufacturer Sanrio for its black Sambo toys.  Apparently in 2001 and even now, Dutch Swarte Piet toys are okay and not worthy of an official protest of any kind. The same year, jam and marmalade maker Robertson's retired its character Golly. 

It seems, however, that the original tale of  "Little Black Sambo" is largely a problem for Americans. Now the story goes under other names such as "The Story of Little Babaji," "Sam and the Tigers," "The Boy and the Tigers" (with the boy renamed Little Rajani). In Japan, the boy has become a little black puppy. 

Just what do African Americans know about racism if Sambo under another name is not protest worthy. And then, just what do African Americans know about blackness in Asia?