Race in the US has always been defined in white and black categories. Groups who do not obviously fit in any of these two categories have had a hard time defining their own position within such a society, and society, likewise, has had a hard time to decide where to put them. Asians, mostly because of their outside appearance have usually been given a position in between black and white. Since the 1960s, they have, on the one hand, been pitted against Blacks as a “model minority” and, on the other hand, they have not been given equality with whites. White society has had a particular hard time attributing Filipinos and Asian Indians, who are today considered Asians, a racial category, for they do not look Asian and usually have a dark skin color. In the case of Asian Indians, there was also the issue that they are Caucasian. The dichotomy of white and black has also very often been associated with that of good and evil, smart and stupid, superior and inferior and the like. Because of this harsh opposition of black and white, without a gray zone in between, the question whether or not Asians have to become “white” in order to achieve the position or place they claim has to be considered very carefully.
Table of Contents
1. Race in the US: White and Black Categories
2. Whiteness and Non-Whiteness as Categories
3. Construction of Power and Whiteness
3.1 Power dynamics in Hawai'i
3.2 Social implications of riots and neighborhood dynamics
4. Assimilation and Ethnic Identity
5. Synthesis: Pluralistic Society and Racial Constructs
6. Intersectionality and Umbrella Terms
Objectives and Topics
This essay explores the complex question of whether Asian Americans must adopt "white" characteristics and behaviors to achieve their desired social and political standing in the United States, arguing that identity and power are constructed from multiple, often conflicting, perspectives.
- The dichotomy of "white" vs. "non-white" in American society.
- The role of "whiteness" as a social construct tied to power and class.
- Case studies on racial dynamics in Hawai'i and the 1992 L.A. race riots.
- The tension between political assimilation and the preservation of ethnic identity.
- The importance of intersectionality regarding race, class, and gender.
Excerpt from the Book
Race in the US
Race in the US has always been defined in white and black categories. Groups who do not obviously fit in any of these two categories have had a hard time defining their own position within such a society, and society, likewise, has had a hard time to decide where to put them. Asians, mostly because of their outside appearance have usually been given a position in between black and white. Since the 1960s, they have, on the one hand, been pitted against Blacks as a “model minority” and, on the other hand, they have not been given equality with whites. White society has had a particular hard time attributing Filipinos and Asian Indians, who are today considered Asians, a racial category, for they do not look Asian and usually have a dark skin color. In the case of Asian Indians, there was also the issue that they are Caucasian. The dichotomy of white and black has also very often been associated with that of good and evil, smart and stupid, superior and inferior and the like. Because of this harsh opposition of black and white, without a gray zone in between, the question whether or not Asians have to become “white” in order to achieve the position or place they claim has to be considered very carefully.
In my opinion, this question can be answered neither with a clear “yes” nor with a clear “no,” for I believe that the term “white” is, first of all, a question of perception and needs to be defined in terms of who is considered “white,” by whom, and why. Moreover, this “legitimate place or position” claimed by Asian Americans has to be put in more precise terms in order to decide this question. And finally, it must not be forgotten that umbrella terms like “Asian American” or even “white” are simplifications and do not reflect reality as it is. Their inclusiveness or exclusiveness depend on many different variables.
Summary of Chapters
1. Race in the US: White and Black Categories: Introduces the historical rigidity of American racial classification and the problematic "in-between" status often assigned to Asian Americans.
2. Whiteness and Non-Whiteness as Categories: Discusses the author's preference for using "white" and "non-white" as semantic categories and reviews how legal court decisions have fluctuated regarding the status of Asian Indians.
3. Construction of Power and Whiteness: Analyzes how whiteness is associated with power and class, using Hawaii and the Los Angeles riots as examples of how minority groups perceive the "colonizer" or the "white" role.
4. Assimilation and Ethnic Identity: Examines the internal debate within Asian American communities between the desire for assimilation to gain power and the desire for de-colonization by maintaining ethnic identity.
5. Synthesis: Pluralistic Society and Racial Constructs: Argues that in a pluralistic society, Asian Americans may need to adopt some aspects of "whiteness" for political participation while retaining their identity in non-political spheres.
6. Intersectionality and Umbrella Terms: Concludes by emphasizing the necessity of considering intersectionality, warning that broad labels like "Asian American" ignore the nuances of class, gender, and individual circumstances.
Keywords
Whiteness, Asian American, Race Relations, Power Dynamics, Assimilation, Ethnic Identity, Social Construct, Political Participation, Intersectionality, Model Minority, Non-white, De-colonization, Class, Gender, US Society
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper examines the social and political positioning of Asian Americans in the United States, specifically focusing on whether they must adopt the characteristics or behaviors associated with "whiteness" to attain social standing.
What are the central themes discussed?
Key themes include the binary nature of American racial classification, the intersection of race and power, the influence of historical legal definitions of whiteness, and the conflict between assimilation and the preservation of ethnic identity.
What is the primary research question?
The primary inquiry is whether Asian Americans must "become white"—in attitude, behavior, or socio-political alignment—to achieve their desired goals and positions within American society.
What methodological perspective does the author take?
The author approaches the subject from a sociological and critical perspective, analyzing race as a constructed variable and exploring its manifestations through historical court cases and contemporary social conflicts.
What does the main body address?
The body addresses how whiteness is perceived by different groups, the role of power dynamics in places like Hawaii, and the divergent strategies of assimilation versus cultural retention among Asian American groups.
Which keywords best describe this work?
The most relevant keywords are Whiteness, Asian American, Power Dynamics, Assimilation, and Intersectionality.
How does the author characterize the 1992 L.A. race riots in relation to this topic?
The author uses the riots as a case study to demonstrate how minority groups may perceive successful or better-off minority members as "white" or "colonizers" when the actual white power structure is distant.
What is the significance of the "Naturalization Act of 1790" mentioned in the text?
It is cited to illustrate how the legal definition of "white" was historically used to determine citizenship eligibility and to exclude or discriminate against various immigrant groups.
Does the author conclude that "becoming white" is necessary for Asian Americans?
The author concludes that there is no simple "yes" or "no" answer, suggesting that Asian Americans may need to adopt certain "white" behaviors for political participation while balancing their own ethnic identity in other spheres of life.
Why does the author prefer the terms "white" and "non-white" over other categories?
The author argues that categories like "people of color" or "black" are not on the same semantic level as "white," and prefers the "white" versus "non-white" dichotomy to better reflect social perception.
- Citar trabajo
- B.A. Stephanie Wössner (Autor), 2002, Becoming White as a Necessity? , Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/138108
