I would like to explain by means of this article why I continue to refuse the popular usage of American-born Chinese or ABC, and have instead opted for Sino American. The term ABC is not only at odds with
reality, but also carries certain derogatory implications. Its misleading nature has served to exacerbate the existing social difficulties which Americans of Chinese descent have suffered on an ongoing basis.
A Large Proportion of So-Called ABCs Were Not Born in the United States
In nearly all cases where people use the term ABC, they include children who were born in China but taken to the United States at a young age, which was a very common practice over the last decades. This
violates the literal meaning of the term and suggests that the term is consciously being used as a form of derision. If the person who used the term stopped for a moment to consider its propriety — the sort of consideration
which is universal among people when they are in situations where they have a stake in being polite — the falsity of the label would long have dawned on them. It is not possible, by any stretch of interpretation, to
consider the birth of these child-immigrants as PRC citizens, and within the PRC's confines, as having been American in nature. The insistent use of this incorrect and sloppy label, even after it has been pointed out to the
speaker, can be interpreted only as an expression of contempt against its subjects. For this reason alone, future speakers should be expected to reform their usage.
The Term ABC Violates the Pattern Established by Other Such Terms
Given that America has been, to a large extent, a country of immigrants, it was natural that an idiomatic expression should emerge to facilitate discourse regarding the onrush of newly minted American
citizens, or in other words, immigrants: those who left their home country in pursuit of the American life. In almost every case, the term X-born Y has been employed to mean, "this person was a citizen of X at birth, but now, he
(or she) is a citizen of Y." For example, Peter Thiel is considered a German-born American. Elon Musk is a South African-born American. According to this model, a yellow child of Chinese descent who was born in America and has
never transferred his citizenship elsewhere should be considered an American-born American, as should his children in perpetuity. Writing in this late era, it is already transparent why the latter title has been denied to him, in
stark contrast to those young classmates of his whose parents had fled from Bosnia or Lebanon: it is because he is yellow, and has, by that token alone, inherited enough of a degree of rejection and alienation to trail him for
his entire life.
ABCs Are Not Really Chinese
The phrase American-born Chinese employs American-born as the modifier and Chinese as the noun. Thus, it implies that the subject is mainly a Chinese person, albeit, one who has undergone an incidental and
American birth. Even a basic review of the facts would invalidate this judgement. ABCs are, in fact, most distinctly American, from the legal, educational, and linguistic perspectives. To call these people Chinese is to imply
that people of the yellow race are Perpetual Foreigners. It also implies, to the speaker's detriment, that the speaker does not assign much importance to the law, to education, and to the English language, or else he would have
accorded precedence to those categories when referring to his subject. By this reasoning, it is also demonstrated that all those Americans who, in the past, have supported the notion of Perpetual Foreignership ought to be rightly
regarded as dismissive of education, and contemptuous of legal realities. This being their true nature, it falls upon people of the better sort to protest against their behavior. Of course, yellow Americans who perpetuate the
term ABC, of which there are many, are similarly guilty.
Chinese People Should Not Be Using the Term ABC
Upon leaving the United States and crossing the Pacific, one might be slightly disturbed upon discovering the following: the term ABC has unfortunately become popular, in fact ubiquitous, over in the PRC,
where it is used with a rather obvious tone of denigration, though the speakers may initially deny it. This is because the term ABC when used in the Chinese language is unquestionably a slang-term, as opposed to a term which is
suitable for formal contexts. The use of a slang-term to refer to a demographic is necessarily rude. This is not to mention, the use of English terms should not be necessary in the course of a Chinese-language conversation. Sad
to say, the people of China have a reason for this phenomenon. In their view, the more formal and respectful term "meijihuaren" (meaning a person of Chinese descent with American citizenship) should be reserved for the
first-generation Chinese Americans only, while the second and latter generations, being, in their eyes, somewhat contemptible, should be addressed using the more derogatory label. To me this seems slightly improper, as it was the
first generation which deliberately abandoned their country — if anyone deserves sympathy, it ought to be the children who had no choice in the matter. In any case, the use of slang is unbecoming of any discussion which
aims to be sober and logical. It is therefore my wish that Chinese people would kindly reconsider their choice of words down the road.
Conclusion
Overall, the term American-born Chinese has been observed to be widely employed in the following contexts: (1) by first-generation Americans of Chinese descent wishing to deride the second generation,
including their own children; (2) by second-generation Americans of Chinese descent who practice self-denigration in the hope that this will cause others to like them more, which is sadly a widespread phenomenon of its own; (3)
by Americans in general, mainly those who live in areas with large numbers of East Asian immigrants; and (4) by citizens of China, many of whom openly profess disdain for second-generation Americans of Chinese descent, while not
bearing a grudge at all against the first generation, this amnesty being given despite that the larger part of members of the first generation actively hold Chinese society in contempt and proudly flaunt their American
citizenship.
The United States has unfortunately been, for a long time, a country where people are categorized by their racial origin first and foremost. Before the 1970s, the European minorities such as the Irish
Americans, Italian Americans, and Polish Americans would be frequently referred to as simply Irish, Italian, and Polish, with scarce recognition given to their American upbringing and education. In the present day, people of
European origin no longer encounter this sort of problem, but it persists for those of other minorities. But as always, the aim of Sino American Reunion is not to encourage Americans of Chinese descent to engage in political
agitation and to contend with the other racial groups of the United States for an increased share of influence. Rather, it is to remind them that returning to East Asia is still an option. Even if they do not fit in perfectly in
East Asia, if they marry a citizen and have children, the children can avoid ever having to contend with the strain of being a stranger to their civilization, least of all an unwelcome stranger in an era of ongoing terrorism and
school-shootings. As for whether a more concise term than "American of Chinese descent" should exist for our demographic, I believe that the term Chinese American is acceptable, and indeed it is already being used in numerous
contexts. However, I wish to advance my preference for the term Sino American for the following reasons: not only is it shorter to write, but also, the pattern is analogous to the existing terms Anglo-American and Mesoamerican.
The promotion of the term Sino American, along with Sino Canadian, Sino Australian, and so forth, also forces people to reduce their usage of the word Chinese in a racial context, and to start reconsidering the accomplishments
and merits of the newly resurgent Chinese state.
Sino Americans, as it stands, are forced to contend with an inconvenient and depraved social standing: in the PRC, they are viewed as possessing neither the advantages of true Americans nor of Chinese citizens,
while in America, they suffer from resentment, from exceedingly unflattering stereotypes, from the glass ceiling, and from the notion of Perpetual Foreignership. At the very least, we need to ask for our share of civility when
dealing with both of these privileged, mainstream demographics. The fact that the very term used to designate us is so flawed, as demonstrated above, reflects the truth that Sino Americans are oppressed on a daily basis by a web
of abuses and a fractal of conceits. This added semantic burden is simply too much to bear in light of our patient perseverances, and we have already endured it for too long.