Discrimination Towards Asians

Racism against persons of Asian ancestry is not new in the United States. Beginning in the nineteenth century, the United States government institutionalized wide-spread animosity towards East Asians by passing laws that forbade their entry into the United States and limited the rights of those who were already in the country. Even into the twentieth century, the Supreme Court legitimized the essentially racist internment of American citizens who were of Japanese descent under the guise of national security. While there is much scholarly work and cognizance of the ongoing racial struggle between white and black Americans, there has been little discourse about the continuing racism towards Asians in this country. Even though racial bias against Asian Americans exists, it has been largely overlooked because Asian-Americans are seen as a large, uniform group of model minorities that are unaffected by racism. In fact, discrimination continues to be an issue for Asian Americans especially during the War on Terror.

In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which suspended Chinese immigration to the United States. The Act denied entry by persons of Chinese descent into the United States regardless of their country of origin. Regardless of whether the individual was actually born in the United States, the Act prevented Chinese individuals from traveling outside of the country. The Act was clearly created in response to building anti-Chinese sentiment among whites who felt that the Chinese were the source of economic downturn in the late nineteenth century. Moreover, the Act made clear that certain groups of the population, specifically individuals of Chinese descent, would not be accepted as Americans or offered equal rights in this country.

Well into the twentieth century, the United States government severely restricted the rights of persons of Japanese ancestry, both citizen and non-citizen, in the United States. For fear of potential espionage activity, the government began severely limiting the rights of persons of Japanese ancestry by confiscating of Japanese owned land, imposing curfews, relocation, and detention of Japanese-Americans at internment camps where they were segregated from the general population and faced questions about their loyalty to the United States. Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled in Korematsu v. United States that American internment of people of Japanese ancestry was not unconstitutional. The decision essentially declared that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the rights of those being interned. National security as a justification for the suspension of rights for Japanese-Americans is clearly just a front for racist attitudes. At no point during World War II did the U.S. government decide to implement widespread interment for German or Italian Americans as it did for the Japanese. The decision by the Court emphasized the risk of the possibility of espionage by persons of Japanese ancestry but there was never any actual evidence of spying by Japanese-Americans against the American government during the war. The idea that Japanese-Americans would be more likely to be traitorous than Italian-Americans or German-Americans clearly finds its roots in stereotypes of East-Asians as being shifty, suspicious, untrustworthy, and disloyal.

As Pat K. Chew points out in her article, Asian-Americans: The 'Reticent' Minority and Their Paradoxes, Asians are a diverse population coming from different occupational, educational, religious, and socio-economic backgrounds. The public perception of "Asian" as usually Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or maybe Vietnamese is incomplete and speaks to the lack of understanding that most Americans have about that part of the world. This account of Asians, which leaves out all of South and Southeast Asia, makes it easy to generalize and stereotype large groups of people as having certain traits. In addition, "Asian" leaves out a conception of differences in education, experience, and socio-economic status. The removal of all distinctions within groups of people that are diverse harms Asian self-perception and frustrates the goal of fighting racial bias against Asians.

Perpetuation of stereotypes about Asian success is the result of the false assertion that Asians are not affected by racial discrimination. Those who believe that Asian Americans are untouched by discrimination would point to as evidence the supposed widespread economic and educational success that many Asian Americans enjoy. Asian Americans are portrayed as hardworking, intelligent, and successful despite hardship. Yet in reality, Asians do not possess superior ability to withstand discrimination nor do they have an unusual rate of achievement when compared to other groups. More are poor, uneducated, and crowding tenements than living on a suburban cul de sac.

Unfortunately, the problematic imputation of characteristics of success to the entire population of Asians regardless of reality has become the norm. Many do not find this generalization and labeling objectionable since many of the traits like rich, neat, well-mannered, quiet, and educated are complimentary.

Nonetheless, they are no less insidious than blatantly negative stereotypes like dishonesty or cheapness because when applied to an entire group of people, they achieve the same end result of creating uniformity and denying individuality and complexity. For example, a non-Asian with a stereotypical understanding of Asians has his beliefs about Asian people affirmed when he encounters an intelligent and successful Asian. However, if he later meets an Asian who is different from what he expects, instead of recognizing difference and acknowledging that person's identity, the non-Asian might attempt to fit this person into old stereotypes and dismiss his dissimilarity as being a fluke. Ultimately, someone who has subsumed the real Asian under his mistaken beliefs about Asians will not bother to understand the challenges that prevent the life of this one Asian (and many more like him) from flourishing.

The tendency towards grouping of Asian Americans without regard to nuances of culture or more importantly, socio-economic status has a stifling effect on the discrimination discourse. When something is supposed to be uniform, there is the expectation that everything within that group of something will be the same way. Hence, a difference in one is perceived as an internal, singular flaw with the one rather than a widespread external problem affecting all. When all Asians are rich and educated, the proposition that even one Asian didn't get promoted because she faced discrimination against at a job or at a school is abnormal and inappropriate. Different characteristics like discrimination, poverty, or violence are inconsistent with ascribed characteristics like achievement, wealth, or efficiency. Rather, the atypical Asian is just that-atypical and not indicative of larger, more complicated issues that face different Asian communities. A concrete illustration is that the idea that Asian Americans are inherently studious has made it extremely difficult to get funding for ESL programs to assist poor, non-English speaking Asian Americans. The bookish, well-assimilated model minority perception of Asians has excluded the numerous poor Asian Americans from programs meant to help low-income individuals because these programs have not been directed or publicized to them.

Many Asians embrace the very stereotypes that confine them. One slightly counter-intuitive reason may be that the conformity is an unconscious means towards acknowledgement as an individual with rights and personality. While model minority stereotypes sweep broadly to define one homogenous mass of people, these particular positive stereotypes also serve to differentiate one group from other groups that are though of as having failed to achieve. Historically, those that are noticeably different than the white American mainstream were systematically deprived of their rights regardless of their citizenship. The awareness that past injustices against Asian Americans in this country were based on the belief that Asians are starkly different than white Americans both racially and culturally creates anxiety in Asian American communities to conform to constructed racial stereotypes. To act harmlessly, industriously, to live the American Dream, and to be as similar to the white mainstream is merely a way to lay claim to your rights as an American.

Arguably, the notion that Asian-Americans ought to perpetuate the idea of the model minority as a means to retain one's liberties by itself isn't so bad. Perhaps it isn't the worst thing for Asian Americans to have to defend their rights based on the argument that they are deserving of rights because they are equal to whites as demonstrated by these positive stereotypes. However, the myth of the model minority has a depressing and devastating effect on the self-perception of Asian Americans. Many Asian Americans pride themselves on their hard work and see their work ethic as being a part of their cultural makeup. Moreover, many Asian Americans see the "success stories" of other Asians and view those successes as a result of hard work. This understanding is akin to the outsider's viewpoint because it neglects to consider the particulars of that person's background like education and existing family wealth. As a consequence, many Asian Americans equate toil and obstacle with accomplishment. Hence, they are more likely to recognize obstacles and obstructions in their own life as personal rather than societal failures.

Finally, the transformation of Asian stereotypes in this country from negative to positive speaks not only to the ways that races are constructed but also the racial dynamic between whites and other groups. As we saw with Korematsu, stereotypes about Asians in the 19th and early 20th century were about Asians being suspicious, deceitful, and decidedly foreign. The current stereotypes of Asians characterize them as being intelligent, industrious, and successful. While these stereotypes affect the relationship dynamics between Asians and non-Asians, the purpose of these labels and their change go on to address the tense relationships between whites, blacks and Hispanics.

The creation of a large class of model minorities that possesses characteristics which are associated with whites like intelligence, wealth, and success automatically pits model minorities against all other minority groups. The shift of this construction of race characteristics-from suspicious to industrious-may have little or nothing to do with actual race relations between whites and Asians. What is more likely is that the existence of a model minority class that has defied a history of racism deflects fault for failure to become socially mobile from institutionalized racism to groups like blacks and Hispanics themselves. By lauding the successes of a model minority group that has appeared to thrive in spite of or even because of hardship, the dominant white group sends the subtle message to non-model minority groups: "Look at the Asians! They did it! Why can't you?" This statement is perceived by other minority groups and can only generate strain and apathy towards Asian Americans.

This construction of race pits racial groups against each other because certain groups are given preference by the dominant culture. Resentment builds towards the preferred groups by non-preferred groups who see the preferred group as being treacherous or contrary to their cause as the dominant group. These rifts between minority groups ensure that the dominant group remains in power. This breakdown of dialogue between members of different minority groups prevents these groups from working together toward addressing common and deeply entrenched societal problem that affect all minorities. As a result, racism against all minority groups persists underneath the surface with certain groups such as Asians facing a particular difficult time convincing others to recognize their plight.