Jessi Snider

June 22, 2008

Breaking the Mold of the Model Minority

Because the “model minority” stereotype of Asian-Americans is so prevalent in the mainstream psyche, deviations from this perceived norm are all the more intriguing.  When studying the narratives of Asian-American immigrants, Dr. White brought to class an article from the New York Times looking at the faults of the “model minority” label.  The article stated that “most of the nation’s Hmong and Cambodian adults have never finished high school.”  This factoid was unknown to me, and admittedly I know very little of Asian immigration patterns and demographics in general.  This made me question, and long to understand, the unique circumstances or characteristics which cause Cambodian immigrants to have a different immigration experience than many of their greater-Asian counterparts.

            Post-1965 Southeast Asian immigrant groups, particularly Vietnamese and Cambodians, primarily left their homelands to escape war, famine, political persecution, and even execution.  While Vietnamese students have “caught up” academically with native born children and even surpassed them in many instances, Cambodian students consistently have the lowest academic achievement amongst Southeast Asian groups (Kim 214).   One explanation that Kim provides for the differences in these two groups is the Confucian and Mahayana Buddhist traditions amongst Vietnamese and other Asian immigrants, which emphasizes a strong work ethic, educational achievement, self-discipline, and communal values.  Cambodians have no Confucian tradition and while Mahayana Buddhism encourages parental involvement, Theravada Buddhism, practiced by Cambodian Americans, is more individualistic.  Extrapolated out, Kim concludes that Cambodian parents are less likely to encourage academic achievement than are Vietnamese parents based on pervasive cultural norms (218). 

            Beyond religious and cultural differences, there seem to be other factors at play.  Looking closely at the unique experience of Cambodian immigrants, it is particularly noteworthy that decades after fleeing the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge, many remain traumatized by what they experienced there.  A recent study performed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) revealed that sixty-two percent of 490 refugees randomly selected for the study suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder compared to 3.6 percent in the general U.S. adult population.  Fifty-one percent suffered from depression in the past year compared to 9.5 percent of the general adult population.  Forty-two percent studied had both disorders, and severity of the disorders increased with trauma exposure.  Most of the members of the Cambodian refugee community speak little or no English, live below the poverty line, and require some type of public assistance; said trauma may contribute to this stagnation of assimilation.  While I did not look at a comparative study of Vietnamese immigrants, it would seem that Cambodian immigrants are uniquely, and permanently, affected by what they lived through.  They can neither “shake off” nor escape these experiences, and perhaps this has great bearing on their inability to live-up to the “model minority” label so closely associated with Asian American immigrants.  As Anemona Hartocollis writes in the New York Times, “How long does a refugee remain a refugee?  Perhaps forever.”

            While I do feel that I have delved deeper into the issue of the academic and social inequality experienced by Cambodian immigrants, I feel as though I have just scratched the surface of this vast topic.  If I were to continue researching Cambodian immigrants, I would do a comparative analysis of how groups from other war-torn nations handle immigration to the United States and how much their trauma affects their experience.  I would also explore the statistics of initial Cambodian immigration focusing on the help, or lack of help, offered by this group’s particular ethnic enclave compared to that of other Asian-American groups.  Overall, this research assignment has shown me that each individual group uniquely experiences immigration unlike any other, and though parallels can be drawn, there are never any precise equivalents.  Each sub-group within a larger group has their own story to tell and the nuances of these tales should not be tucked away behind the larger story of a more prevalent and successful group.  This exercise has taught me not to paint with too broad a stroke in my assumptions or stereotypes, for certainly something will get covered over, and that while nothing can perhaps be “settled,” bearing witness to difference is where learning begins. 

Works Cited

Hartocollis, Anemona.  “Fleeing the Killing Fields, but Not Escaping.”  The New York Times.  17 October 2004.  21 June 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/nyregion/thecity/17colm.html?scp=1&sq=Fleeing+the+Killing+Fields%2C+but+Not+Escaping&st=nyt

Kim, Rebecca.  “Ethnic Differences in Academic Achievement between Vietnamese and Cambodian Children: Cultural and Structural Explanations.”  The Sociological Quarterly 43.2 (2002):  213-235.

Lewin, Tamar.  “Report Takes Aim at ‘Model Minority’ Stereotype of Asian-American Students.”  The New York Times.  10 June 2008 <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/education/10asians.html?scp=1&sq=%22model+minority%22&st=nyt>

“PTSD, Depression Epidemic Among Cambodian Immigrants.”  NIMH:  National Institute of Mental Health.  2 August 2005.  21 June 2008 <http://www.nimh.nih.gov/science-news/2005/ptsd-depression-epidemic-among-cambodian-immigrants.shtml>