(This was the only way i could figure out how to post- ill work on it for next time!)
While I was not particularly impressed with John Okada’s literary style, I did appreciate the social and political commentary that is present in his novel No-No Boy. Okada introduces the consequences of unjustified and flagrant racism on individuals and the larger society that it involves. Okada effectively portrays racism by setting the protagonist as a Nisei no-no boy- a group that was discriminated by other races as well as within its own. Through Okada’s extensive use of internal monologues I was able to follow Ichiro’s process of self-hate as well as sympathize with his struggle in the process of deconstructing the identity that has already been prescribed by the dominant American society while he tries to define himself through his own terms. In Ichiro’s case, identity is closely linked to notions of race and nation. In a nation that is heavily divided by race and generation and in a time when thousands of people were interned based solely on race, a significant part of identity derives from racial identification. However, separating these two aspects is difficult in Ichiro’s situation because he is simultaneously rejecting the negative aspects of his Japanese heritage while attempting to conform to a society that views him as “foreigner” and an enemy. By dissociating from his ethnic culture he attempts to prove to others that he is indeed an American, despite his refusal to enlist in the army. Early in the novel, Ichiro places most of his blame on his mother whom he says “opened my mouth and made my lips move to sound the words which got me two ears in prison and an emptiness that is more empty and frightening than the caverns of hell” (Okada 12). His sentiments manifest itself through his interactions with his family. Ichiro criticizes his mother’s unreasonable and stubborn sense of Japanese nationalism and often resorts to violent behavior towards his parents. It is not until later that Ichiro and other characters, such as Emi and Mr. Carrick, suggest that Japanese Americans are actually victimized by the structures of society. Mr. Carrick, a white American tells Ichiro “the government made a big mistake” (150). By using the voices of Emi and Mr. Carrick, Okada offers a different insight immediately following WWII. The idea of national culture is pervasive throughout Okada’s novel. Ichiro, as well as other Nisei, struggle with the concept of what it is to be an American. For minority Americans, the combination of their heritage with their American citizenship further complicates the pervading search for identity. Ichiro says to himself that when he was a boy “it was all right then to be Japanese and feel and think all the things that Japanese do even if we lived in America. Then there came a time when I was only half Japanese because one is not born in America and raised in America and taught in America and one does not speak and wear and drink and smoke and play and fight and see and hear in America among Americans in American streets and houses without becoming American and loving it” (Okada 16). Ichiro never believes that he is Japanese enough or American enough. On a similar line, Lisa Lowe writes that racism derives from structural forces, regardless of an individual’s citizenship status. Although Asian Americans are embedded within the nation, they are also, at the same time, outside the system. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese-Americans had to work harder to prove their loyalty to America. I thought it was also interesting that when No-No Boy was first published, it was ill received by the general public. Actually, Okada passed away thinking that Japanese-Americans had rejected his work. This was probably due to the era in which it was published- during the Cold War there was increased U.S. nationalism. During a period that celebrated being American, there was a reluctance to recognize and admit the vast racial division within U.S. society. Lisa Lowe also writes that in the history of Asian-American immigration, history largely forgets the struggles of the immigrant. Bringing this idea back to the twenty-first century, is this pattern of “forgetting” still exist today?
I also wanted to comment on the theme of identity that Okada uses throughout the book. Reading No-No Boy made me think of the parallel between the issue of Japanese and Jewish identity during WWII and the French Revolution respectively. Both people were forced to question and affirm their national allegiance in order to gain respect from the country in which they lived. In the late 18th century and early 19th century, after extensive debates as to whether Jews and other minority groups could be granted rights as full citizens, Western European countries began granting citizenship to their Jewish nationals. Similarly, during WWII, the US began to question the Japanese allegiance and this book shows that many people were forced to reaffirm their allegiance by enlisting in the US army. Just as Jews were expected to have primary allegiance to the country in which they were living and adopt the national culture as their own, the US had similar expectations of the Japanese Americans.
By citing these two similar cases, I wish to point out the struggle that Ichiro was going through in terms of forming his allegiance to a particular nation. His parents pressuring him to associate with Japan and his peers influencing him to associate with America proved for a difficult and identity straining situation. Just as the Jews had to prove that their primary allegiance was to the nation in which they lived, characters in No-No Boy were pressured to prove that they were not spying for the Japanese. For example, Taro tried so hard to prove that he was a true American and ultimately enlisted in the US Army. If he was willing to fight for America, and die for American, then reason says that he must identify solely with America. The problem I see with the WWII era was that everyone was suspicious and no act could entirely erase the ‘baggage’ that one’s race may or may not have carried. Even if Ichiro had enlisted in the army, I don’t think that he would be free of the suspicious glares that he so often received. Okada writes, “the answer is that there is no in. Maybe the whole damned country is pushing and shoving and screaming to get into someplace that doesn’t exist, because they don’t know that the outside could be the inside…” (160). Okada raises the question of whether trying so hard to ‘fit in’ is really worth it. In end the end, will America allow Taro to truly feel a part of the American community? He is fighting for America, but I question, and I think that Ichiro questions, whether his peers will be accepted as fully ‘American.’
The main theme in Okada’s novel involves the identity crisis that Ichiro experiences due to the torn national identities that he tries to identify with. The dilemma of identifying and choosing between his Japanese roots and his current American society continue. Also, the hostile and unwelcoming reception from both sides keeps Ichiro guessing and teetering between the two. In addition to the main components of the novel certain parts and scenes were infused with the different side aspects of the problems of forming a Japanese American identity and being accepted in the U.S. One interesting scene portrayed the violent tension between two minority groups not yet accepted in the U.S. The Japanese-Americans and the African-Americans in the U.S. at this time were both undergoing extreme discrimination and segregation by white America.
Japanese-Americans were experiencing the effects of the war between their homeland and their new home in the form of internment camps, criticism and being subjugated to the U.S. majority that doubted them and questioned their loyalties. African-Americans were experiencing the Jim Crow laws and segregation. Yet these two nations did not unite based on their similarities but reinforced their differences. This is not abnormal. Throughout history it seems to be more common for minorities to remain disbanded against the oppressive majority than uniting. It always seems surprising when two different peoples actually do join and fight together for one another.
In Okada’s novel one scene displays the tension and prejudice between the Japanese-Americans and African-Americans. “He walked past the pool parlor, picking his way gingerly among the Negroes, of whom there had been only a few at one time and of whom there seemed to be nothing but now. They were smoking and shouting and cussing and carousing and the sidewalk was slimy with their spittle,” (Okada, 5). The very description from Ichiro’s Japanese-American impression is disgust toward these people. “‘Jap!’ His pace quickened automatically, but curiosity or fear or indignation or whatever it was made him glance back at the white teeth framed in a leering dark brown that was almost black. ‘Go back to Tokyo, boy.’ Persecution in the drawl of the persecuted,” (Okada, 5). That last sentence says it all about how discrimination is continued by those discriminated against. His response to the African-Americans discrimination was answered through a reflection of the discrimination. “Friggin’ niggers, he uttered savagely to himself and from the same place deep down inside where tolerance for the Negroes and the Jews and the Mexicans and the Chinese and the too short and too fat and too ugly abided because he was Japanese and knew what it was like better than did those who were white and average and middle class and good Democrats or liberal Republicans, the hate which was unrelenting and terrifying seethed up,” (Okada, 6).
This division is also seen in All I asking for is my body and the Japanese and the Filipinos are both subjugated to the oppressive plantation system yet they would not unite to overthrow it. On the other hand, when one group attempted to rise against the system, the other group would take advantage and take all the jobs that the other group had left when going on strike. By not helping one another, it hurts them both when they try to confront the oppressor on alone. Another scene that reminds me of this is the story “Wilshire Bus.” The woman on the bus is witnessing the blatant discrimination of an Asian-American of another ethnicity and keeps quiet so as not to direct attention upon herself. “Esther herself, while believing herself properly annoyed with the speaker and sorry for the old couple, felt quite detached. She found herself wondering whether the man meant her in his exclusion order or whether she was identifiably Japanese. Of course, he was not sober enough to be interested in such fine distinctions, but it did matter, she decided, because she was Japanese, not Chinese, and therefore in the present case immune. Then she was startled to realize that what she was actually doing was gloating over the fact that the drunken man had specified the Chinese as unwanted,” (Yamamoto, 36). This is a normal/common reaction for many. The white man who stands up and announces that not all are like that blatantly discriminatory man did the same thing by keeping quiet. Compassion for the discriminated/persecuted is irrelevant in the face of one’s own vulnerability. It is a natural reaction when self-preservation beats the desire to save another.
It seems that discrimination is prevalent at all levels of class and oppression. It almost seems that the minority going through less of a horrible time than the other feels contempt for them because they are more oppressed than them at the moment. It is a constant power struggle; who is the lowest at this point in time and who can feel a moment of power over another. This may be completely wrong, but it is interesting to see. It may not seem significant that they do not help each other, perhaps because they believe that since no one has helped them they are not going to extend their hand for any one, but it may seem normal since it has happened time and again. How effective would it be if they were not divided and helped one another?
White America contributes to this division, but another interesting string for this would also be to investigate if the institution of white America contributes to the division purposely or sub-consciously and how is it done through the individual and the system. “Divided we fall,” is this used in America to keep minorities under discriminatory powers? And how does one combat this? Once again there is the futile feeling of attempting to take down an entire nationwide system or the great task of combating through individuals across the nation. I think there is hope in the individual effort, though. Through education on how to break down stereotypes and calling for a nationwide change of perception, there are many ways one could go about it, but perhaps change could happen using this avenue.
4 comments:
(This was the only way i could figure out how to post- ill work on it for next time!)
While I was not particularly impressed with John Okada’s literary style, I did appreciate the social and political commentary that is present in his novel No-No Boy. Okada introduces the consequences of unjustified and flagrant racism on individuals and the larger society that it involves. Okada effectively portrays racism by setting the protagonist as a Nisei no-no boy- a group that was discriminated by other races as well as within its own. Through Okada’s extensive use of internal monologues I was able to follow Ichiro’s process of self-hate as well as sympathize with his struggle in the process of deconstructing the identity that has already been prescribed by the dominant American society while he tries to define himself through his own terms.
In Ichiro’s case, identity is closely linked to notions of race and nation. In a nation that is heavily divided by race and generation and in a time when thousands of people were interned based solely on race, a significant part of identity derives from racial identification. However, separating these two aspects is difficult in Ichiro’s situation because he is simultaneously rejecting the negative aspects of his Japanese heritage while attempting to conform to a society that views him as “foreigner” and an enemy. By dissociating from his ethnic culture he attempts to prove to others that he is indeed an American, despite his refusal to enlist in the army. Early in the novel, Ichiro places most of his blame on his mother whom he says “opened my mouth and made my lips move to sound the words which got me two ears in prison and an emptiness that is more empty and frightening than the caverns of hell” (Okada 12). His sentiments manifest itself through his interactions with his family. Ichiro criticizes his mother’s unreasonable and stubborn sense of Japanese nationalism and often resorts to violent behavior towards his parents. It is not until later that Ichiro and other characters, such as Emi and Mr. Carrick, suggest that Japanese Americans are actually victimized by the structures of society. Mr. Carrick, a white American tells Ichiro “the government made a big mistake” (150). By using the voices of Emi and Mr. Carrick, Okada offers a different insight immediately following WWII.
The idea of national culture is pervasive throughout Okada’s novel. Ichiro, as well as other Nisei, struggle with the concept of what it is to be an American. For minority Americans, the combination of their heritage with their American citizenship further complicates the pervading search for identity. Ichiro says to himself that when he was a boy “it was all right then to be Japanese and feel and think all the things that Japanese do even if we lived in America. Then there came a time when I was only half Japanese because one is not born in America and raised in America and taught in America and one does not speak and wear and drink and smoke and play and fight and see and hear in America among Americans in American streets and houses without becoming American and loving it” (Okada 16). Ichiro never believes that he is Japanese enough or American enough. On a similar line, Lisa Lowe writes that racism derives from structural forces, regardless of an individual’s citizenship status. Although Asian Americans are embedded within the nation, they are also, at the same time, outside the system. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese-Americans had to work harder to prove their loyalty to America.
I thought it was also interesting that when No-No Boy was first published, it was ill received by the general public. Actually, Okada passed away thinking that Japanese-Americans had rejected his work. This was probably due to the era in which it was published- during the Cold War there was increased U.S. nationalism. During a period that celebrated being American, there was a reluctance to recognize and admit the vast racial division within U.S. society. Lisa Lowe also writes that in the history of Asian-American immigration, history largely forgets the struggles of the immigrant. Bringing this idea back to the twenty-first century, is this pattern of “forgetting” still exist today?
Becca Neril
I also wanted to comment on the theme of identity that Okada uses throughout the book. Reading No-No Boy made me think of the parallel between the issue of Japanese and Jewish identity during WWII and the French Revolution respectively. Both people were forced to question and affirm their national allegiance in order to gain respect from the country in which they lived. In the late 18th century and early 19th century, after extensive debates as to whether Jews and other minority groups could be granted rights as full citizens, Western European countries began granting citizenship to their Jewish nationals. Similarly, during WWII, the US began to question the Japanese allegiance and this book shows that many people were forced to reaffirm their allegiance by enlisting in the US army. Just as Jews were expected to have primary allegiance to the country in which they were living and adopt the national culture as their own, the US had similar expectations of the Japanese Americans.
By citing these two similar cases, I wish to point out the struggle that Ichiro was going through in terms of forming his allegiance to a particular nation. His parents pressuring him to associate with Japan and his peers influencing him to associate with America proved for a difficult and identity straining situation. Just as the Jews had to prove that their primary allegiance was to the nation in which they lived, characters in No-No Boy were pressured to prove that they were not spying for the Japanese. For example, Taro tried so hard to prove that he was a true American and ultimately enlisted in the US Army. If he was willing to fight for America, and die for American, then reason says that he must identify solely with America. The problem I see with the WWII era was that everyone was suspicious and no act could entirely erase the ‘baggage’ that one’s race may or may not have carried. Even if Ichiro had enlisted in the army, I don’t think that he would be free of the suspicious glares that he so often received. Okada writes, “the answer is that there is no in. Maybe the whole damned country is pushing and shoving and screaming to get into someplace that doesn’t exist, because they don’t know that the outside could be the inside…” (160). Okada raises the question of whether trying so hard to ‘fit in’ is really worth it. In end the end, will America allow Taro to truly feel a part of the American community? He is fighting for America, but I question, and I think that Ichiro questions, whether his peers will be accepted as fully ‘American.’
The main theme in Okada’s novel involves the identity crisis that Ichiro experiences due to the torn national identities that he tries to identify with. The dilemma of identifying and choosing between his Japanese roots and his current American society continue. Also, the hostile and unwelcoming reception from both sides keeps Ichiro guessing and teetering between the two. In addition to the main components of the novel certain parts and scenes were infused with the different side aspects of the problems of forming a Japanese American identity and being accepted in the U.S. One interesting scene portrayed the violent tension between two minority groups not yet accepted in the U.S. The Japanese-Americans and the African-Americans in the U.S. at this time were both undergoing extreme discrimination and segregation by white America.
Japanese-Americans were experiencing the effects of the war between their homeland and their new home in the form of internment camps, criticism and being subjugated to the U.S. majority that doubted them and questioned their loyalties. African-Americans were experiencing the Jim Crow laws and segregation. Yet these two nations did not unite based on their similarities but reinforced their differences. This is not abnormal. Throughout history it seems to be more common for minorities to remain disbanded against the oppressive majority than uniting. It always seems surprising when two different peoples actually do join and fight together for one another.
In Okada’s novel one scene displays the tension and prejudice between the Japanese-Americans and African-Americans. “He walked past the pool parlor, picking his way gingerly among the Negroes, of whom there had been only a few at one time and of whom there seemed to be nothing but now. They were smoking and shouting and cussing and carousing and the sidewalk was slimy with their spittle,” (Okada, 5). The very description from Ichiro’s Japanese-American impression is disgust toward these people. “‘Jap!’ His pace quickened automatically, but curiosity or fear or indignation or whatever it was made him glance back at the white teeth framed in a leering dark brown that was almost black. ‘Go back to Tokyo, boy.’ Persecution in the drawl of the persecuted,” (Okada, 5). That last sentence says it all about how discrimination is continued by those discriminated against. His response to the African-Americans discrimination was answered through a reflection of the discrimination. “Friggin’ niggers, he uttered savagely to himself and from the same place deep down inside where tolerance for the Negroes and the Jews and the Mexicans and the Chinese and the too short and too fat and too ugly abided because he was Japanese and knew what it was like better than did those who were white and average and middle class and good Democrats or liberal Republicans, the hate which was unrelenting and terrifying seethed up,” (Okada, 6).
This division is also seen in All I asking for is my body and the Japanese and the Filipinos are both subjugated to the oppressive plantation system yet they would not unite to overthrow it. On the other hand, when one group attempted to rise against the system, the other group would take advantage and take all the jobs that the other group had left when going on strike. By not helping one another, it hurts them both when they try to confront the oppressor on alone.
Another scene that reminds me of this is the story “Wilshire Bus.” The woman on the bus is witnessing the blatant discrimination of an Asian-American of another ethnicity and keeps quiet so as not to direct attention upon herself. “Esther herself, while believing herself properly annoyed with the speaker and sorry for the old couple, felt quite detached. She found herself wondering whether the man meant her in his exclusion order or whether she was identifiably Japanese. Of course, he was not sober enough to be interested in such fine distinctions, but it did matter, she decided, because she was Japanese, not Chinese, and therefore in the present case immune. Then she was startled to realize that what she was actually doing was gloating over the fact that the drunken man had specified the Chinese as unwanted,” (Yamamoto, 36). This is a normal/common reaction for many. The white man who stands up and announces that not all are like that blatantly discriminatory man did the same thing by keeping quiet. Compassion for the discriminated/persecuted is irrelevant in the face of one’s own vulnerability. It is a natural reaction when self-preservation beats the desire to save another.
It seems that discrimination is prevalent at all levels of class and oppression. It almost seems that the minority going through less of a horrible time than the other feels contempt for them because they are more oppressed than them at the moment. It is a constant power struggle; who is the lowest at this point in time and who can feel a moment of power over another. This may be completely wrong, but it is interesting to see. It may not seem significant that they do not help each other, perhaps because they believe that since no one has helped them they are not going to extend their hand for any one, but it may seem normal since it has happened time and again. How effective would it be if they were not divided and helped one another?
White America contributes to this division, but another interesting string for this would also be to investigate if the institution of white America contributes to the division purposely or sub-consciously and how is it done through the individual and the system. “Divided we fall,” is this used in America to keep minorities under discriminatory powers? And how does one combat this? Once again there is the futile feeling of attempting to take down an entire nationwide system or the great task of combating through individuals across the nation. I think there is hope in the individual effort, though. Through education on how to break down stereotypes and calling for a nationwide change of perception, there are many ways one could go about it, but perhaps change could happen using this avenue.
Post a Comment