Hi class,
We had some great and powerful discussions in class this Thursday and I went home thinking a lot about them. So, I sent Jeremiah an email specifically about our discussion on Asian Americans and he asked that I share this with you all as well. I, myself, would love to hear what you all have to say. The following is most of my email to Jeremiah:
"We had some great discussions today in class! I just wanted to email you
about our discussion on Asian Americans and their economic and political
station in America. If I am not mistaken, you mentioned that many Asian
Americans are currently pretty well off economically. However, they lack
political power. This I agree with. I mean, I haven't seen any Asian
protest groups on campus either. However, I know of a few Asian youth
groups that do a lot of advocacy work in their communities (AYPAL in
Oakland being one). I can't help but wonder if whether our stereotypes of
Asian Americans (as submissive, docile, silent, etc) play a role in the
lack of political activism, or perhaps the stereotypes are keeping us from
seeing that Asian Americans are indeed active? I'm not very sure.
You also brought up a point that Asian Americans, unlike other minority
groups, have almost positive stereotypes. (Or more positive stereotypes
vis-a-vis those placed on Blacks or Latinos -- Asians stereotyped as smart
versus Blacks being stereotyped as dumb). Correct me if I took it the
wrong way, but I'm not sure any stereotype is positive. Being placed as
the "model minority" and being stereotyped as smart has some pretty
negative repercussions, especially for those Asians who do not meet the
expectations. A lot of the Southeast Asian ethnic groups (Laotians and
Cambodians for example) face a lot of the same realities many other people
of color in poverty face. However, when Asians as an umbrella group are
seen as doing well in the academic and professional realms, as being smart
enough, it unjustly covers up a lot of the struggles many groups of Asians
still endure -- and as a result hiding a lot of the political support and
help many Asian groups still need. It's this notion that Asians are doing
well, they are well-off economically (and some groups of Asians are) that
ties into this perception that political involvement is unnecessary.
However, I'm not sure lacking a political voice is ever desirable, even
with economic prosperity as a trade-off. (Not saying this is what you were
arguing, however. The discussion had me thinking.)
Please share any thoughts you may have."
Hi Anna,
ReplyDeleteI feel similarly, though I couldn't find the right words for my argument during class.
I would argue that, historically, Asians have been stereotyped in ways that let Asian people fit a certain role/need in U.S. society to allow contribution to make the U.S. more competitive without the threat of gaining political (or even management) power. The stereotype that Asians are smart but also docile and submissive allows Asian people an avenue to achieve a higher education to fill the roles of science researcher, techie, etc. in this country without having any real power--Asian people are not seen as manager material or as people who even desire to lead others. The stereotype that Asian men are physically diminutive and weak in comparison to men of other races also contributes to this idea. Asian-Americans are allowed to attain a college degree, have a middle-of-the-road job in the sciences, and then disappear.
If an Asian person goes against the stereotypes--or if any person in a minority group goes against the stereotype--it's seen as a threat. Attempts to dismantle Asian-American political power include associating Asian-American politics with red (and implicitly, and sometimes even explicitly, a communist threat), mysticism and absurdity (Asian dragons), and heavy Asian accents (to delegitimize Asian-American voice through humor and keep Asian-Americans identity separate from "American")--these are all really often seen in caricatures of any Asian making waves.
Secondly, I strongly believe that the creation of stereotypes that elevate Asians to a fictitious place slightly above the stereotypes about Blacks and Latinos is just another way to distract minority groups from questioning the system of power that is disempowering them by pitting these groups against each other.
Yeri, wow; your response is amazing too. It's so thoughtful and articulate. I am really impressed by both your response and Anna's email, which catalyzed this discussion. I agree with much of what you said; as a matter of fact, I don’t disagree with any of your arguments. I may attempt to add additional layers of complexity, but all in all, you hit the proverbial nail on its’ head. Your analysis of the caricatures that have been employed to ridicule and reduce Asians, here in the Land O’ the Free, is very astute.
ReplyDeleteDuring California’s gold rush, when Chinese people began arriving here in droves, all of the stereotypes that were sutured to them where pejorative or outright pernicious. Around this time white minstrel troupes inaugurated what would later be referred to as yellow face minstrelsy. John Chinaman was created during this contentious time. He was a buffoonish caricature. All of the negative Asian, or more specifically Oriental, stereotypes that existed at this time (beginning around the 1850’s) where made to co-inhere in this artificial character. Going back a little bit, it is important to note that during this time every Asian group that was here was amalgamated into a nebulous group of people who were given the appellation, Oriental. The Orient was created in contradistinction with the Occident, i.e., the West, so as to differentiate between the Eurocentric West and the Asiatic East, respectively.
Furthermore, I agree with your perspicacious Marxist critique of the spectacle: wherein artificial difference is created in order to create and maintain difference. However, the chasm that is created benefits neither party that constitute the poles, in this context Chinese Americans and Natives and African Americans. Instead, the creator of the chasm, in this case the bourgeoisie (to stick with Marx) reaps the benefit precisely because the disallow solidarity amongst the working class. This is what happened to Asians and African Americans as well as Latinos and Natives. We were kept apart. Chinese people, because union jobs were denied them during this time, took jobs that even poor whites didn’t want, at least until a Chinese person applied for it; consequently they were perceived as inured and obsequious.
Understandably, these perceived characteristic ultimately benefitted them as they began to be viewed as trainable/teachable, unlike Native savages and African savages. This, of course, didn’t happen overnight; and, it took a considerable amount of work and humility on the part of Asian people. So, in essence, they were rewarded for their (perceived) willingness to submit.
This perception, over time, came to be known as the model minority (myth). Anyway, all that said, you’re right: other marginalized ethnic groups began to take notice, and the seemingly favorable treatment of Asians has not been lost on them. This is not happenstance; rather, I would argue that this is by design. The elites made room for Asians precisely because they prefer a group that they feel will refrain from upsetting the apple cart, so to speak. Plus, they witnessed firsthand how industrious Chinese miners were, often finding gold on land that was considered barren by their white counterparts. So, in order to protect the status quo, they had to somehow remove Asian people from the equation by giving them a (fictitious) privileged position over other marginalized groups. And in so doing, they accomplished to major goals: firstly, they prevent solidarity amongst Asians and other marginalized groups; and, secondly, lull many Asian people into a false sense of security. Anyway, to be clear these are just my ruminations. I am not trying to pass them off as facts, necessarily, though I do believe them to be theoretically strong postulations.
Lastly, thank you so much for your response. I am really happy to be part of this dialogue.
And, while I don't have much further to contribute, I'm enjoying these observations and ideas, learning much from your perspectives (as corny as that sounds). For me, it reminds me of how crucial (and damaging) expectations can be: To be expected to do well (as per the model minority myth) can bring with it such destruction, but can also be very effective in prompting whole groups of people to "bootstrap." When the dominant paradigm predicts and expects mainstream success for Asians in general, how does that influence whole groups of people, negatively and positively? On the flip side, when the dominant paradigm predicts and expects failure from OTHER groups of people (African American males, specifically), what happens...how much of academic identity and mainstream achievement depend on expectations? I wonder about this as I read field notes, especially, that relate stories about teachers disciplining particular students (see Ann Ferguson's "Bad Boys" for a discussion of how schools criminalize African American elementary school boys, in particular). For a U.S. teacher to EXPECT an Asian bad boy (or girl) is improbable, which makes me wonder about media representations of gender, which Yeri (I think) alluded to...
ReplyDelete