An "Ethnic" Drumstick

I recently saw an ad from KFC advertising "A Taste of Asia". The ad consisted of a picture of a rather spicy-looking drumstick next to a fortune cookie held up by chopsticks.

Now, while I am sure that deep-fried drumsticks are a staple of any traditional "Asian" diet, I nevertheless remain perplexed as to the embodiment of an entire continent within an American fast-food meal. In fact, I also find myself perplexed by the homogenization of close to 2/3rds of the world's population, speaking 2,269 languages, in greater than 50 countries into one defined "ethnicity" of "Asian".

This concept of lumping multiple diverse groups of people under the umbrella term "ethnic" has long intrigued me. Particularly since most people who look at me take liberties to define me as "ethnic". Ethnic people, ethnic food, ethnic dress, ethnic festivals, and ethnic markets - it's the stuff that makes Torontonians proud of their city. The "ethnic" label is naively applied by mainstream folks to anyone they deem as being the "exotic other" - and yet what is it that makes all these "other" people similar enough to one another that they can be lumped under the same heading?

The reality is that I have no clue what "ethnic" means. I'm considered "ethnic", as are the Chinese, the Africans, the Italians, and the Latin Americans, to name a few. I cannot think of anything that I have more in common with any of those groups than I do with the rest of Canada's "non-ethnic" population - so why do I get lumped in with one group rather than the other?

The official definition of "ethnicity" is that of a group of people who identify with one another on the basis of a presumed or real shared ancestry. By this definition, we all have an ethnicity, and we are all "ethnic". However, in colloquial use in Canada, the term is usually used to identify those who are somehow different from the majority. In our case, it refers to those not from Anglosaxon ancestry.

Thus it combines us under a singular heading based what sets us apart from others, rather than what we "ethnics" actually have in common with one another. Such casual use of this rather benign word, may appear at first glance to be so non-politically laden that one might question what purpose a discussion such as this may even have.

However, when the media uses the term "ethnic" to describe who was responsible for a crime, for a gang shooting, for a drug deal (how often have we heard the terms "ethnic-related violence", "ethnic gang-wars", etc.) - this issue suddenly emerges as one of immense importance and gravity. The use of the term "ethnic" in these news reports followed by the use of the term "ethnic" to describe the newest Indian restaurant in town leads to an inevitable linking in our minds between people who may actually have nothing in common aside from the fact that both are non-Anglosaxons!

The utility of this term in our multicultural society is questionable at best. Even when we narrow our umbrella to just one continent "Asia" - the utility of such immensely broad labels is minimal. It communicates very little, and opens the door for promoting the homogenization of our perception of everyone "other".

Who knew a drumstick could be so political?