We are still finishing up "A Different Mirror" by Ronald Takaki. This week, we delved into the Asian-American experience, particularly the Chinese and Japanese (and some Filipino) and their separate struggles in the Western United States.
Chapter 8 recounted the Chinese experience in regards to the reasons behind their immigration to the U.S. and the work and jobs that they were able to procure. Planned as the main site of commerce to the trade close to the Pacific Ocean, San Francisco needed laborers to build railroads and agriculture. Differing from the experience of other immigrants such as Eastern Europeans, Irish, and, later, Mexicans, the United States welcomed Chinese immigrants and labor. During the mid-1800s, labor was needed to expand transportation across the Pacific states and the Chinese were seen as the perfect labor force due to their perceived docility. Chinese people were also seeking refuge due to hardships experienced in their home land. They experienced similar hardships as the Irish: British colonialism, poor economic conditions, high taxes, natural disasters, and starvation. The United States promised equal opportunity and the accumulation of wealth. Most of the migrants were able-bodied men sent by their families and wives to work and send money back home.
Chinese immigrants found new homes on the West Coast, particularly California and Oregon. In 1870, a forth of California's Chinese population made homes in San Francisco. It would be interesting to find out how many Chinese currently living in San Francisco are descendants of this initial wave of immigrants. Referencing the San Francisco Bay Area, Takaki put a lot of the history into perspective for me. I was able to imagine what the landscape looked like in the San Francisco of the 1800s: the beginning of Chinatown, the new railroads, the burgeoning businesses, and the gold miners looking to strike it rich.
Of course, earlier sentiments of acceptance turned sour once white Americans had to compete for gold and jobs with Chinese. Racist laws such as the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act were enacted and the Chinese were unable to become citizens or inter-marry. When the economy slowed at the end of the 1800s, many Chinese laborers found themselves excluded from traditional work. This led to self-employment in Chinese-owned businesses such as laundries
I found the struggle of Chinese women particularly heartbreaking. Due to Chinese culture, the men could move to the U.S. to find work and had to leave their families and wives back in China. This strategy insured that the son would send money back since he didn't have his wife with him and couldn't start a new family in the States. An 1875 law banned the entry of Chinese prostitutes but the language was such that even wives could not enter. Despite the law, many Chinese women were forced into prostitution. Chinese prostitutes. the victims of "double discrimination" (much like their Japanese counterparts), led lives of dismal prospects. Many became opium addicts, suffered from sexually-transmitted diseases, beaten by their customers or owners or committed suicide due to despair. It's easy in my modern mindset to wonder why these women didn't try to improve their lot in life, but honestly, they had no other choice. Even if they were freed from bondage, they still faced innumerable hardships due to their sex and race.
It's strange that the San Francisco earthquake could be seen as a catalyst for good, but the subsequent fires destroyed most municipal records and opened the floodgates for a new wave of Chinese immigrants. Many of these new immigrants could claim that they were U.S. citizens, born in China to American parents, and bring their wives with them. These immigrants were no longer looking to toil in the U.S. and then return to China. No, they wanted to stay for good.
In Chapter 10, Takaki outlines the Japanese immigrant experience, especially in relation to their labor in Hawaiian sugar cane fields. From 1885-1924, 200,000 Japanese emigrated to Hawaii and another 180,000 moved to the mainland. Unlike the Chinese culture, Japan encouraged the emigration of women. In Japan, women could work in heavy industrial labor such as coal mines, construction, and textile mills. They were also encouraged to seek an education. English was a required class in many Japanese schools so new Japanese immigrants mastered the dominant language prior to their move.
In comparison to the Chinese experience, the Japanese life in Hawaii almost seems ideal. Although they had to toil in the sun working on sugar plantations, they were often paid a fair wage and had the support of both their fellow countrymen and family. Their existence didn't seem as lonely as the Chinese bachelor.
It was difficult for new Japanese immigrants to find work in more specialized or skilled fields. Racism was a huge factor in the bureaucratic hierarchy of many plantation. The skilled and prestigious jobs automatically went to whites, while the menial jobs were reserved for Japanese, Filipino, and Portuguese.
Filipino and Japanese workers formed the Hawaii Laborers Association together, in pursuit of better wages and benefits, despite ethnic differences. This truce was short lived at the time since plant owners used the time-honored tradition of pitting different elasticities against each other to distract them from their common enemy.
Second-generation Japanese kids were encouraged to gain an education despite suppression efforts from plant owners to keep them ignorant. Like the Mexicans, the Japanese were encouraged to quit school before high school since educated people would seek better careers than plantation labor.
When compared to the openly racist attacks the Japanese had to endure in the mainland, Hawaii seemed like a safe haven for different elasticities. Unlike the continental U.S., it seems that from early on, Hawaii practiced multiculturalism. This spirit lives on in the present. One of my close friends that is Chinese proclaims her love for Hawaii because she isn't a minority.
I would have liked to learn more about the native Hawaiians and whether Hawaii's unique melting pot is due to the preservation of their culture or because of the influx of a vast array of Asian peoples. Takaki doesn't specify in this chapter.
Overall, I felt less angered by this week's readings. Perhaps I'm becoming used to the tools of dominant American sentiment at this time. Or perhaps there was a spread of the idea of greater acceptance of all races. I know that this had yet to be realized in the years leading up to World War II (especially the concept of internment camps) but slowly, the tide started to change towards grasping the purist ideals of the United States.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Week 5 Reading Response
I'm back after taking a couple weeks off due to a crazy schedule and an unforeseen illness!
This week, we read Chapters 7 and 12 in "A Different Mirror" by Ronald Takaki. These chapters specifically dealt with the Chicano and Latino experiences within two different time periods in the United States. The first chapter recounted the annexation of the Southwest, particularly Texas and California, into the United States. The second chapter we read speaks of the experience that migrant Mexican workers found once they moved to "El Norte" in search of work.
Chapter 7 is titled "Foreigners in Their Native Land" for good reason. As the Americans have been wont to do throughout the course of their short history (to this point), they once again declare foreign land as their own and subject the rightful owners to unspeakable acts of degradation and humiliation. Oh, Americans of the mid-19th century, why? Instead of just being upfront about being out-right thieves, the Anglo-Americans (there has to be a distinction), once again make the land into a race issue. The land MUST belong to the civilized and god-fearing Anglo men, of course! I'm feeling a bit more sarcastic this week because I've been tiring of this form of reasoning because it seems so false! The Anglo-Americans must have known their own spurious reasons for taking land that isn't rightfully theirs. Yet, instead of going about it in a "civilized" manner (since that is what they purpose to spread throughout the new United States, right?), they resort to war, fear-mongering, and race baiting. I found it ironic that Commander Vallejo, forced from his ranch in California, found the American frontiersmen as "exiles from civilization." Also, these men and other American soldiers in Texas and California were "illegal aliens" in Mexican land. This did not hinder their progress, however. Perhaps this lead to the current anxiety regarding "illegals"? Perhaps there is a collective Anglo memory that understands their forefathers' theft of the land, and they must keep the current Mexican "illegal aliens" from what is currently U.S. land. Lest these "illegals" reclaim their ancestors' rightful lands?
By 1848, Mexico ceded Texas and other Southwestern territories to the U.S. for $15 million, leaving Mexico with half of their prior land. This created the odd predicament of Mexicans being "foreigners in their own land." New Anglo residents moved into California and Texas and brought their foreign language and laws with them, creating an uneasy divide between conqueror and conquered. This started the Mexican caste system, wherein former land owners were now forced to give up their ranches and farms due to debt and had to work for the new Anglo landowners. Mexicans moved from landowners to laborers, much like the Irish under English rule. There became an apparent divide across racial lines. Whites became landowners, Mexicans became laborers.
The silver lining in Chapter 7 was revealed at the end when Takaki described the alliance between Mexican and Japanese laborers in the form of the JMLA Union: The Japanese-Mexican Labor Association. These two minority groups were able to form an alliance in class against Anglo landowners. When the dominant union was going to take the JMLA under their wing if they dumped the Japanese laborers, the Mexicans stood fast and refused to turn their backs on their "Japanese brothers."
Another interesting group in Chapter 7 were the Mexican mutualistas, groups of Mexicans that banded together in their struggle to retain their Mexican culture and customs in spite of being American-born. This balance of identity continues on today. How does one create a place for themselves when their backgrounds straddle two different nations? What does it mean when you feel more affinity for a nation that is not your current homeland? How does one reconcile this inner struggle in the face of assimilation?
Chapter 12 in Takaki's book spoke of Mexican immigration in the 20th century. Since it was easy for Mexicans to come to the United States since the countries bordered each other, the early 1900s saw an influx of Mexican people in the Southwestern states. These people came for migrant and seasonal farm work offered by Anglo farm and ranch owners. By 1918, 70% of the Mexican population in Los Angeles were unskilled laborers. Much like the struggle of post-Reconstruction African-Americans, many American-born Mexicans found themselves segregated in their own country. Mexican-Americans were forced into separate institutions and public places from their fellow white countrymen. It was depressing to think of the institutional reach of this racism and classism. Mexican-American children, forced into segregated schools, were discouraged from receiving an education because this would make them poor laborers or inspire them to work within the white collar professions. So, the Mexican-Americans were disparaged for being "shiftless, lazy, and docile" but were discouraged from bettering themselves through education because white ranch owners needed cheap labor. Huh? And it continues today, that's the thing that is so pervasive in these readings. All of the social, racial, class, and gender hierarchies were put into place long before any of us were born. This is the system that people of color are still fighting against. It's incredible to think that these struggles are STILL raging.
This week, we read Chapters 7 and 12 in "A Different Mirror" by Ronald Takaki. These chapters specifically dealt with the Chicano and Latino experiences within two different time periods in the United States. The first chapter recounted the annexation of the Southwest, particularly Texas and California, into the United States. The second chapter we read speaks of the experience that migrant Mexican workers found once they moved to "El Norte" in search of work.
Chapter 7 is titled "Foreigners in Their Native Land" for good reason. As the Americans have been wont to do throughout the course of their short history (to this point), they once again declare foreign land as their own and subject the rightful owners to unspeakable acts of degradation and humiliation. Oh, Americans of the mid-19th century, why? Instead of just being upfront about being out-right thieves, the Anglo-Americans (there has to be a distinction), once again make the land into a race issue. The land MUST belong to the civilized and god-fearing Anglo men, of course! I'm feeling a bit more sarcastic this week because I've been tiring of this form of reasoning because it seems so false! The Anglo-Americans must have known their own spurious reasons for taking land that isn't rightfully theirs. Yet, instead of going about it in a "civilized" manner (since that is what they purpose to spread throughout the new United States, right?), they resort to war, fear-mongering, and race baiting. I found it ironic that Commander Vallejo, forced from his ranch in California, found the American frontiersmen as "exiles from civilization." Also, these men and other American soldiers in Texas and California were "illegal aliens" in Mexican land. This did not hinder their progress, however. Perhaps this lead to the current anxiety regarding "illegals"? Perhaps there is a collective Anglo memory that understands their forefathers' theft of the land, and they must keep the current Mexican "illegal aliens" from what is currently U.S. land. Lest these "illegals" reclaim their ancestors' rightful lands?
By 1848, Mexico ceded Texas and other Southwestern territories to the U.S. for $15 million, leaving Mexico with half of their prior land. This created the odd predicament of Mexicans being "foreigners in their own land." New Anglo residents moved into California and Texas and brought their foreign language and laws with them, creating an uneasy divide between conqueror and conquered. This started the Mexican caste system, wherein former land owners were now forced to give up their ranches and farms due to debt and had to work for the new Anglo landowners. Mexicans moved from landowners to laborers, much like the Irish under English rule. There became an apparent divide across racial lines. Whites became landowners, Mexicans became laborers.
The silver lining in Chapter 7 was revealed at the end when Takaki described the alliance between Mexican and Japanese laborers in the form of the JMLA Union: The Japanese-Mexican Labor Association. These two minority groups were able to form an alliance in class against Anglo landowners. When the dominant union was going to take the JMLA under their wing if they dumped the Japanese laborers, the Mexicans stood fast and refused to turn their backs on their "Japanese brothers."
Another interesting group in Chapter 7 were the Mexican mutualistas, groups of Mexicans that banded together in their struggle to retain their Mexican culture and customs in spite of being American-born. This balance of identity continues on today. How does one create a place for themselves when their backgrounds straddle two different nations? What does it mean when you feel more affinity for a nation that is not your current homeland? How does one reconcile this inner struggle in the face of assimilation?
Chapter 12 in Takaki's book spoke of Mexican immigration in the 20th century. Since it was easy for Mexicans to come to the United States since the countries bordered each other, the early 1900s saw an influx of Mexican people in the Southwestern states. These people came for migrant and seasonal farm work offered by Anglo farm and ranch owners. By 1918, 70% of the Mexican population in Los Angeles were unskilled laborers. Much like the struggle of post-Reconstruction African-Americans, many American-born Mexicans found themselves segregated in their own country. Mexican-Americans were forced into separate institutions and public places from their fellow white countrymen. It was depressing to think of the institutional reach of this racism and classism. Mexican-American children, forced into segregated schools, were discouraged from receiving an education because this would make them poor laborers or inspire them to work within the white collar professions. So, the Mexican-Americans were disparaged for being "shiftless, lazy, and docile" but were discouraged from bettering themselves through education because white ranch owners needed cheap labor. Huh? And it continues today, that's the thing that is so pervasive in these readings. All of the social, racial, class, and gender hierarchies were put into place long before any of us were born. This is the system that people of color are still fighting against. It's incredible to think that these struggles are STILL raging.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Week 2 Reading Response
Chapters 3 through 5 in Takaki's "A Different Mirror" focused primarily on the African-American experience from the early 1600s through the end of the Civil War and the failure of Reconstruction. The experience of reading these chapters after learning about the continued degradation of Native Americans lent itself to continued feelings of hopelessness regarding the beginnings of U.S. history. To study U.S. History is to study the continued struggle of those deemed "Other." The arbitrariness of this distinction had me bewildered at the ignorance of this country's forefathers. For a moment, I felt deep shame at the actions of the founders of the United States, especially those of President Andrew Jackson.
The origins of slavery as outlined in Chapter 3 surprised me since the institution came about so slowly. Takaki explained that the tobacco economy drove the need for labor but that tobacco planters were wary of Africans and preferred to use white labor and servants. Since white Europeans were coming to America with debts, they worked as indentured servants in order to pay off their debts. What struck me the most about the evolution of indentured servitude to slavery was the willingness of landowners to compromise their own values of liberty. Even though Thomas Jefferson felt that the institution of slavery was immoral, he reconciled the fact that by 1822, he owned 267 slaves. Slavery was not only a "peculiar institution" but also one that forced landowners to dismiss that they were exploiting fellow human beings for profit. Despite learning what the English caste thought about race and beings that belonged to something "Other" than themselves, it's still shocking to read accounts of the complete racial inequality and exploitation of the period of 1600-1860s.
Chapter 4 outlined the rise of the cotton crop as well as the need for slave labor. Prior to the innovation of the cotton gin, slavery as an institution was losing popularity. Slave owners in the North had begun to free their slaves in the late 1700s. Even in the tobacco fields of the South, the keeping of slaves was not a profitable enterprise. What changed history was the invention of the cotton gin. Cotton was now easier to process and a new labor force was needed in order to keep up with demand: slave labor. After the turn of the 19th century, slavery was once again profitable.
The personalities that made up the bulk of Chapter 5 made for an interesting and enlightening read. Takaki discussed four major figures before, during, and after the Civil War and their differing viewpoints regarding slavery, freedom, education, and nationalism. I was moved by the ideas advanced by David Walker, a free black man in Boston. He advanced the idea that whites were the true barbarians due to the unsavory practice of slavery and that slavery can only be destroyed by violent revolt. These ideas were advanced by the realities of the lives of blacks on both sides of the North/South divide. Despite having freedom in the North, blacks were still met with oppressive racism by fellow workers and government. There seemed to be no other people that had the blacks' interests in mind besides fellow blacks. Most blacks in the North were relegated to menial labor and thought to be intellectually inferior. Whilst reading this chapter, I couldn't help but compare the continued struggle that many African-Americans have to overcome these long-held stereotypes and prejudices. To think that misgivings created more than two centuries ago still have resonance today is mind-blowing. The United States STILL struggles to incorporate the lives of ALL Americans into current textbooks. Ethnic studies is still a fairly new academic discipline and some residents of the U.S. can live their whole lives without seeing a face that differs, in color and background, from their own. This country is supposed to be a melting pot, a melding of different cultures and backgrounds but there is still a divide based on past grievances and misgivings. It seems like a dire prospect but one that is worth fighting for. I'm glad that Martin Delany decided to stay and fight rather than emigrate back to Africa.
"A man without force is without the essential dignity of humanity." — Frederick Douglass.
The origins of slavery as outlined in Chapter 3 surprised me since the institution came about so slowly. Takaki explained that the tobacco economy drove the need for labor but that tobacco planters were wary of Africans and preferred to use white labor and servants. Since white Europeans were coming to America with debts, they worked as indentured servants in order to pay off their debts. What struck me the most about the evolution of indentured servitude to slavery was the willingness of landowners to compromise their own values of liberty. Even though Thomas Jefferson felt that the institution of slavery was immoral, he reconciled the fact that by 1822, he owned 267 slaves. Slavery was not only a "peculiar institution" but also one that forced landowners to dismiss that they were exploiting fellow human beings for profit. Despite learning what the English caste thought about race and beings that belonged to something "Other" than themselves, it's still shocking to read accounts of the complete racial inequality and exploitation of the period of 1600-1860s.
Chapter 4 outlined the rise of the cotton crop as well as the need for slave labor. Prior to the innovation of the cotton gin, slavery as an institution was losing popularity. Slave owners in the North had begun to free their slaves in the late 1700s. Even in the tobacco fields of the South, the keeping of slaves was not a profitable enterprise. What changed history was the invention of the cotton gin. Cotton was now easier to process and a new labor force was needed in order to keep up with demand: slave labor. After the turn of the 19th century, slavery was once again profitable.
The personalities that made up the bulk of Chapter 5 made for an interesting and enlightening read. Takaki discussed four major figures before, during, and after the Civil War and their differing viewpoints regarding slavery, freedom, education, and nationalism. I was moved by the ideas advanced by David Walker, a free black man in Boston. He advanced the idea that whites were the true barbarians due to the unsavory practice of slavery and that slavery can only be destroyed by violent revolt. These ideas were advanced by the realities of the lives of blacks on both sides of the North/South divide. Despite having freedom in the North, blacks were still met with oppressive racism by fellow workers and government. There seemed to be no other people that had the blacks' interests in mind besides fellow blacks. Most blacks in the North were relegated to menial labor and thought to be intellectually inferior. Whilst reading this chapter, I couldn't help but compare the continued struggle that many African-Americans have to overcome these long-held stereotypes and prejudices. To think that misgivings created more than two centuries ago still have resonance today is mind-blowing. The United States STILL struggles to incorporate the lives of ALL Americans into current textbooks. Ethnic studies is still a fairly new academic discipline and some residents of the U.S. can live their whole lives without seeing a face that differs, in color and background, from their own. This country is supposed to be a melting pot, a melding of different cultures and backgrounds but there is still a divide based on past grievances and misgivings. It seems like a dire prospect but one that is worth fighting for. I'm glad that Martin Delany decided to stay and fight rather than emigrate back to Africa.
"A man without force is without the essential dignity of humanity." — Frederick Douglass.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Week 1 Reading Response
This week, we read Chapters 1 and 2 from Ronald Takaki's A Different Mirror as well as Omi and Winant's "Racial Formation" and Feagin and Feagin's "Theoretical Perspectives in Race and Ethnic Relations."
In Chapter 1 of Takaki's book, he talks about the "narrow but widely shared sense of the past" that all Americans have, regardless of race or ethnicity. He states that Americans are usually viewed as someone that is European in ancestry and how other people that claim to be "American" but have an obviously non-European background are seen as suspect. Takaki also claims that race is not the same as ethnicity.
Omi and Winant's "Racial Formations" essay attempts to define race and makes a case of race as a mostly social construct. Race consciousness and the attempts to define race are a modern phenomenon that largely occurs in the United States. Omi and Winant discuss the different ways in which race is a social concept and that race is shaped by broader societal forces. The meaning of race is created by social relations and historical contexts. The concept of "racialization" is also discussed. "Racialization" is the extension of racial meaning to a previously racially unclassified relationship, social practice, or group. This concept also takes into account the issue of class and how people of certain racial groups also define themselves by the type of labor or work that they do. At the end of the essay, Omi and Winant assert that race is not fixed and that as a social concept, it is able to metamorphosis and change along with the culture.
"Theoretical Perspectives in Race and Ethnic Relations" by Feagin and Feagin discusses different theories of race relations in the United States. These are theories that don't necessarily work separately from one another. Some of the theories discussed in this article include ideas of assimilation, biosocial perspectives, competition theories, and class theories. Throughout the article, Feagin and Feagin define and describe the different theories and perspectives of race and ethnic relations in the U.S. and the faults of these differing theories and perspectives. The assimilation theories are discussed in depth since this is one of the oldest theories that is still currently seen as an acceptable practice. In the assimilation perspective, migrating groups adapt to the ways and institutions of the established majority. Milton Gordon outlined the stages of assimilation, but this theory is problematic because it focuses mostly on European immigrants that came to the United States voluntarily. The other two theories that had the most resonance were the Internal Colonialism theory and Neo-Marxist Emphasis on Class. These theories also focus on the importance of class when considering race and how racial groups are treated by the majority.
I found this week's readings to be intense but also full of new and interesting concepts to me. Takaki's book affected me as a person from a mixed-race background. The first chapter was especially effective in discussing how immigrants and the histories of immigrants of the United States has been ignored in texts about U.S. history. Takaki's personal story with the taxi driver touched me because any person that is non-white is always seen as suspect when they declare their American-ness. If a person does not fit into the narrow idea of what an "American" is, they are instantly seen as an exotic foreigner. I've had the opposite happen to me. Since I have light skin and don't have an accent, I am instantly accepted as an American or "white" at face value. When I reveal my mixed ancestry: Irish, French-Canadian, Native-American, Mexican, and Chinese; I am greeted by suspicion. How could I possibly contain all of these backgrounds when I don't "look" ethnic or even ambiguously mixed? I also feel like there is something else in play with this suspicious reaction: why would I want to be seen as anything other than white? That is why I sometimes keep my racial background to myself because I then have to explain my convoluted background story and explain my family tree in detail.
I found Omi and Winant's article interesting especially when they discussed the role of the government in forming and upholding ideas of race in the U.S. It's interesting to compare the United States' very strict definition of race and racial differences to the way that Omi and Winant stated that Latin America, and Brazil in particular, choose not to define race. I wonder if we will ever reach a point in the U.S. where race can be seen as a more fluid concept, like sexuality.
Feagin and Feagin's article was difficult to digest but definitely worth it in order to learn about the different perspectives on racial formation in the U.S. The article presents the theories as separate entities but I think in order to truly encapsulate race in the United States, we need to use multiple theories outlined. The assimilation theory seemed old fashioned in its concepts; that one must assimilate in order to be accepted in the U.S. I can understand this theory to a point, it would be impossible to engage with society if you didn't speak the same language but this theory seemed like an either/or proposition to me. Either you have to give up your heritage or you will never fit into American society and reap the benefits. I think that this theory has evolved a bit from its first inception. The theories that struck me as being the most likely included issues of class and gender. The Neo-Marxist Emphasis on Class struck me as particularly valid, as I don't think that class and race can exist separately.
In Chapter 1 of Takaki's book, he talks about the "narrow but widely shared sense of the past" that all Americans have, regardless of race or ethnicity. He states that Americans are usually viewed as someone that is European in ancestry and how other people that claim to be "American" but have an obviously non-European background are seen as suspect. Takaki also claims that race is not the same as ethnicity.
Omi and Winant's "Racial Formations" essay attempts to define race and makes a case of race as a mostly social construct. Race consciousness and the attempts to define race are a modern phenomenon that largely occurs in the United States. Omi and Winant discuss the different ways in which race is a social concept and that race is shaped by broader societal forces. The meaning of race is created by social relations and historical contexts. The concept of "racialization" is also discussed. "Racialization" is the extension of racial meaning to a previously racially unclassified relationship, social practice, or group. This concept also takes into account the issue of class and how people of certain racial groups also define themselves by the type of labor or work that they do. At the end of the essay, Omi and Winant assert that race is not fixed and that as a social concept, it is able to metamorphosis and change along with the culture.
"Theoretical Perspectives in Race and Ethnic Relations" by Feagin and Feagin discusses different theories of race relations in the United States. These are theories that don't necessarily work separately from one another. Some of the theories discussed in this article include ideas of assimilation, biosocial perspectives, competition theories, and class theories. Throughout the article, Feagin and Feagin define and describe the different theories and perspectives of race and ethnic relations in the U.S. and the faults of these differing theories and perspectives. The assimilation theories are discussed in depth since this is one of the oldest theories that is still currently seen as an acceptable practice. In the assimilation perspective, migrating groups adapt to the ways and institutions of the established majority. Milton Gordon outlined the stages of assimilation, but this theory is problematic because it focuses mostly on European immigrants that came to the United States voluntarily. The other two theories that had the most resonance were the Internal Colonialism theory and Neo-Marxist Emphasis on Class. These theories also focus on the importance of class when considering race and how racial groups are treated by the majority.
I found this week's readings to be intense but also full of new and interesting concepts to me. Takaki's book affected me as a person from a mixed-race background. The first chapter was especially effective in discussing how immigrants and the histories of immigrants of the United States has been ignored in texts about U.S. history. Takaki's personal story with the taxi driver touched me because any person that is non-white is always seen as suspect when they declare their American-ness. If a person does not fit into the narrow idea of what an "American" is, they are instantly seen as an exotic foreigner. I've had the opposite happen to me. Since I have light skin and don't have an accent, I am instantly accepted as an American or "white" at face value. When I reveal my mixed ancestry: Irish, French-Canadian, Native-American, Mexican, and Chinese; I am greeted by suspicion. How could I possibly contain all of these backgrounds when I don't "look" ethnic or even ambiguously mixed? I also feel like there is something else in play with this suspicious reaction: why would I want to be seen as anything other than white? That is why I sometimes keep my racial background to myself because I then have to explain my convoluted background story and explain my family tree in detail.
I found Omi and Winant's article interesting especially when they discussed the role of the government in forming and upholding ideas of race in the U.S. It's interesting to compare the United States' very strict definition of race and racial differences to the way that Omi and Winant stated that Latin America, and Brazil in particular, choose not to define race. I wonder if we will ever reach a point in the U.S. where race can be seen as a more fluid concept, like sexuality.
Feagin and Feagin's article was difficult to digest but definitely worth it in order to learn about the different perspectives on racial formation in the U.S. The article presents the theories as separate entities but I think in order to truly encapsulate race in the United States, we need to use multiple theories outlined. The assimilation theory seemed old fashioned in its concepts; that one must assimilate in order to be accepted in the U.S. I can understand this theory to a point, it would be impossible to engage with society if you didn't speak the same language but this theory seemed like an either/or proposition to me. Either you have to give up your heritage or you will never fit into American society and reap the benefits. I think that this theory has evolved a bit from its first inception. The theories that struck me as being the most likely included issues of class and gender. The Neo-Marxist Emphasis on Class struck me as particularly valid, as I don't think that class and race can exist separately.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
