Framing Solutions for the Racialization of Asian Americans

How does one begin to imagine solutions to the racism that is evident towards the Asian people who reside in America? Does one follow the example set by the many black activist groups that have fought for their rights throughout the past century, or is there some other method that may be employed to solve this problem? Though following their example may seem the logical course of action, the circumstances for the “Asians” in the United States are far different than those other minorities in this nation.

The racial problems that Asians face are less known and are complex; on the surface level, there does not appear to be any problems, but further investigation reveals an excess of unforeseen troubles that intimidate many of those who would wish to find a solution. The depth of the problem is overwhelming. To begin looking for a solution to the oppression of Asians in the United States, one must first define “Asian”. It is necessary to understand whom one is looking to fix a problem for, before setting out to find a solution to that problem. To do so in itself is a great challenge, but is only the first hurdle toward finding a solution.

The context in which racism is discussed is typically at the individual level however, one must also question the basis of this racism: the structure upon which this racism is built. This structure, what Omi and Winant have called “racial formation” is a “racial order… equilibrated by the state – encoded in law, organized through policy-making, and enforced by a repressive apparatus”. This racial order has been imposed on the Asian people by the government through immigration and naturalization laws targeting Asian people in the past and different characterizations of Asian people.

Racial formation of Asians in America has been rather underhanded in this country however. The Asian people of this country have been continuously categorized as “diverse, racialized, ethnic groups, rather than a single racialized category,” (20 Lowe). This ingenious method helps the label Asians as the other in the United States, without bringing the idea of race to the table. This racialization serves only one purpose for the United States: to feed the U.S. economic machine. The repressive apparatus used to enforce the racial formation in this case becomes capitalism. In the U.S.’s quest to increase its economic influence on the world, the Asian people become the ideal source of capital to exploit. The capital present in the Asian people is easily exploitable because of the cultural values deeply held by the Asian people. Culturally ingrained in the Asian people are the Confucian values, that one should work hard and persevere, and that all will be well.

However, more significant than the Asians willingness to comply with the wishes of American capitalism, is the racism between different Asian peoples. With the cultural diversity of the Asian population comes an ingrained sense of superiority with respect to the other Asian cultures within the Asian community. With this inter-racial-racism, a united front against the racialization of the Asian people becomes impossible. Without this united front, no progress can be made with the racialization of the Asian people.

When searching for a solution for the racialization of Asian people, one must take into account the inherent racialization among the different peoples of the Asian culture. People do not realize the inherent racism among the numerous Asian countries. The United States has ingeniously used this to its advantage by isolating the different Asian cultures and pitting them against each other in the capitalistic society that is America. That the different Asian cultures are willing to sell out the others of their own race (the Asian race), adds to the exploitability of the Asian people.

With all this said, how is it possible then, to stop the racialization of the Asian people? It seems as if traditional Asian cultures work against the Asian people; to conform to be Asian makes racialization an easy answer to the capitalistic needs of America. To begin to fix the racialization of Asians one must first instruct these people of the wrongs that come with the inter-racial tension. Because capitalism is something that will not go away anytime soon (the source of the racialization of Asian people), to fix the problem with racializatoin of Asians, the Asian people must discard the racism amongst themselves and unite and fight the oppression. As it stands, the Asian community only allow for prolonged exploitation of themselves.

*note: the ideas presented in this post are a bit incomplete. I encourage any debate of this, and will answer any question regarding my viewpoint.

the 'second generation experience'

I felt that Okada’s No-No Boy was an incredible novel that aptly and brilliantly dealt with many of the issues that the Nissei went through during and especially after WWII, which are issues that can consistently be sent throughout the ‘Asian American experience’. In particular, he deals with their issues of identity, nationality, ancestry, among other struggles. In this way, he provides an archetypal experience of a second generation person, through his depiction of Ichiro, a Nissei.

While one cannot claim an all-encompassing homogeneous second-generation experience, Okada nonetheless deals with many issues that children of immigrants often must negotiate with. These principally includes the struggle between his American nationality and his Japanese heritage (heavily enforced by his overbearing mother), his Otherness as a nonwhite in the United States while struggling to define himself and his place in the United States, and the intertwining of these struggles into his identity struggle. Ichiro’s own issues in the process of his Americanization, however, constantly puts him at odds with his immigrant parents, creating a widening gap that even at the end, seems to have very little chance of ever closing. In fact, Ichiro appears to blame his mother for most of these struggles, and sees her as the reason for his unbearable shame. Indeed, by never acclimating to her home of numerous years in America, Mrs. Yamada is the cliché immigrant parent. She is both overbearing in her urges for her sons to succeed (the reason many for many to immigrate), as well as unyielding in her allegiance to the country she left behind. This puts her constantly in a struggle with her sons as they can’t help but assimilate in such a multicultural city. However, this assimilation is never complete for Ichiro and his fellow immigrants of color, and they are forced to the marginalized outskirts of society. For Ichiro and other Nissei, this is compounded by WWII and the U.S.’s instantaneous hatred of all things Japanese. They are forced to chose between the country they were born in but are not accepted in, and the almost unreal country of their parents, which although they would never see, they nonetheless were raised within its culture and values.

The hardest struggle for second generation Americans of color is often the intertwined problem of on the one hand, assimilation to the country thus driving the children away from their immigrant parents, and on the other, the enduring stigma as the Other regardless of their shared legality as U.S. citizens. These common second-generation experiences are highlighted by the fact that Okada focuses on the Nissei during the 1940s, where racial tensions and hatred directed at the Japanese heightened these issues. The resulting socialization of hating anything Japanese related thusly led to a kind of self-hate in Ichiro, and a disavowal and disassociation of many other Nissei to Japan, their culture, and even their own parents. This same socialization and the war led to a division between Nissei, with those who attempted to fully embrace their Americanization by shedding all aspects of being Japanese/Japanese American and others that clung to their Japanese heritage or some that simply became the hyphenated Japanese-American. This division becomes a crevasse with the enlistment and draft of Japanese-Americans into the U.S. Army.

Okada does not just resonate with contemporary immigration and second-generation experiences, but with current Asian American theorists as well. While trying to come to terms with his simultaneity as a Nikkei and as an American, Ichiro thinks of how “… it is not enough to be American only in the eyes of the law”. Here Okada demonstrates plainly what Lisa Lowe argues in her chapter entitled ‘Immigration, Citizenship, Racialization: Asian American Critique’, that is, the racialized formation of ‘citizenship’. Despite Ichiro and the other Nissei being legal citizens of the United States, due to the racialization of Asians, they are rather continually seen as foreigners, and the “Other”. The idea of the Nissei holding rights is clearly a contemptible thought, as their civil liberties are swept under the door and the Japanese/Japanese Americans are sent to interment camps. Moreover, further in line with Lowe’s arguments, the memory of this great injustice remains permanently embedded in the U.S. because of the lasting presence of Japanese-Americans, despite the United States’ attempt to forget.

No-No Boy and Perpetual Foreignness

Kim Fong

As briefly discussed in class this past Thursday, the racism most prevalent in No-No Boy existed within the Japanese community. Within the Japanese American community, as presented in this novel, the no-no boys were subjected to discrimination and were looked down on by the other members of the community who identified as more American and/or served in the war. This presentation of racism is not one that immediately comes to mind when discussing the issue. In a similar vein, I felt that another Asian American issue that emerged was the concept of the “perpetual foreigner,” though not necessarily in the traditional sense.

Traditionally, this concept is based on the idea that, in the dominant culture of America, Asian Americans are often thought to have recently immigrated to the United States. This mindset serves as an obstacle for American citizens of Asian descent—because of how they looked, they were often not considered to be an American citizen. Because they were not automatically considered to be citizens in the eyes of other Americans, Japanese Americans had to work harder to be accepted and to prove themselves. As one no-no boy stated: “Maybe I look Japanese and my father and mother and brothers and sisters look Japanese, but we’re better Americans than the regular ones because that’s the way it has to be when one looks Japanese but is a really good American” (Okada, 33). This individual realized that he had to work harder to be American than others, such as European Americans, who already “looked American.”

The concept of the “perpetual foreigner” was also directly addressed in Ichiro’s memories of standing before a judge and refusing to serve in the military. He remembers one of the arguments in which the Japanese individual on trial asked, “how about the Germans and Italians that must be just as questionable as the Japanese or we wouldn’t be fighting Germany and Italy?” (Okada, 31). One of the differences that can be seen between the Japanese and the Germans and the Italians was that Japanese looked different—they looked foreign.

However, the idea of the perpetual foreigner did not only apply to how the United States government viewed those of Asian descent. In No-No Boy, Ichiro felt like a perpetual foreigner, even in his hometown, surrounded by the community in which he grew up. Although the story began when Ichiro returned home to his family, he still “felt like an intruder in a world to which he had no claim” (Okada, 1). His foreignness was further exacerbated when his father gave him directions to the store with a letter in which “[t]he Japanese characters, written simply so that he could read them, covered pages of directions as if he were a foreigner coming to the city for the first time” (Okada, 6). These small indications of not belonging further develop Ichiro’s crisis of identity. Because he saw himself as neither wholly Japanese nor wholly American, Ichiro did not feel as if he belonged to any community. If he could not feel comfortable when surrounded by people he grew up with, how then, would he fit be perceived by other non-Japanese Americans?

As pointed out by E. San Juan, “[p]olitical demagoguery in times of economic crisis can shift the target of scapegoating onto the Japanese, the Korean, or any Asian and thus reactivate the sedimented persona of the recalcitrant, non-English-speaking, shifty-eyed foreigner in our midst” (San Juan, 46). This seems to explain how the “perpetual foreigner” would be an easy target as a scapegoat in the dominant American culture. However, why would the no-no boys be a scapegoat in the Japanese American community? Perhaps they are a reminder to other Japanese Americans of the reason for internment. Or perhaps they serve as a point of comparison that other Japanese Americans could use to further solidify their belongingness in American culture.

No-No Identity

Lowe, "Immigrant Acts"

Hey everyone,

So since we didn't get to finish summarizing the article today, I just wanted to open up a forum where we can ask questions and think about it together in terms of the article. Please feel free to post a reply if there are sections where you aren't sure what Lowe's getting at, ideas that you're struggling with, or questions that you have upon reflecting on Lowe's argument.

When asking a question, be sure to include a few sentences about what you think Lowe's arguing. That way, we all can get a sense of your train of thought and consider the direction you think Lowe's taking.

My favorite part about reading cultural theory like Lowe's "Immigrant Acts" is that once you wrestle with the ideas and get a better sense of what the writer is arguing, the ideas really begin to stick - you'll probably get a few topics in your head that you'll want to pursue for your final paper.

- D

Cultural and Ideological Conflict

I really enjoyed reading Milton Murayama’s All I Asking For Is My Body, particularly Part III, the section from which the book takes its title. What most intrigued me was the ideological conflict that I saw as absolutely central to the book—that is, the clash between American and Japanese cultural values. In my American Lit (1865-present) class, we have discussed at length the classic American values of freedom, liberty, rugged individualism, self-creation, and mobility—social, physical, and economic. In Murayama’s novel, Mr. Snook expresses this American liberalism and individualism, and his conversations with his Japanese students reflect the lack of understanding between the two viewpoints. When asked what else is out there besides making money, Mr. Snook replies, “What about fresh air and freedom for the individual? What about standing on your own feet? What about thinking for yourself, using your own noodle?” (Murayama 34). His student, Tubby, responds by asking, “What’s freedom?” (Murayama 34). Because Japanese cultural values are largely dependent on rank, order, and hierarchy, they are inherently in conflict with those American values expressed by Mr. Snook and, throughout the book, by Tosh. The Oyama family embodies Japanese cultural values, particularly filial piety; the family itself revolves around a hierarchical system in which the parents deserve unquestioned respect and possess absolute authority. Each person has his or her rank within this family unit—for example, the “number one son.” This idea of a proper order or rank extends beyond the family into the real world; with regard to the plantation system, Tubby declares, “It teach everybody to know his place. It make everything run smooth” (Murayama 34). Mr. Oyama also explains, “We should know our place and not anger them. That’s the only way we’ll gain their respect” (Murayama 37). Knowing one’s proper place in the social and economic hierarchy is something valued and respected by the Japanese in a way that seems entirely incompatible with the American idea of social and economic mobility—in other words, the American dream.

My own reaction to the Japanese cultural values based on proper rank and hierarchy demonstrates the lack of comprehension between these values and the typical American ideals. I found it incredible that Mr. and Mrs. Oyama were perfectly willing to saddle their sons with the responsibility of paying back a $6,000 debt. Their sense of a child’s obligation to his parents extended so far as to make it okay to sacrifice their children’s educations. Coming from an American cultural perspective where it often seems that parents are more obligated to their children than vice versa, I found this somewhat shocking.

The ideological/cultural clash between Japanese and American values is truly embodied in the character of Tosh. He is caught between his old world, Japan, and his new world, America. While he clearly sees himself as American and prescribes to the set of classic American values, he is forced by his parents to abide by Japanese cultural standards and morals. He is caught between two ideologies, two cultures, two worlds. This conflict, however, is not entirely individual; rather, it is systemic (or institutional/structural, to use terms we have discussed in class). Tosh’s entrapment between two cultures and two sets of values is not the fault of any individual or individuals. Instead, it is the result of something structural or systemic. When discussing his frustration with his father, Tosh explains, “It’s not all his fault. That’s the Japanese and Confucian system” (Murayama 48). We have discussed in class the way in which racism is often structural or institutional as opposed to something personal or individual, and it seems that this same thinking can be applied to cultural values as well—they are systemic instead of individual, and therefore the blame or fault cannot be entirely placed upon the shoulders of any one person.

This cultural/ideological conflict also seems to possess a large generational component. Mr. and Mrs. Oyama spent their youth in Japan and have therefore been socialized to Japanese culture and values, but Tosh has grown up in America, where he has clearly been socialized to accept American values. I read a book for a politics class last semester called Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration, and I found myself applying to Murayama’s book a lot of what I learned in that book about the differences that develop between various immigrant generations (with respect to ethnic enclaves, language adoption, social customs/values, etc.). It does seem that the most difficult immigrant generation is Tosh’s, the second generation immigrant born in the new country yet growing up in a household that prescribes to cultural values of another country. Can second generation immigrants like Tosh embrace two cultures or sets of values at once? Is there a way for Tosh to reconcile his Japanese heritage and his American culture? Tosh himself would likely say no—he asks his father to cancel his Japanese citizenship and declares, “We have to cut off all our ties with Japan and become American” (Murayama 37).

I found a few more connections between Murayama’s book and other texts we have read for class. The lack of panethnicity on the plantation echoes much of what E. San Juan Jr. writes of in Historicizing the Space of Asian America. Even though both are Asian, the Japanese and Filipino plantation workers see absolutely no connection between themselves and seem to possess entirely different cultures and values (though much of what we hear from the characters is racially prejudiced). Indeed, in the words of Roger Daniels as quoted by San Juan Jr., “The conglomerate image of Asian Americans is an illusion” (San Juan Jr. 45). I also noticed a connection between Murayama’s novel and Michael Omi and Howard Winant’s Racial Formation in the United States. Mr. Snook wonders how the plantation workers could possibly be happy with their place in society: “I always thought everybody low on the pecking order hated it. Not so. Not you” (Murayama 33). Mr. Snook’s realization echoes Omi and Winant’s discussion of how hegemony requires, to a certain degree, the consent of the exploited: “Although rule can be obtained by force, it cannot be secured and maintained, especially in modern society, without the element of consent” (Omi & Winant 67).

Welcome!

Hello folks! Welcome to the class blog for Asian American Lit spring 2008 at the Claremont Colleges. Start posting anytime....
BTW I recently found out that I am in complete ignorance about a look/style/way of life/philosophy/aesthetic system called Emo. If you'd care to share please do. And why the Ramones?