1,2, or 3?

During this weeks tutorial on 'Whiteness' we discussed the 3 approaches to race representations that TV sitcoms usually take:
1. Assimilation/invisibility
2. Pluralism ('separate but equal')
3. Multiculturalism/diversity
The first two having a negative effect in terms of representation and the last being... the closest thing to a positive effect.

I found this a bit difficult to process during class, probably because I have accepted all three unquestioned until 210. In fact, I remember a time when I just wanted so badly for movies and TV shows to represent other ethnicities as the same (as white/western/normal). I should explain that I'm half Chinese, a bit Scottish and a bit Welsh - 3rd generation on all counts and I've grown up with very few ties to Chinese culture. Actually, with few ties to Scottish or Welsh culture too... Maybe this is proof of the 'white and non-whites' ideology? - No one asks me if I speak celtic or if I've been "back" to Britain. Sometimes it feels like my white half is perceived as more kiwi than my Chinese side, but that's a whole different post really.

What I would like to bring up is that, for a lot of New Zealanders, especially 'non-white' NZers, number one and two may not be great for the representation of "Others" but there's a certain wish-fulfillment going on there. Artz argues that interracial buddy films are pleasing to African-American audiences because they give the black buddy character empowerment, respect and acceptance within/despite his 'typical black' identity. I know that it it's within a white dominance ideology but that doesn't take away the value that it has for that community. But as I write this I realise... the reason number one and two are bad is because they perpetuate the idea that the 'problem' of race is solved through assimilation or pluralism...

I'm an assimilated, NZ born, multicultural citizen and I wouldn't have it any other way but, writing this, I think I'm having trouble grappling with the idea that assimilation is not all positive.