One of my favorite programs to watch is the ABC television show, "What Would You Do?" hosted by John Quiñones on ABC and I must say that I never fail to be amazed and inspired by the countless acts of selflessness and humanity displayed by the ordinary citizens of this nation. For those not familiar with the program, it is a hidden camera show which presents a broad range of social experiments and conflicts, some of which can be quite controversial, in a public setting to see what people’s reactions will be and whether or not they will intervene. From scenarios such as domestic violence, to racial prejudice, to homosexuality, to even attempted kidnapping, no scenario has ever been too controversial for the producers of this show. The actors have been well-trained to accurately carry out these experiments in a realistic way and do them justice. This rigorous training allows them to show genuine actions and reactions and have sparked countless discussions amongst viewers.

After years of being an avid viewer of this program, I was struck deeply on a personal level by one scenario in particular which aired a couple of years ago in which a Hispanic mother and daughter go out to eat at a restaurant in Texas. The mother, a non-English speaker, has her daughter read and translate a menu for her in Spanish, causing a stir for one ignorant customer who proceeded to berate them for being “Unamerican” and telling them to “leave my country.” As the scenario is played out time after time, countless people come to the aid of the child and her mother, shunning the ignorant customer and putting him in his place.

Something about this scenario made me uneasy and I had to watch it a couple of times to pinpoint the source of my discomfort: Everyone who defended the mother and child would constantly reiterate to the customer that they were just as “American” as he was, that they were all Americans, and that nothing would negate or change that fact. What troubled me was that what other customers emphasized upon in this heinous situation was the man’s statement that they were not American, rather than that two human beings were facing unprovoked bigotry. Now in no way am I downplaying the actions of the people in this scenario, nor anyone who has ever stood up for someone facing racial prejudice, but I am saying that you don’t have to affiliate yourself with someone in order to defend them. The first thing that the supporters would jump on is that they were Americans as well, and this is problematic for me because arguing that someone is an American is the last thing I would say in defense of someone facing racial prejudice. Because let us say for the sake of argument that they were not “American”... does that automatically mean that it is less prudent and less disgraceful to speak to them this way? I know that these customers had the best of intentions when they took action against this intolerant individual, but their execution was problematic. They were defending the contemptible attack of being a foreigner rather than the basic human rights each individual is entitled to. They failed to see that the main problem in this scenario was not that this man was calling them “unamerican”, but the fact that he shamelessly displayed his utter disregard for human emotion and basic manners. At the end of the day, It shouldn’t matter if they were American or not because they were human beings first and foremost and under no circumstances is it acceptable to treat a fellow human being in that manner.

Unfortunately, few minorities are free from the injustices of such narrow-minded individuals. Many Muslims, for example, face discrimination and hate crimes for their religious affiliation. Common remarks that Muslims might hear include variations of phrases such as “This is America, dress like an American” and “Go back to your country” and “You’re not an American.” And usually when people come to the defense of these individuals their first instinct is to argue the fact that this person is just as American as everyone else and that no one has the right to question that, rather than point out that American or not, no human should be blacklisted or disrespected this way and nothing justifies someone being subjugated to accusations regarding their affinity or identity.

An important question to address here is why do we feel the need to use this argument when defending victims of such intolerance. I feel that there are a couple of reasons: First of all, it is much easier to make an argument for someone being as patriotic an American as the next person than it is for us to address the issue of violating our human rights and dignity. Second, people find it easier to empathize with someone if they consider that person to be in the same group as they are. Meaning that putting themselves in the same category means that they have the same affinity, which makes their backgrounds irrelevant. If we acknowledge the differences then it makes it much more difficult to make the argument that they are “American” because of the strong belief that being an American means possessing certain characteristics that not everyone has. It draws from the concept that everyone is the same and that all our differences are insignificant when it comes to being a patriotic citizen. When supporting one another, we have a desire to identify with them in order to understand them and in order to speak up for them, rather than highlighting those differences and defending them.

I’m not going to get into the debate about what it means to be an American, or what qualifies you to be an American, but I will say this: Not everyone living in America consider themselves to be an American, whether they are citizens are not, and believe it or not that is okay; not only because we have no business questioning someone’s identity but because in order to be part of a community, in order to be a valuable person, being an American is not a prerequisite. Therefore a person does not have to be American in order to be entitled for defense against such intolerance. It is our duty as a society to reject these biases and help each other move forward and accept everyone despite their differences. After all, these differences are what make us unique, and that is something that we should never take away from someone just to make it easier for us to support them.

So when we speak up against the animosity and bigotry that people in these circumstances face, we should not feel the need to incorporate their identities with ours in order to relate to them. Instead we should discourage conversations about their identities and advocate for their rights to be treated with the same decency and compassion as everyone else. The core of our argument should focus not on what their affiliation is, but why it even matters. We should feel the need to advocate for them not as Americans, but as individuals.

For those of you who have not seen this scenario, here it is: