I presented my "White Jews: An Intersectional Approach" paper at the Western Political Science Association (intersectionality section) yesterday. It went quite well! I've now presented the paper to political theorists, to Jewish Studies folks, and to intersectionalists. If you haven't read it yet, I think it's pretty good.
But the prize for biggest professional accomplishment this week goes to the discovery that someone has created a website dedicated solely to informing the world that "David Schraub the UCLA Law Professor is a Disgusting Zionist Punk." That's how you know you've made it. I may not have the highest quality trolls ("UCLA"?), but at least they're mine. (I can't say I recommend reading the entire screed on the website, but it's worth browsing for a few laughs).
* * *
The African Muslim immigrant who saved a dozen Jews during the 2015 terrorist attack on a Paris kosher supermarket quietly arrived at the funeral of the elderly Holocaust survivor who was stabbed and burned to death in her apartment in an antisemitic hate crime. "I want to tell the Jews of France, you are not isolated. You are not abandoned. This is your country."
Jews and Muslims in America actually agree on quite a lot! And alignment increases alongside devoutness (more devout Jews and more devout Muslims share more in common), as well as contact (the more Jews and Muslims interact with each other, the more likely they are to perceive the two faiths as being similar in nature).
A former police officer turned criminal defense attorney discusses the Stephon Clark shooting, the way police are acculturated to fear (especially fear Black men), and the way poor instructions (e.g., "show me your hands" when your hands are holding a cellphone) can place innocent people in impossible situations.
Russian airline allegedly "deports" U.S. citizens of Indian descent back to India during a layover in Moscow. Great -- another reason for Trump to love the Russians.
Jewish News (UK) publishes an interview with Jeremy Corbyn. It's rare to see a conversation this long between two parties who so evidently loathe one another (it's really, really apparent in the interview).
Harvard Hillel is hosting a "liberation seder" focusing specifically on the ongoing injustices faced by Palestinians under occupation. The organizers worked closely with Jewish groups already affiliated with Hillel to ensure that it did not run afoul of the partnership guidelines. I'm all for this -- I have mixed feelings about the guidelines, but it's important to establish decisively that they will not be applied ad hoc to prohibit any criticism of Israel that's deemed too "sharp" in character. (Harvard Hillel has actually been consistently good on this issue -- refusing to allow the guidelines to metastasize to block, say, a program which has nothing to do with BDS because one participant backs the movement).
Sephardic Chief Rabbi in Israel may face criminal charges for likening a Black child born to White parents to a "monkey."
Showing posts with label asians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label asians. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2018
Sunday, February 25, 2018
One Good Essay on "Immigrants Get the Job Done"
American Olympian Mirai Nagasu landed a triple axel at the Olympics. That's a big deal (apparently -- I don't really know a lot about figure skating).
New York Times columnist Bari Weiss reacted to the occasion by tweeting out: "Immigrants: They get the job done."
Problem: Nagasu isn't an immigrant. She was born in the United States.
Weiss suggested that "poetic license" was in order, as Nagasu's parents were immigrants. She also questioned what the big deal was.
The answer was that Weiss -- perhaps inadvertently -- stepped on the trope of Asian-Americans as "perpetual foreigners": never really American, always forced to answer the question "no, where are you really from."
From this conversation, internet hell predictably came down (Nagasu's own eventual statement was quite diplomatic. But between the fact that a huge chunk of the internet had already decided that even slightest showing of offense proved one was a deranged threat to American freedom as we know, and the fact that Nagasu almost certainly had no interest in wading into any sort of political controversy while she's, you know, focused on being an Olympian, I think it's easy to overread it).
The vast majority of the comments on l'affaire Weiss were stupid. This essay by Mari Uyehara is a welcome exception. I encourage you to read it.
As for me, my one contribution to the conversation was simple: Had Weiss simply acknowledged that the initial tweet was sloppy and let things lie, there would have been no storm. What made it a big deal was Weiss (and later, her defenders) continually doubling-down on the notion that no sane person could have possibly took exception to the tweet, that it was wholly innocuous, and that anyone who raised any questions about it whatsoever embodies trigger-happy internet "call out culture" that's toxic to free expression and the open discussion of ideas.
In a sense, it was a vindication of an oft-misunderstood maxim of "SJW" culture, which is that if an outgroup says you've done something that wounded them, take a moment to listen. Breathe, keep a level head, and assume that they're saying it not because of some gratuitous desire to take offense, but because there's at least some there there. Had that simple advice been taken, had Weiss simply said "I meant to honor Nagasu's immigrant parents, but I see how the tweet could be construed differently. I'll take it down," a lot of pain and a lot of frankly idiotic commentary could have been avoided.
New York Times columnist Bari Weiss reacted to the occasion by tweeting out: "Immigrants: They get the job done."
Problem: Nagasu isn't an immigrant. She was born in the United States.
Weiss suggested that "poetic license" was in order, as Nagasu's parents were immigrants. She also questioned what the big deal was.
The answer was that Weiss -- perhaps inadvertently -- stepped on the trope of Asian-Americans as "perpetual foreigners": never really American, always forced to answer the question "no, where are you really from."
From this conversation, internet hell predictably came down (Nagasu's own eventual statement was quite diplomatic. But between the fact that a huge chunk of the internet had already decided that even slightest showing of offense proved one was a deranged threat to American freedom as we know, and the fact that Nagasu almost certainly had no interest in wading into any sort of political controversy while she's, you know, focused on being an Olympian, I think it's easy to overread it).
The vast majority of the comments on l'affaire Weiss were stupid. This essay by Mari Uyehara is a welcome exception. I encourage you to read it.
As for me, my one contribution to the conversation was simple: Had Weiss simply acknowledged that the initial tweet was sloppy and let things lie, there would have been no storm. What made it a big deal was Weiss (and later, her defenders) continually doubling-down on the notion that no sane person could have possibly took exception to the tweet, that it was wholly innocuous, and that anyone who raised any questions about it whatsoever embodies trigger-happy internet "call out culture" that's toxic to free expression and the open discussion of ideas.
In a sense, it was a vindication of an oft-misunderstood maxim of "SJW" culture, which is that if an outgroup says you've done something that wounded them, take a moment to listen. Breathe, keep a level head, and assume that they're saying it not because of some gratuitous desire to take offense, but because there's at least some there there. Had that simple advice been taken, had Weiss simply said "I meant to honor Nagasu's immigrant parents, but I see how the tweet could be construed differently. I'll take it down," a lot of pain and a lot of frankly idiotic commentary could have been avoided.
Thursday, January 12, 2017
Rate That Apology, Part 6: Ira Madison III
During the Jeff Sessions confirmation hearing, MTV journalist Ira Madison III posted a tweet captioning a picture of Sessions holding his Asian-American granddaughter. The tweet has now been deleted, but it read:
Moreover, the apology paragraph -- really more of a sentence -- is blurry and evasive. Sure, there's something intrinsically tacky about dragging a toddler into a political "joke" in this manner, and I guess that it is encompassed by talking about "put[ting] his family in the crossfire." But there's also a racialized element to the joke that can't be ignored and which this apology attempts to shunt aside. To characterize the joke as targeting "the irony of a 70 year old career politician placing his post-millennial, multi-racial granddaughter on his lap" beggars belief. Anyone with a pulse reading this joke saw it as a crude dismissal of multi-racial families among stereotypically conservative communities: "there's no way Jeff Sessions really has an Asian granddaughter, lol -- she must be a prop!" An apology which does not acknowledge and atone for that cadence, isn't one.
Grade: 3/10
Sessions, sir, kindly return this Asian baby to the Toys "R" Us store you stole her from.After deleting the tweet, Madison posted the following "explanation" on Medium:
Hello. Yesterday saw the confirmation hearing of Jeff Sessions. As he was called to testify, Sessions placed his Asian American granddaughter on his lap. I made a joke alluding to the irony of a 70 year old career politician placing his post-millennial, multi-racial granddaughter on his lap to shield himself from criticism of his long standing record. My work is satirical and my words on my Twitter account have never represented MTV’s personal mission statement. But what was intended to be a provocative joke about Sessions’ record put his family in the crossfire and for that I am sorry.
I am also sorry my joke unnecessarily distracted from the more serious matter at hand. I — and many many other Americans — genuinely believe that Jeff Sessions’ deeply troubling past on issues relating to race and immigration are disqualifying and look forward to holding him and other potential members of Donald Trump’s administration accountable for their actions. Sessions has already been rejected once by the United States Senate for his unfortunate racist comments, behaviors, and views, including praising a 1924 Immigration Law intended to end “acceptance of all races.” He was rebuked by Republicans and Democrats alike in the 1980s, unfortunately, he’s before us again.
Alas, this is not going to enter my annals of good apologies. One of the cardinal sins in a bad apology is when the author gets "on a soapbox about how [they're] really right about the core issue and just happened to express [themselves] poorly." That's definitely at work here -- a 2:1 ratio of "soapbox" paragraphs to "apology" paragraphs (and that's being generous in labeling the entire first paragraph as an "apology").Going forward, we cannot be distracted from Sessions’ history, the histories of many of the men and women Trump wishes to appoint to his administration, or the online rhetoric designed to shut down debate and intimidate and terrify with violent threats and fear of doxxing. This is indicative of life on the internet for many endangered and marginalized groups right now and we must be vigilant. My writing, in part, will always be devoted to justice and I look forward to seeking it out wherever I can in the next four years and beyond.
Moreover, the apology paragraph -- really more of a sentence -- is blurry and evasive. Sure, there's something intrinsically tacky about dragging a toddler into a political "joke" in this manner, and I guess that it is encompassed by talking about "put[ting] his family in the crossfire." But there's also a racialized element to the joke that can't be ignored and which this apology attempts to shunt aside. To characterize the joke as targeting "the irony of a 70 year old career politician placing his post-millennial, multi-racial granddaughter on his lap" beggars belief. Anyone with a pulse reading this joke saw it as a crude dismissal of multi-racial families among stereotypically conservative communities: "there's no way Jeff Sessions really has an Asian granddaughter, lol -- she must be a prop!" An apology which does not acknowledge and atone for that cadence, isn't one.
Grade: 3/10
Thursday, December 24, 2015
Christmas Eve Roundup: 12/24/15
I'm at my girlfriend's parents' house in Owatonna, Minnesota for the week. I'm tempted to duck into a Chinese restaurant tomorrow just to see who (member of the tribe or otherwise) will show up in the rural Midwest.
* * *
A federal court has struck down the provision of federal law prohibiting the registration of offensive trademarks. Most people are following this issue because it is the legal basis for stripping protection from the Washington Redskins. But this case involved an Asian-American band that sought to trademark its name, "The Slants." This nicely illustrates one of the central problems with "hate speech" regulation (broadly defined) -- it is hard (at least as a legal rule) to separate out subtle, subversive, or reclaimative usages of slurs.
Ha'aretz suggests that Arab countries are quietly reaching out to their Jewish diaspora (particularly in the United States) as a means of establishing back-channel links to Israel.
Israeli authorities have opened an investigation into the grotesque video showing Jewish wedding attendees celebrating the murder of a Palestinian child in the Duma firebombing.
Mark Graber has thoughtful comments on BDS.
Kevin Jon Heller and I had a very nice conversation about how discourse about anti-Semitism is situated inside discourse about Israel.
* * *
A federal court has struck down the provision of federal law prohibiting the registration of offensive trademarks. Most people are following this issue because it is the legal basis for stripping protection from the Washington Redskins. But this case involved an Asian-American band that sought to trademark its name, "The Slants." This nicely illustrates one of the central problems with "hate speech" regulation (broadly defined) -- it is hard (at least as a legal rule) to separate out subtle, subversive, or reclaimative usages of slurs.
Ha'aretz suggests that Arab countries are quietly reaching out to their Jewish diaspora (particularly in the United States) as a means of establishing back-channel links to Israel.
Israeli authorities have opened an investigation into the grotesque video showing Jewish wedding attendees celebrating the murder of a Palestinian child in the Duma firebombing.
Mark Graber has thoughtful comments on BDS.
Kevin Jon Heller and I had a very nice conversation about how discourse about anti-Semitism is situated inside discourse about Israel.
Monday, December 12, 2011
We Have Always Been At War with, er, "Asia"
A local news channel is aghast that Sidwell Friends school (where Sasha and Malia Obama attend) served (gasp) Asian food on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor:
One might note that while Teriyaki chicken is Japanese, Szechuan Tofu is in fact Chinese. And while yes, one can lump them all together as "Asian" cuisine, believe it or not Pearl Harbor was not an attack on America by the entire Asian continent. It's true. In fact, I have credible sources that tell me we were allied with the folks who gave us Szechuan Tofu & Veggies in that very conflict! True story.
(Via, with the original pointer from my former history Professor, Harry Williams).
What are President Obama's kids eating at school on Pearl Harbor day? Japanese food and other Asian items.
[...]
Here are the options for Malia Obama and her sister, Sasha on the "Day that will live in Infamy:"
Asian Mushroom Soup
Oriental Noodle Salad
Classic Spinach Salad
Teriyaki Marinated Chicken Strips
Szechuan Tofu & Veggies
Garlic Roasted Edamame
Vegetable Fried Rice
Fortune Cookies
One might note that while Teriyaki chicken is Japanese, Szechuan Tofu is in fact Chinese. And while yes, one can lump them all together as "Asian" cuisine, believe it or not Pearl Harbor was not an attack on America by the entire Asian continent. It's true. In fact, I have credible sources that tell me we were allied with the folks who gave us Szechuan Tofu & Veggies in that very conflict! True story.
(Via, with the original pointer from my former history Professor, Harry Williams).
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Call for Papers: Afro-Asian American Studies Conference 2011
An old friend of mine whose currently a grad student at UPenn is helping organize Intersections: A Conversation between African American and Asian American Studies.
In the past century, key political moments have brought together Africans, Asians, and members of their respective diasporas in the Americas. Events such as the Pan-African Conference of 1900, the Bandung Conference of 1955, and the American ethnic nationalist movements of the 1960s and 70s instigated a discourse on the generative potential of Afro-Asian and Afro-Asian American connections. In recent years, an increasing body of scholarship has addressed and theorized this history of contact, critically assessing as well as extending it to include events ranging from the antebellum debates over coolie labor to the 1992 LA riots. As graduate students and scholars in African American and Asian American studies, how might this comparativist trend inform the work we do within our respective disciplines? This conference seeks to center this question by calling for papers that either explicitly theorize connections or cover themes that are central to both disciplines (such as migration/diaspora, labor/slavery, legal racialization, etc). While we invite papers that specifically illuminate Afro-Asian American intersections, we also invite abstracts that are rooted in either Africana or Asian American studies. Through this call for both papers and people, we intend to contribute to the critical conversation by opening a space to map out and create connections between African American and Asian American studies.The conference will be from November 18-19, 2011 (paper proposals due June 1), and it is grad student-friendly (I'm assured that includes law students, kids!).
Sunday, August 09, 2009
The Evolution of Female East Asian Stereotypes
Like most other races, East Asians have suffered under a vibrant and ignoble history of racial stereotyping and imagery in the Western mind. For East Asian women, the primary two archetypes are the submissive, docile "China doll", and the hypersexual, deceitful "dragon lady." Asian men are similarly cast as either deceptive and untrustworthy, or personality-less "grinders".
Yet the public image of East Asians in America has been growing consistently more positive. Continued academic success, and a potential incorporation into Whiteness have both contributed to this dynamic. As White society has, uneasily, grown to grudgingly acknowledge East Asian "game", the old stereotypes no longer fit the new social understandings. And I think there has been an evolution in the stereotypes of East Asian women to match this (interestingly, I haven't observed a similar shift in stereotypes of East Asian men).
While I am by no means suggesting that the old stereotypes are gone, when I think of popular stereotypes of East Asian women today, two more spring immediately to mind. The first is the bookish, whip-smart student. The second is the martial arts expert who can kick the ass of everyone in the room. One can see the roots of the older forms in both of these -- the student-type tends to be quiet and deferential, like the China doll; the martial artist is powerful and sexual like the Dragon Lady. Nonetheless, I submit that both of the "new" stereotypes are socially coded as positive.* The student is the type of woman that you're supposed to marry one day. The martial artist is the hip, bad-ass action star.
Moreover, the stereotype-shift has seemingly tracked internal cleavages within the East Asian community. Though often cast as monolithic by the West, there is a huge difference -- culturally, socially, economically -- between, say, American Chinese communities versus American Hmong or Vietnamese communities. There is, to some degree, a hierarchy here, with the Japanese and Chinese occupying the elite niches, followed by Koreans, South East Asians, and finally residents of the island states. I was talking to a friend whose family hails from Vietnam, for example, and she told me that her parents would consider it beneath her to marry someone from the Philippines, and that she was sure a Chinese family would think the same about her. This hierarchy tracks American socio-economic status pretty closely. And when I see those pop-up ads advertising docile Asian brides, they tend not to say they'll be from China or Korea -- they're saying Thailand or the Philippines.
Again, I'm not saying that a Chinese-American woman doesn't have to deal with the "old" stereotypes anymore. But I do think we're observing a very interesting social shift that is deeply tied to a broader realignment in America's racial dynamics. The whole point behind White supremacy is that it is the supreme group. When White society "absorbs" another racial or ethnic grouping, it simultaneously recodes it from inferior and less-than, to admirable and superior. My (admittedly anecdotal) observation is that we are seeing very similar behavior here, which makes me wonder whether in 50 years we'll be seeing books titled "How the Asians became White."
* We can say even "beneficial" stereotyping never actually is, but I do think there is a qualitative difference between being part of a group stereotyped as cool, useful, or inspiring, versus feared, mocked, or loathed.
Yet the public image of East Asians in America has been growing consistently more positive. Continued academic success, and a potential incorporation into Whiteness have both contributed to this dynamic. As White society has, uneasily, grown to grudgingly acknowledge East Asian "game", the old stereotypes no longer fit the new social understandings. And I think there has been an evolution in the stereotypes of East Asian women to match this (interestingly, I haven't observed a similar shift in stereotypes of East Asian men).
While I am by no means suggesting that the old stereotypes are gone, when I think of popular stereotypes of East Asian women today, two more spring immediately to mind. The first is the bookish, whip-smart student. The second is the martial arts expert who can kick the ass of everyone in the room. One can see the roots of the older forms in both of these -- the student-type tends to be quiet and deferential, like the China doll; the martial artist is powerful and sexual like the Dragon Lady. Nonetheless, I submit that both of the "new" stereotypes are socially coded as positive.* The student is the type of woman that you're supposed to marry one day. The martial artist is the hip, bad-ass action star.
Moreover, the stereotype-shift has seemingly tracked internal cleavages within the East Asian community. Though often cast as monolithic by the West, there is a huge difference -- culturally, socially, economically -- between, say, American Chinese communities versus American Hmong or Vietnamese communities. There is, to some degree, a hierarchy here, with the Japanese and Chinese occupying the elite niches, followed by Koreans, South East Asians, and finally residents of the island states. I was talking to a friend whose family hails from Vietnam, for example, and she told me that her parents would consider it beneath her to marry someone from the Philippines, and that she was sure a Chinese family would think the same about her. This hierarchy tracks American socio-economic status pretty closely. And when I see those pop-up ads advertising docile Asian brides, they tend not to say they'll be from China or Korea -- they're saying Thailand or the Philippines.
Again, I'm not saying that a Chinese-American woman doesn't have to deal with the "old" stereotypes anymore. But I do think we're observing a very interesting social shift that is deeply tied to a broader realignment in America's racial dynamics. The whole point behind White supremacy is that it is the supreme group. When White society "absorbs" another racial or ethnic grouping, it simultaneously recodes it from inferior and less-than, to admirable and superior. My (admittedly anecdotal) observation is that we are seeing very similar behavior here, which makes me wonder whether in 50 years we'll be seeing books titled "How the Asians became White."
* We can say even "beneficial" stereotyping never actually is, but I do think there is a qualitative difference between being part of a group stereotyped as cool, useful, or inspiring, versus feared, mocked, or loathed.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
It's Way Too Hard
Texas legislator Betty Brown (R): Asian names are way too hard for Americans to deal with (this was in the context of a voter identification bill).
Okay, number one: If they're voting, that means they're citizens. If they're citizens, then they're Americans too.
But also, and not to play Brown's game here, when I think of stereotypical Asian names, I think what distinguishes them is their simplicity. Park, Chan, Ho, Wang, Chang, Tran. Quite simple. I'll put the average Chinese name up against Mike Krzyzewski any day (Krzyzewski doesn't even glance sideways at its phonetic pronunciation until the third syllable). But somehow, I doubt Ms. Brown is going to have a follow-up hearing to lecture Poles on their lack of American-ness.
“Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese — I understand it’s a rather difficult language — do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?” Brown said.
Brown later told Ko: “Can’t you see that this is something that would make it a lot easier for you and the people who are poll workers if you could adopt a name just for identification purposes that’s easier for Americans to deal with?”
Okay, number one: If they're voting, that means they're citizens. If they're citizens, then they're Americans too.
But also, and not to play Brown's game here, when I think of stereotypical Asian names, I think what distinguishes them is their simplicity. Park, Chan, Ho, Wang, Chang, Tran. Quite simple. I'll put the average Chinese name up against Mike Krzyzewski any day (Krzyzewski doesn't even glance sideways at its phonetic pronunciation until the third syllable). But somehow, I doubt Ms. Brown is going to have a follow-up hearing to lecture Poles on their lack of American-ness.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Civil Rights Roundup: 07/29/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) gave a major speech on inter-faith relations: "Somehow, we have to find a way to agree that faith may be worth dying for, but it cannot be worth killing for."
In related news, police are speculating that hate may have motivated an unemployed man to open fire in a Unitarian Church, killing five. The local press reports that the man professed a hatred of "liberals", and had books by Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, and Sean Hannity on his desk.
The drumbeat continues for the military to revisit don't ask don't tell.
Civil rights groups, such as, well, mine, are not happy with McCain's affirmative action flip.
The Kansas City Star says that closure in the Emmett Till case might help bring closure to the wounds of the civil rights era as a whole.
The city of Chula Vista, California (near San Diego) has settled a lawsuit filed by a teenager who was mistaken for thief and beaten into unconsciousness by a police officer.
The Illinois governor has vetoed funding that would help fight wrongful convictions and implement important death penalty reforms.
An American Indian prison employee in New York is suing Albany County, alleging systematic discrimination over a three year period.
The first Black justice on the Louisiana Supreme Court has died.
Time is running short for Virginia residents with criminal convictions to get their voting rights restored.
Though Obama is polling well in the Latino and Asian communities, it's still probably true that there are some danger zones.
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) gave a major speech on inter-faith relations: "Somehow, we have to find a way to agree that faith may be worth dying for, but it cannot be worth killing for."
In related news, police are speculating that hate may have motivated an unemployed man to open fire in a Unitarian Church, killing five. The local press reports that the man professed a hatred of "liberals", and had books by Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, and Sean Hannity on his desk.
The drumbeat continues for the military to revisit don't ask don't tell.
Civil rights groups, such as, well, mine, are not happy with McCain's affirmative action flip.
The Kansas City Star says that closure in the Emmett Till case might help bring closure to the wounds of the civil rights era as a whole.
The city of Chula Vista, California (near San Diego) has settled a lawsuit filed by a teenager who was mistaken for thief and beaten into unconsciousness by a police officer.
The Illinois governor has vetoed funding that would help fight wrongful convictions and implement important death penalty reforms.
An American Indian prison employee in New York is suing Albany County, alleging systematic discrimination over a three year period.
The first Black justice on the Louisiana Supreme Court has died.
Time is running short for Virginia residents with criminal convictions to get their voting rights restored.
Though Obama is polling well in the Latino and Asian communities, it's still probably true that there are some danger zones.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Civil Rights Roundup: 07/10/08
Your morning dose of civil rights and related news
The American Medical Association is set to apologize for its racist past, including excluding Black doctors and largely sitting out the civil rights movement.
The NAACP alleges that Nashville's new zoning plan will alter the racial dynamics of the city so much that it actually re-establishes segregation.
A performing arts charter school in LA with a focus on hip-hop is probably going to be shut down after its charter expires.
You're saying "Asian" is too broad a description to accurately capture a coherent, unified set of people with regards to educational achievement? Whoa!
The San Francisco Chronicle has an editorial exposing how ridiculous the fears surrounding the demise of the English language are.
In related news, though I personally am awful with foreign languages, I can still recognize that if I were able to learn one it'd be a valuable skill. That apparently qualifies as progressive in today's political context.
Police officers in Maryland also see the benefit of foreign language knowledge.
The Washington Post writes on how the declining Latino population is affecting Prince Williams County, Virginia.
Is progress against pay discrimination and the "glass ceiling" (or as the author calls it, porthole) stalling out?
Republicans are investigating voter fraud in largely Black Alabama counties. Maybe there is a there there, but it remains true that voter disenfranchisement is a far, far worse problem than voter fraud.
On the front of trying to encourage more engagement, not less, the We Are America Alliance (WAAA) is kicking off a huge campaign to encourage immigrants to become citizens, citizens to register, and registered voters to get to the polls.
The American Medical Association is set to apologize for its racist past, including excluding Black doctors and largely sitting out the civil rights movement.
The NAACP alleges that Nashville's new zoning plan will alter the racial dynamics of the city so much that it actually re-establishes segregation.
A performing arts charter school in LA with a focus on hip-hop is probably going to be shut down after its charter expires.
You're saying "Asian" is too broad a description to accurately capture a coherent, unified set of people with regards to educational achievement? Whoa!
The San Francisco Chronicle has an editorial exposing how ridiculous the fears surrounding the demise of the English language are.
In related news, though I personally am awful with foreign languages, I can still recognize that if I were able to learn one it'd be a valuable skill. That apparently qualifies as progressive in today's political context.
Police officers in Maryland also see the benefit of foreign language knowledge.
The Washington Post writes on how the declining Latino population is affecting Prince Williams County, Virginia.
Is progress against pay discrimination and the "glass ceiling" (or as the author calls it, porthole) stalling out?
Republicans are investigating voter fraud in largely Black Alabama counties. Maybe there is a there there, but it remains true that voter disenfranchisement is a far, far worse problem than voter fraud.
On the front of trying to encourage more engagement, not less, the We Are America Alliance (WAAA) is kicking off a huge campaign to encourage immigrants to become citizens, citizens to register, and registered voters to get to the polls.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Asian Plurality at TJ
The Thomas Jefferson High School of Science & Technology is one of the top public schools in the country. I'm familiar with them because they were in my high school debate league, and they were one of the few local programs that could run with my own school (a local, if not national, powerhouse). The students are sharp -- including the now-Rhodes Scholar I once beat in debate.
Anyway, the Washington Post reports that, for the first time, TJ will have a plurality of Asian students in its entering class. The article focuses on the continued lagging enrollment of Black and Latino students, but underneath that there is an intriguing subtext about how Whites are getting nervous now that "meritocracy" is leaving them in the minority:
Scholars studying Asian-Americans in the United States have noted this dynamic before -- how White society has, to varying degrees, reworked what counts as merit to discount Asian accomplishments (one of the more popular being to dismiss test scores and math/science acumen as "mechanical", whereas White students supposedly demonstrate greater creativity and innovation).
In any event, I'm curious to see if and how the White pushback on this issue develops. It would be interesting if Whites suddenly develop an interest in racial equity as they are no longer the top performers along "traditional" scales of merit (or if they will show continued dexterity in changing the metrics to keep themselves safely ensconced on top).
Anyway, the Washington Post reports that, for the first time, TJ will have a plurality of Asian students in its entering class. The article focuses on the continued lagging enrollment of Black and Latino students, but underneath that there is an intriguing subtext about how Whites are getting nervous now that "meritocracy" is leaving them in the minority:
Jenny Tsai, a recent Harvard University graduate, wrote her thesis about what she perceived as a growing sentiment that "too many Asians" were at top magnet schools. She attended the selective Hunter College High School in New York, where she sensed "a certain level of anxiety" as the portion of Asian American students in the entering class grew from less than a third to more than half between 1997 and 2003. Tsai said some students felt a need to justify their admission or their contributions.
"I don't think there was ever a question of who really belonged there until the numbers shifted," she said.
Scholars studying Asian-Americans in the United States have noted this dynamic before -- how White society has, to varying degrees, reworked what counts as merit to discount Asian accomplishments (one of the more popular being to dismiss test scores and math/science acumen as "mechanical", whereas White students supposedly demonstrate greater creativity and innovation).
In any event, I'm curious to see if and how the White pushback on this issue develops. It would be interesting if Whites suddenly develop an interest in racial equity as they are no longer the top performers along "traditional" scales of merit (or if they will show continued dexterity in changing the metrics to keep themselves safely ensconced on top).
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Whiteness Candidates and the Post-Racial America
In 1993, Cheryl I. Harris wrote a pathbreaking article in the Harvard Law Review entitled "Whiteness as Property." In it, she articulates how Whites view their Whiteness as a property interest, something they sought to keep "as unadulterated, exclusive, and rare." Whiteness has properties as well and these properties are not static. The meaning of Whiteness has changed as well as its contours. Though we tend to ascribe a permanence to racial categories, the people considered to be White have also evolved. Though the poles of "Black" (at the bottom) and Anglo-Saxon (at the top) have remained reasonably stable, aside from that there is significant latitude for groups to move up and down the racial ladder. For example, Arabs used to be considered White, but today probably would not be. Jews and the Irish, by contrast, were originally "not White" but today are reasonably well-entrenched as White.
Why do the members of Whiteness change? What benefits do Whites accrue by inviting other people into the group? By investigating how and why Whiteness selects its new racial recruits, we may be able to elucidate important properties of Whiteness, as well as gain clues to the future of race relations in America.
Before I proceed, I want to note two issues. First, throughout this post I treat Whiteness as having such anthropomorphic qualities such as "interests", "properties", and "desires". This is because I believe Whiteness as a social phenomenon has evolved beyond the control of any of its constituent parts--it is its own being, not under the control of anyone or thing. Obviously, it can be influenced, but by and large it represents a structuring property to American life that tends to guide us more than we guide it.
Second, my description of a particular group as "becoming" White is not meant to be derogatory (or a nod of approval) towards that group. Some theorists have implied that in pursuing Whiteness, a non-White group is "selling out" or turning its back on their peers who remain at the bottom of the racial hierarchy. For my part, I believe that given the massive perks and privileges available to those that become White, compared to the oppression and dehumanization (up to and including murder) of those who are left at the bottom, I can't critique groups that wish to escape from that fate. This is similar to my view of Jews who have hesitated in proclaiming a strong and unique independent identity in the wake of the Holocaust--it may be better if they did, but given that this path appears to lead right back to Auschwitz, it is quite understandable that many Jews would rather lay low and try to avoid provoking those who have killed them so many times. This is one of Whiteness' greatest weapons when offering incorporation to a minority group--the implicit alternative, of continued degradation and suppression. Ideally, I'd rather that people of color gain equality without having to "become White," just like ideally I'd like for Jews to be able to articulate independent Jewish perspectives without the fear of being slaughtered. But since Whites remain rather jealous of their privileged position, I believe there is a strong incentive for minority groups to take the offer of Whiteness. Similarly, the discussion of what makes a group a good "candidate" for Whiteness is not a statement as to these groups' worth--intrinsic or otherwise. It is deliberately quite calculated--I don't claim that the machinations of Whiteness are moral nor just.
I. The Interests of Whiteness
To begin with, I'll articulate three "interests" possessed by Whiteness. These are the goals that Whiteness seeks to pursue or maintain while drawing and redrawing its institutional and social boundaries and practices. Ideally, Whiteness tries to maintain itself in a manner that secures all three of these interests.
1) Whiteness seeks to remain exclusive.
This plays back into the image of Whiteness as a property. Whiteness is valuable insofar as it is rare--I have it and you don't. This is why Whiteness doesn't simply allow everyone to be White--that would dilute the value. And Whites have resorted to extreme measures to keep its "racial purity" intact. The infamous "one-drop" rules, by which anyone with even a sliver of non-White blood was considered to be of color, helped put up a firm wall against encroachment by racial outsiders, as well as discouraging inter-racial relationships. Because of the exclusivity principle, the decision by Whiteness to allow new members to its ranks is, I believe, a very serious one. It is not something Whiteness does except under duress. Because of that, I believe that the incorporation of new groups into the White category is a signal of weakness in Whiteness, and is a prime time for anti-racist activists to move and exploit that weakness.
2) Whiteness seeks to remain dominant.
For virtually all of American history, Whites have been the dominant racial group. They like it at the top. It gives them privileges. And so, Whiteness has an interest in maintaining those privileges. The desire to remain dominant both encourages and undermines the exclusivity principle. It encourages it because it mandates sharp divisions between what Whites receive as dividends of their Whiteness (thus maintaining the value of Whiteness) and what non-Whites receive that marks them as discrete and inferior. This is related to what W.E.B. Du Bois and later David Roediger called the "wages of Whiteness" argument. Whites of all social classes receive a psychological wage by virtue of being White. No matter how oppressed or downtrodden they are, they can always look back and know there are people beneath them. Incidentally, this is an example of how racial hierarchy can hurt Whites too--if working class Whites weren't focused on insuring that there was always a class beneath them and consequently reassuring themselves that their position isn't that bad, they'd be more likely to forge coalitions with their fellows and press for structural reforms that would provide them real, tangible benefits (yes, I'm aware this is heavily Marxist in tint).
However, the desire for dominance can also undermine the exclusionary principle. This is mostly a numbers game--as demographics shift, Whites find themselves in a position where they might no longer be in the majority. Some Whites have managed to maintain dominance as a minority anyway, at least for a little while (think South Africa). But America's democratic instincts make that an unappealing prospect. Better to shore up the ranks by bringing in some new members. For example, the influx of Southern and Eastern European immigrants (as well as Irishmen) at the turn of the 20th century severely threatened the dominance of Whiteness, as these locales were not considered to be "White." There are scores of writings, speeches, and warnings from the late 19th century arguing why these people were racially inferior to America's Anglo-Saxon stock. Nonetheless, faced with the prospect of being swamped and rendered a (non-dominant) minority, Whites simply changed the contours of the race, and voila! Poles, Greeks, Italians, Jews and the Irish were all White. But note that the gates were not flung open entirely--at the same time that non-Anglo-Saxon Europeans were beginning to gain their White stripes, a series of court cases emphatically declared that Asians were not, in fact, White, and could be excluded from the privileges Whiteness entailed. This is the line Whiteness walks--carefully allowing some new groups in, but likewise careful to maintain borders and boundaries to preserve the exclusivist property.
3) Whiteness seeks to be colorless.
This is a more recent development, and probably going to be controversial, but I think it's true. In its least controversial form, describing the Whiteness' desire to be colorless merely states that Whiteness seeks to be the norm, the center, the measuring stick by which all other groups are based off of. However, I believe it goes beyond that. I believe that in contemporary, post-Civil Rights revolution America, Whiteness seeks to assure itself that it is not a racist hierarchy. It wants to believe that it is not a system of racialized privilege. That doesn't mean that Whites wish to give up the privileges they gain from Whiteness. They just want to believe that they are "earned", meritocratic, legitimate, and theoretically open to everyone who is willing to work hard and play by the rules. They want the guilt-release of being able to blame those on the bottom for their plight. The Just World Theorem dictates that, rather than radically restructuring society to become truly egalitarian, Whites will try and convince themselves that the status quo is an accordance with their ideals of justice, equality, neutrality, etc.. This is probably the weakest of the three instincts--throughout history, Whiteness has been perfectly willing to jettison every liberal value in the book if necessary to maintain its dominant and exclusionary character. Even still, I believe that if possible, Whiteness will seek to negotiate its position in a manner that allows it to at least claim consistency with prevailing liberal, democratic values.
They colorless instinct of Whiteness is obviously in tension with the exclusionary principle, and partially with the dominance principle as well. So my query is: How will Whiteness evolve in the coming years to satisfy all three of its interests?
II. The Candidates for Whiteness
As you may have suspected, I believe that we are approaching a point where new groups will be incorporated as "White." There are two reasons why I think this. First, demographic trends are, once again, threatening Whites with minority status in the foreseeable future. Historically when faced with this prospect, Whites have responded by changing the boundaries of Whiteness so as to stave off the day, and I see no reason why they won't do it again. Second, the persistent presence of "model minorities", especially Asians, poses a severe threat to the dominance principle of Whiteness. It is not possible for Whites to indefinitely maintain their position at the top of the racial hierarchy when they are persistently being bested in academic achievement and test scores. Incorporating Asians into Whiteness would allow Whites to maintain their stance at the apex of American society, a prime interest of Whiteness.
So, what will Whites do? I believe there are two prime candidates for inclusion into Whiteness: Asians, and Latinos. Asians I think present a much stronger case (in fact, were it not for relatively small numbers in America I'd predict they'd be the only candidate), but both have their pros and cons.
1) Asians
a) Advantages
As articulated above, the "model minority" issue poses a legitimate threat to the dominance of Whiteness, one which I can't believe Whiteness does not wish to head off. Incorporation would solidify the White monopoly at the top of the social and academic sphere. It would also serve international interests by strengthening our ties with the growing East and South Asian powers (China, Japan, India, and the various tigers and dragons). The work of Derrick Bell and Mary Dudziak has shown that responding to international concerns can be a powerful motivator in domestic racial politics. Furthermore, my intuition is that there is relatively greater acceptance of Asian presence in the spheres normally reserved by Whites for Whites. Interracial relationships between Whites and Asians seem to raise fewer eyebrows than other racial pairings. The heavy enrollment of Asians at elite colleges and universities has both conditioned Whites to an Asian presence at the top circles, and forced Whites to accept Asians as, to some extent, peers. Finally, Whites have already sought to pull Asians into their political orbit and away from other people of color on several issues, most notably affirmative action. This seems like a first step towards inviting them to join the White club entirely.
b) Disadvantages
Numbers is the big one--there are not anywhere near as many Asians in America as there are Blacks or Latinos. Changes in immigration patterns could possibly fix that, but it's not guaranteed. Though it's a close call, my feeling is that the perception of Asians as a distinct and separate "race" is more deeply ingrained than it is for Latinos, which could make it psychologically more difficult to incorporate Asians into Whiteness. Finally, the growth of Asian powers--specifically China's emergent challenge to US hegemony--may allow Asian-Americans to resist the pressure to become White and maintain cultural independence.If this last scenario happens, it could cause a serious breakdown in the entire schema of White dominance. On the other hand, this potential prospect again might motivate Whiteness to try and strike before Asians can mount an independent challenge.
II. Latinos
a) Advantages
As I said, I think the primary argument for why Latinos will be incorporated into Whiteness is the numbers game. Latinos are America's largest minority group, so bringing them into Whiteness would remove the demographic threat for the foreseeable future. The immigration issue also could cut in the favor of Latinos--with the forthcoming amnesty, Americans will have to get used to the idea of millions more Latinos on the track to citizenship, and it might decide it is preferable to try and incorporate them (probably using our pre-existing positive immigration narrative from Ellis Island) rather than maintain the current hostile stance. Finally, Latinos can claim some historical link towards Whiteness (the connection to Spain), and are already classified as "White" in the census (in that I check my box as "non-Hispanic White"). So in that respect they've already got their foot in the door.
b) Disadvantages
The degree of hostility flowing towards Latinos dwarfs that directed towards Asians and is rising, not falling. In contrast to the "model minority" portrayal of Asians, Latinos face a bevy of mostly negative stereotypes (lazy, unproductive, dirty) that would seem to clash with the Whiteness' dominance principle. By this I don't mean to imply Asians don't have their own negative stereotypes, just that the ones for Latinos seem to be far more prevalent and controlling in the White public eye at this time. Right now, the language of political discourse has taken a definitive turn towards seeking to exclude Latinos from Whiteness (the exclusionary principle seems to be the operative one right now, in other words), we'd have to see that reversed for Latinos to stand any chance of becoming White.
III. Outcomes
My prediction is that Asians will be effectively incorporated into Whiteness in the near-to-medium future, and that Latinos will follow if the demographic threat doesn't dissipate. The advantages/disadvantages section hopefully explained why this move will occur to satisfy the first (exclusionary) and second (dominance) principles of Whiteness. However, what of the third (colorless) principle? That, I believe, will occur in the mechanics of the incorporation, and it strikes me as potentially a very revealing event.
As I argued above, a significant shift in the interests of Whiteness in recent years is that it wants to see itself as egalitarian, liberal, fair, and not reminiscent of the Jim Crow hierarchies of old. This is not just me being idealistic--Critical Race Theorists have observed that there appears to be a genuine sentiment among White folks that racism is something bad, and it is bad to be racist. Unlike years past, the battle against racism, as Mari Matsuda notes, "has legitimating force." Since the majority of Whiteness' existence has been predicated on racism being okay and the key signifier of White dominance, this change requires adaptation by Whiteness if it wishes to maintain its dominance and exclusion. This is what I mean by "post-racial" America. I do not mean that racism is or will become absent, and I reject whole-heartedly that we are "post-racist." However, the press by Whites to try and erase race-talk and race categories (California, for example, is barred by law from even collecting data categorized by race) is highly symbolic--it articulates the sentiment that race is something dirty, a scary remnant of our darker past that should be buried away. This is misguided (the problem of the color-line was not the presence of race, it was the presence of racism), but a very active sentiment. And so, paradoxically, the oppression we are and will continue to be seeing in the future will, increasingly, be racism without race.
The relative absence of (and to some extent, social disfavor against) speaking in racial categories, ironically, may allow Whiteness to de facto include Asians without ever explicitly saying "you're White now." It will instead express the feeling that they "might as well be White, they're so similar." It would erase the difference in character, but preserve the formal distinction. Why? Because by incorporating Asians this way, Whiteness could stake a claim to the third interest (colorless) as well. This would turn Asians into the racial equivalent of what Derrick Bell calls "contradiction closing cases," that show "the system is not so bad after all," that the deck is fair and that anyone can "make it" in America. If someone argued that America is dominated by Whites, Whites could point to Asians as a counter-example, thus "proving" the neutrality of the system (while at the same time ignoring that Asians have been made effectively White). This would change Whiteness from a unitary category to somewhat of an alliance, but I don't think it would effectively change the dynamics of Whiteness, as the property is evolving away from biological essentialism and into a system of preserving and structuring the distribution of privileges. This, I believe, will be able to account for nominally different groups being placed under the same banner of Whiteness--allowing us to claim diversity (and with it, all the liberal ideals of fairness and equal opportunity) without really redressing the groups that are not accorded the privileges of Whiteness.
IV. Afterthoughts
None of this is inevitable. First, I could be wrong about the progress of true racial egalitarianism. We might turn the corner; racial equality may be right on our doorstep. In that case, happily, none of these predictions will bear fruit. However, this post also operates from the perspective of Whiteness; it is my understanding of what I believe Whiteness "wants" to do. As I noted above, the candidates for Whiteness have strong incentives to cooperate with the White agenda. But that is not the same as being inevitable. As I expressed above, Asian-Americans may move into a position where they will be able to mount a challenge to White supremacy--something that would throw the whole strategy for a loop. That may be extreme, but there is more that can be done aside from outright revolution. Historically, as Frank Wu has argued, Whites have conditioned inclusion into Whiteness on acquiescing to the system of White supremacy. However, I noted my belief that Whites seek the incorporation of other groups when they feel threatened or weak. The candidates, therefore, are in a temporary position of relative strength, they can leverage their inclusion into Whiteness to secure concessions by Whites in favor of the non-Whites that are not be included. This sort of infiltration strikes me as one of the best opportunities to really gain some ground--it is the cousin of my own belief that (current) White people should use their privileged position (and the "credibility" that entails) to press for real racial reform. However, Whiteness candidates may be better suited towards making that maneuver, as they are more closely tied to the oppressed and may thus make better and more informed advocates.
The preceding post may feel a bit grim, because it operates within a paradigm that Whiteness will remain dominant, that it will continue to pursue and maintain its dominance, and then seeks to predict what will result from those principles. Obviously, I'd be thrilled if my baseline assumptions turned out to be untrue. But even if they are, there are chinks in the armor that can be exploited. If people of color and their allies prepare well, they may be able to catch Whiteness with its guard down. And that could yield a genuine opportunity to undermine the system of racial superiority that has plagued American history for so long.
Why do the members of Whiteness change? What benefits do Whites accrue by inviting other people into the group? By investigating how and why Whiteness selects its new racial recruits, we may be able to elucidate important properties of Whiteness, as well as gain clues to the future of race relations in America.
Before I proceed, I want to note two issues. First, throughout this post I treat Whiteness as having such anthropomorphic qualities such as "interests", "properties", and "desires". This is because I believe Whiteness as a social phenomenon has evolved beyond the control of any of its constituent parts--it is its own being, not under the control of anyone or thing. Obviously, it can be influenced, but by and large it represents a structuring property to American life that tends to guide us more than we guide it.
Second, my description of a particular group as "becoming" White is not meant to be derogatory (or a nod of approval) towards that group. Some theorists have implied that in pursuing Whiteness, a non-White group is "selling out" or turning its back on their peers who remain at the bottom of the racial hierarchy. For my part, I believe that given the massive perks and privileges available to those that become White, compared to the oppression and dehumanization (up to and including murder) of those who are left at the bottom, I can't critique groups that wish to escape from that fate. This is similar to my view of Jews who have hesitated in proclaiming a strong and unique independent identity in the wake of the Holocaust--it may be better if they did, but given that this path appears to lead right back to Auschwitz, it is quite understandable that many Jews would rather lay low and try to avoid provoking those who have killed them so many times. This is one of Whiteness' greatest weapons when offering incorporation to a minority group--the implicit alternative, of continued degradation and suppression. Ideally, I'd rather that people of color gain equality without having to "become White," just like ideally I'd like for Jews to be able to articulate independent Jewish perspectives without the fear of being slaughtered. But since Whites remain rather jealous of their privileged position, I believe there is a strong incentive for minority groups to take the offer of Whiteness. Similarly, the discussion of what makes a group a good "candidate" for Whiteness is not a statement as to these groups' worth--intrinsic or otherwise. It is deliberately quite calculated--I don't claim that the machinations of Whiteness are moral nor just.
I. The Interests of Whiteness
To begin with, I'll articulate three "interests" possessed by Whiteness. These are the goals that Whiteness seeks to pursue or maintain while drawing and redrawing its institutional and social boundaries and practices. Ideally, Whiteness tries to maintain itself in a manner that secures all three of these interests.
1) Whiteness seeks to remain exclusive.
This plays back into the image of Whiteness as a property. Whiteness is valuable insofar as it is rare--I have it and you don't. This is why Whiteness doesn't simply allow everyone to be White--that would dilute the value. And Whites have resorted to extreme measures to keep its "racial purity" intact. The infamous "one-drop" rules, by which anyone with even a sliver of non-White blood was considered to be of color, helped put up a firm wall against encroachment by racial outsiders, as well as discouraging inter-racial relationships. Because of the exclusivity principle, the decision by Whiteness to allow new members to its ranks is, I believe, a very serious one. It is not something Whiteness does except under duress. Because of that, I believe that the incorporation of new groups into the White category is a signal of weakness in Whiteness, and is a prime time for anti-racist activists to move and exploit that weakness.
2) Whiteness seeks to remain dominant.
For virtually all of American history, Whites have been the dominant racial group. They like it at the top. It gives them privileges. And so, Whiteness has an interest in maintaining those privileges. The desire to remain dominant both encourages and undermines the exclusivity principle. It encourages it because it mandates sharp divisions between what Whites receive as dividends of their Whiteness (thus maintaining the value of Whiteness) and what non-Whites receive that marks them as discrete and inferior. This is related to what W.E.B. Du Bois and later David Roediger called the "wages of Whiteness" argument. Whites of all social classes receive a psychological wage by virtue of being White. No matter how oppressed or downtrodden they are, they can always look back and know there are people beneath them. Incidentally, this is an example of how racial hierarchy can hurt Whites too--if working class Whites weren't focused on insuring that there was always a class beneath them and consequently reassuring themselves that their position isn't that bad, they'd be more likely to forge coalitions with their fellows and press for structural reforms that would provide them real, tangible benefits (yes, I'm aware this is heavily Marxist in tint).
However, the desire for dominance can also undermine the exclusionary principle. This is mostly a numbers game--as demographics shift, Whites find themselves in a position where they might no longer be in the majority. Some Whites have managed to maintain dominance as a minority anyway, at least for a little while (think South Africa). But America's democratic instincts make that an unappealing prospect. Better to shore up the ranks by bringing in some new members. For example, the influx of Southern and Eastern European immigrants (as well as Irishmen) at the turn of the 20th century severely threatened the dominance of Whiteness, as these locales were not considered to be "White." There are scores of writings, speeches, and warnings from the late 19th century arguing why these people were racially inferior to America's Anglo-Saxon stock. Nonetheless, faced with the prospect of being swamped and rendered a (non-dominant) minority, Whites simply changed the contours of the race, and voila! Poles, Greeks, Italians, Jews and the Irish were all White. But note that the gates were not flung open entirely--at the same time that non-Anglo-Saxon Europeans were beginning to gain their White stripes, a series of court cases emphatically declared that Asians were not, in fact, White, and could be excluded from the privileges Whiteness entailed. This is the line Whiteness walks--carefully allowing some new groups in, but likewise careful to maintain borders and boundaries to preserve the exclusivist property.
3) Whiteness seeks to be colorless.
This is a more recent development, and probably going to be controversial, but I think it's true. In its least controversial form, describing the Whiteness' desire to be colorless merely states that Whiteness seeks to be the norm, the center, the measuring stick by which all other groups are based off of. However, I believe it goes beyond that. I believe that in contemporary, post-Civil Rights revolution America, Whiteness seeks to assure itself that it is not a racist hierarchy. It wants to believe that it is not a system of racialized privilege. That doesn't mean that Whites wish to give up the privileges they gain from Whiteness. They just want to believe that they are "earned", meritocratic, legitimate, and theoretically open to everyone who is willing to work hard and play by the rules. They want the guilt-release of being able to blame those on the bottom for their plight. The Just World Theorem dictates that, rather than radically restructuring society to become truly egalitarian, Whites will try and convince themselves that the status quo is an accordance with their ideals of justice, equality, neutrality, etc.. This is probably the weakest of the three instincts--throughout history, Whiteness has been perfectly willing to jettison every liberal value in the book if necessary to maintain its dominant and exclusionary character. Even still, I believe that if possible, Whiteness will seek to negotiate its position in a manner that allows it to at least claim consistency with prevailing liberal, democratic values.
They colorless instinct of Whiteness is obviously in tension with the exclusionary principle, and partially with the dominance principle as well. So my query is: How will Whiteness evolve in the coming years to satisfy all three of its interests?
II. The Candidates for Whiteness
As you may have suspected, I believe that we are approaching a point where new groups will be incorporated as "White." There are two reasons why I think this. First, demographic trends are, once again, threatening Whites with minority status in the foreseeable future. Historically when faced with this prospect, Whites have responded by changing the boundaries of Whiteness so as to stave off the day, and I see no reason why they won't do it again. Second, the persistent presence of "model minorities", especially Asians, poses a severe threat to the dominance principle of Whiteness. It is not possible for Whites to indefinitely maintain their position at the top of the racial hierarchy when they are persistently being bested in academic achievement and test scores. Incorporating Asians into Whiteness would allow Whites to maintain their stance at the apex of American society, a prime interest of Whiteness.
So, what will Whites do? I believe there are two prime candidates for inclusion into Whiteness: Asians, and Latinos. Asians I think present a much stronger case (in fact, were it not for relatively small numbers in America I'd predict they'd be the only candidate), but both have their pros and cons.
1) Asians
a) Advantages
As articulated above, the "model minority" issue poses a legitimate threat to the dominance of Whiteness, one which I can't believe Whiteness does not wish to head off. Incorporation would solidify the White monopoly at the top of the social and academic sphere. It would also serve international interests by strengthening our ties with the growing East and South Asian powers (China, Japan, India, and the various tigers and dragons). The work of Derrick Bell and Mary Dudziak has shown that responding to international concerns can be a powerful motivator in domestic racial politics. Furthermore, my intuition is that there is relatively greater acceptance of Asian presence in the spheres normally reserved by Whites for Whites. Interracial relationships between Whites and Asians seem to raise fewer eyebrows than other racial pairings. The heavy enrollment of Asians at elite colleges and universities has both conditioned Whites to an Asian presence at the top circles, and forced Whites to accept Asians as, to some extent, peers. Finally, Whites have already sought to pull Asians into their political orbit and away from other people of color on several issues, most notably affirmative action. This seems like a first step towards inviting them to join the White club entirely.
b) Disadvantages
Numbers is the big one--there are not anywhere near as many Asians in America as there are Blacks or Latinos. Changes in immigration patterns could possibly fix that, but it's not guaranteed. Though it's a close call, my feeling is that the perception of Asians as a distinct and separate "race" is more deeply ingrained than it is for Latinos, which could make it psychologically more difficult to incorporate Asians into Whiteness. Finally, the growth of Asian powers--specifically China's emergent challenge to US hegemony--may allow Asian-Americans to resist the pressure to become White and maintain cultural independence.If this last scenario happens, it could cause a serious breakdown in the entire schema of White dominance. On the other hand, this potential prospect again might motivate Whiteness to try and strike before Asians can mount an independent challenge.
II. Latinos
a) Advantages
As I said, I think the primary argument for why Latinos will be incorporated into Whiteness is the numbers game. Latinos are America's largest minority group, so bringing them into Whiteness would remove the demographic threat for the foreseeable future. The immigration issue also could cut in the favor of Latinos--with the forthcoming amnesty, Americans will have to get used to the idea of millions more Latinos on the track to citizenship, and it might decide it is preferable to try and incorporate them (probably using our pre-existing positive immigration narrative from Ellis Island) rather than maintain the current hostile stance. Finally, Latinos can claim some historical link towards Whiteness (the connection to Spain), and are already classified as "White" in the census (in that I check my box as "non-Hispanic White"). So in that respect they've already got their foot in the door.
b) Disadvantages
The degree of hostility flowing towards Latinos dwarfs that directed towards Asians and is rising, not falling. In contrast to the "model minority" portrayal of Asians, Latinos face a bevy of mostly negative stereotypes (lazy, unproductive, dirty) that would seem to clash with the Whiteness' dominance principle. By this I don't mean to imply Asians don't have their own negative stereotypes, just that the ones for Latinos seem to be far more prevalent and controlling in the White public eye at this time. Right now, the language of political discourse has taken a definitive turn towards seeking to exclude Latinos from Whiteness (the exclusionary principle seems to be the operative one right now, in other words), we'd have to see that reversed for Latinos to stand any chance of becoming White.
III. Outcomes
My prediction is that Asians will be effectively incorporated into Whiteness in the near-to-medium future, and that Latinos will follow if the demographic threat doesn't dissipate. The advantages/disadvantages section hopefully explained why this move will occur to satisfy the first (exclusionary) and second (dominance) principles of Whiteness. However, what of the third (colorless) principle? That, I believe, will occur in the mechanics of the incorporation, and it strikes me as potentially a very revealing event.
As I argued above, a significant shift in the interests of Whiteness in recent years is that it wants to see itself as egalitarian, liberal, fair, and not reminiscent of the Jim Crow hierarchies of old. This is not just me being idealistic--Critical Race Theorists have observed that there appears to be a genuine sentiment among White folks that racism is something bad, and it is bad to be racist. Unlike years past, the battle against racism, as Mari Matsuda notes, "has legitimating force." Since the majority of Whiteness' existence has been predicated on racism being okay and the key signifier of White dominance, this change requires adaptation by Whiteness if it wishes to maintain its dominance and exclusion. This is what I mean by "post-racial" America. I do not mean that racism is or will become absent, and I reject whole-heartedly that we are "post-racist." However, the press by Whites to try and erase race-talk and race categories (California, for example, is barred by law from even collecting data categorized by race) is highly symbolic--it articulates the sentiment that race is something dirty, a scary remnant of our darker past that should be buried away. This is misguided (the problem of the color-line was not the presence of race, it was the presence of racism), but a very active sentiment. And so, paradoxically, the oppression we are and will continue to be seeing in the future will, increasingly, be racism without race.
The relative absence of (and to some extent, social disfavor against) speaking in racial categories, ironically, may allow Whiteness to de facto include Asians without ever explicitly saying "you're White now." It will instead express the feeling that they "might as well be White, they're so similar." It would erase the difference in character, but preserve the formal distinction. Why? Because by incorporating Asians this way, Whiteness could stake a claim to the third interest (colorless) as well. This would turn Asians into the racial equivalent of what Derrick Bell calls "contradiction closing cases," that show "the system is not so bad after all," that the deck is fair and that anyone can "make it" in America. If someone argued that America is dominated by Whites, Whites could point to Asians as a counter-example, thus "proving" the neutrality of the system (while at the same time ignoring that Asians have been made effectively White). This would change Whiteness from a unitary category to somewhat of an alliance, but I don't think it would effectively change the dynamics of Whiteness, as the property is evolving away from biological essentialism and into a system of preserving and structuring the distribution of privileges. This, I believe, will be able to account for nominally different groups being placed under the same banner of Whiteness--allowing us to claim diversity (and with it, all the liberal ideals of fairness and equal opportunity) without really redressing the groups that are not accorded the privileges of Whiteness.
IV. Afterthoughts
None of this is inevitable. First, I could be wrong about the progress of true racial egalitarianism. We might turn the corner; racial equality may be right on our doorstep. In that case, happily, none of these predictions will bear fruit. However, this post also operates from the perspective of Whiteness; it is my understanding of what I believe Whiteness "wants" to do. As I noted above, the candidates for Whiteness have strong incentives to cooperate with the White agenda. But that is not the same as being inevitable. As I expressed above, Asian-Americans may move into a position where they will be able to mount a challenge to White supremacy--something that would throw the whole strategy for a loop. That may be extreme, but there is more that can be done aside from outright revolution. Historically, as Frank Wu has argued, Whites have conditioned inclusion into Whiteness on acquiescing to the system of White supremacy. However, I noted my belief that Whites seek the incorporation of other groups when they feel threatened or weak. The candidates, therefore, are in a temporary position of relative strength, they can leverage their inclusion into Whiteness to secure concessions by Whites in favor of the non-Whites that are not be included. This sort of infiltration strikes me as one of the best opportunities to really gain some ground--it is the cousin of my own belief that (current) White people should use their privileged position (and the "credibility" that entails) to press for real racial reform. However, Whiteness candidates may be better suited towards making that maneuver, as they are more closely tied to the oppressed and may thus make better and more informed advocates.
The preceding post may feel a bit grim, because it operates within a paradigm that Whiteness will remain dominant, that it will continue to pursue and maintain its dominance, and then seeks to predict what will result from those principles. Obviously, I'd be thrilled if my baseline assumptions turned out to be untrue. But even if they are, there are chinks in the armor that can be exploited. If people of color and their allies prepare well, they may be able to catch Whiteness with its guard down. And that could yield a genuine opportunity to undermine the system of racial superiority that has plagued American history for so long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
