(5 pages) Compare and contrast the experiences of Chinese Americans and Vietnamese Americans in the United States

Asian Pacific Americans' Social Movements and Interest Groups Author(s): Kim Geron, Enrique de la Cruz, Leland T. Saito and Jaideep Singh Source: PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Sep., 2001), pp. 618-624 Published by: American Political Science Association Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1353549 Accessed: 11-08-2018 22:38 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PS: Political Science and Politics

This content downloaded from 128.97.27.20 on Sat, 11 Aug 2018 22:38:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

For at least 150 years, Asian Pacific Americans have faced racial discrimina- tion, violence, and segregation. Unable to vote before World War II, many used legal challenges and other non-electoral means to fight for equality (Salyer 1995). Family and regional associations formed for economic needs, while other groups organized to defend worker rights (Bulosan 1973; Kwong 1997; Yoneda 1983). Civil rights organizations such as the Japanese American Citizens League (founded in 1930) and the Chinese Ameri- can Citizens Alliance (founded in 1915) promoted assimilation and opposed discrimination.

In the post-World War II era, Asian Americans built new forms of community- based institutions and organizations, including mainstream advocacy and service groups, and grassroots organiza- tions that challenged fundamental in- equalities (Lo 1992). In the 1970s and

1980s, for example, the

campaign for redress for Japanese Americans incarcerated during World War II combined

L Universily, grassroots protest and congressional lobbying, resulting in President

la Cruz, Reagan signing legisla- : Universily, tion that provided for

both an official apology and monetary compen-

sito, sation (Maki, Kitano, | and Berthold 1999).

DUtnern The nationwide Justice

for Vincent Chin

| h campaign in the early 9 s 1980s galvanized a e broad coalition of

Chinese and other Asian-American groups in opposition to racial violence (Zia 2000).

Within this wide range of Asian-Ameri- can political activity, we have focused on a few areas: pan-Asian organizing, South Asian political integration, Filipino- American struggles against martial law, and defense of ethnic enclaves. These areas highlight the historic and current divergent political activities in Asian- American communities for social justice and full equality.

Asian Americans and Panethnicity

With the emergence of Asian Americans as a political force in many U.S. urban areas, the group's extraordinary diversity has raised a fundamental question: Is there a pan-ethnic identity? Panethnic catego- ries such as "Asian American," "Latino," or "Native American" and ethnic catego- ries such as "Chinese American," "Fili- pino American," or "Japanese American"- are political and social constructions, with their boundaries and significance under constant negotiation and reconfiguration (Cornell 1988; Nagel 1996; Omi and Winant 1994; Padilla 1985).

Given that Asian Americans vary greatly by religion, language, and political ideology, structural factors appear to be the major contributors to a panethnic identity (Espiritu 1992; Lopez and Espiritu 1990; Saito 1998). Panethnicity is in part imposed by a shared history of racialization through discriminatory government policies in areas such as immigration, naturalization, and federal home mortgage policies (Daniels 1988; Lipsitz 1998; Massey and Denton 1993; Saxton 1971). These policies created common interests among Asian Americans, who found themselves grouped together in a racial hierarchy that was deeply imbed- ded in society and supported by govern- ment practices.

Community studies illustrate the construction of panethnicity. Examining local and national events, they show how actions such as hate crimes, neighborhood segregation, government actions, and labor market discrimination contribute to racialization (Fong 1994; Horton 1995; Kwong 1996; Lin 1998). These studies also show that while an Asian-American identity is in part imposed by external factors, such as census categories (Espiritu and Omi 2000), glass ceilings, or racial lumping, Asian Americans have used political action to negotiate the bound- aries and consequences of this identity.

Political mobilization and identity formation develop from complex patterns of gender, race, class, and political rela- tionships that are highly influenced by historical and contemporary contexts (Abelmann and Lie 1995; Lowe 1996).

by

Kim Geron, California State

Hayward Enrique de California State

Northridge Lelelnd T. Sa Universily of Sc

California

Jalideep Sin Oberlin Colleg

619

PSOnline www.apsanet.org

Asian Pacific Americans' Sociol

Movements and Interest Groups

This content downloaded from 128.97.27.20 on Sat, 11 Aug 2018 22:38:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

_e:. .._ _F .

_r'

*X.,; mE

Future lders? Having long faced racial discrimination and segregation, including the internment of Japanese Americans during World War 11, the Asian-American community today plays a more active role in advocacy and political life. The children of the internment are now community leaders, activists and elected officials. Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress.

618 PS September2001

This content downloaded from 128.97.27.20 on Sat, 11 Aug 2018 22:38:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Given their diversity, not all Americans of Asian ancestry

classify themselves as Asian American, and tensions and

differences exist within that category (Cho 1995). Immi-

grants from Asia come from relatively homogeneous

populations in which they are part of a majority, giving

them very different notions of race than those held by

U.S.-born Asian Americans. Collective memory (Lipsitz

1988) and cultural construction (Nagel 1994) interact as

new racial and ethnic identities form. Historical and

contemporary issues create a sense of group membership

Studies show that while an Asian American identity is in part impoz by external factors, such as censu categories, glass ceilings, or racial lumping, Asian Americans have u political action to negotiate the boundaries and consequences of identity.

and a basis for political mobilization, emerging from the

activities, networks, and cultural practices of everyday

life, and the broader economic and political context.

Given the broad range of influences shaping identity, a

pan-ethnic movement may comprise groups that reflect

multiple, and often, contradictory interests (Espiritu 1992;

Saito 1998) .

Asian Americans have recognized the importance of

political involvement and the need for networks, organiza-

tions, and other resources. To compete in electoral

politics at local, state, and federal levels, they need the

greater numbers and resources that come from pan-ethnic

cooperation (Erie and Brackman 1993; Ong and Nakanishi

1996).

Capturing the full range of Asian-American political

activity, however, requires an "expanded conceptual

framework" (Nakanishi 1991, 31), one which looks

beyond traditional electoral politics (Omatsu 1990, 1994;

Ong 2000; Ong, Bonacich, and Cheng 1994). One may

observe growing panethnic cooperation in studies of labor

activism (Ichioka 1988; Scharlin and Villanueva 1992);

hate crimes; community mobilization around local issues

such as language restrictions on commercial signage and

community empowerment (Park 1996; Saito 1998; Vo

1996); and the establishment of regional and national pan-

ethnic organizations providing legal and social services

(Ong 1994). While many of these initially began as

ethnic-specific issues (such as the fatal beating of Chinese

American Vincent Chin, or the Japanese American redress

movement), they grew into panethnic movements because

different Asian-American ethnic groups recognized their

shared interests.

The Evolution and Integration of South Asians

The question of identity and shared interests is particu- larly significant for South Asians, who have substantial

cultural, historical, and geographical differences with East

Asians. South Asians are marked by tremendous diver-

sity.l The Indian region contains more distinct ethnicities

than the entire European continent, and most South Asian

Americans, especially immigrants, continue to identify

themselves by geographic origin, language, religion, or

other factors. Most South Asian Americans' political

grassroots activity tends to be channeled through these

characteristics, making multiethnic political efforts with

other South Asian ethnic groups quite notable.

Since their arrival over a century ago,

South Asian Americans have focused the vast

majority of their political zeal and energy on

events in their homeland. From the anti-

sed imperialist Ghadar Party2 of the early l900s, to various recent militant nationalist move-

S ments in the region and other contemporary

politics within South Asia, South Asian

| Americans have always kept an eye turned

towards South Asia when mobilizing politi-

sed cally in the United States. In the past, this focus was in part necessitated by legislation

that prevented nonwhites from becoming

L a naturalized citizens of the United States,3 a

tnlS restriction that remained in place until 1946 for South Asians.4

Most South Asian Americans have not yet

entered the United States' political process in

substantial numbers. First-generation South

Asian-American immigrants, who still compose the vast

majority of the community, have focused their energies on

establishing themselves professionally and financially,

and are historically more likely to show interest in politics

in their country of origin than in their adopted homeland.

Some of the most financially successful members of the

first generation have worked to serve as a conduit to the

top levels of the United States Government on behalf of

their mother country. In September 2000, President

Clinton attended two fund raisers hosted by Indian

Americans in the Silicon Valley. The fund raisers netted

$1.4 million and between April and September, Indian

Americans contributed almost $3 million to Democratic

candidates .5

However, an increasing number of younger South Asian

Americans have run for elected political office in recent

years, and a number have taken prominent positions on

the staffs of high-profile American politicians.6 Most of

this new generation of political activists has been born in

the United States, or immigrated to this country as young

children.

Some of the most interesting grassroots political

mobilization among South Asian Americans has come

from the cab drivers, a profession with workplace homi-

cide rates far higher than that of police officers. In San

Jose, California, just two days after the Clinton

fundraisers, over 300 Indian and Pakistani cab drivers

practically shut down South San Jose with a cab proces-

sion protesting the lack of police protection in the wake of

the murder of a Sikh-American driver. After the 1998

formation of a union, in conjunction with Ethiopian and

Somalian cabbies who had also faced years of police

harassment, the immigrant drivers created a "Taxi Task

Force" of city officials, drivers, and company representa-

tives to address industry issues.

On May 13, 1998, New York City awoke to the largest

cab strike in its history, held at the urging of the New York

620 PS September2001

This content downloaded from 128.97.27.20 on Sat, 11 Aug 2018 22:38:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taxi Workers Alliance, a group led primarily by immigrant cab drivers. New York's cab drivers the majority of whom are South Asian American threw the city into complete disarray. Estimates placed the success rate at 98% percent of the city's 24,000 yellow cab drivers. Feeling that New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani had targeted them, the cab drivers responded in a remarkable display of multiracial, working-class political action.7

Another area of significant mobiliza- tion has been in the creation of commu- nity-level service organizations, which l deal with such issues as domestic s violence, hate crimes, and immigrant- rights issues. Employing a broad-based l _ South Asian staff, these groups serve 1l_l_ large South Asian populations in areas il_ , such as New York City, Los Angeles, ^ and the San Francisco Bay Area. 7 x Community mobilization has also i ^

occurred when non-Christian South 1 R Asian-American congregations at- :REE | tempted to construct sacred sites in It.tee white enclaves. Sikhs, Muslims, Bud- i dhists, Jains, and Hindus the vast - 1 majority of who are immigrants, and n many noncitizens- have become r,A£ politicized when they faced "main- t stream" opposition to their efforts to § build religious and cultural centers. The > resulting political struggles have united r; JT otherwise sharply divided communities, ii 4 as they joined to demand their rights as El ] members of the American religious and _ racial mosaic.

Shered History.

The Opposition Movement in discriminary govern the Fifipino-American the treatment of We Community8 of spying for China,

Filipino Americans are another Asian group who have often had an international political orientation. In the second half of the twentieth century, Filipino Americans were galvanized by opposition to the Marcos regime in the Philippines. Within a week of the September 1972 declaration of martial law, public forums opposing it were being organized in cities with significant Filipino- American populations, and Filipino Americans established a new organization, the National Committee for the Restoration of Civil Liberties in the Philippines (NCRCLP).

Five political streams contributed activists to the anti- Marcos movement. One was the nationalist movement that swept through the Philippines in the 1960s and pushed for national self-determination and freedom from U.S. domination. By the late 1960s many students and young professionals who had been part of this movement had immigrated to the United States, due in part to the 1965 immigration reform act and its elimination of race-based . . *

mmlgratlon quotas. Another stream came from the Asian-American move-

ment of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Inspired by the gains of the Civil Rights movement and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, Filipino Americans began to organize, drawing further inspiration from events such as the Third World Student Strike at San Francisco State University in fall 1968, and the fight against the demoli-

tion of the International Hotel, a residence for elderly Filipinos and Chinese in San Francisco. Also serving to politicize Filipinos was the annual Filipino People's Far West Convention, a conference held in California cities that had large Filipino communities.

A third stream was the farm-labor movement, which helped produce a cadre of urban activists. In 1965, Filipino farm workers initiated the strike that was eventu-

E - m t--'5

^ - AL Panethnicity is in port imposed by a shared history of racialization through nment politics. Here Chinese Americans and other Asian Americans protest en Ho lee. Many critics of the government felt that lee, who was accused , was a victim of racial profiling. Photo by Daniel C. Tsang.

ally to lead to the formation of the United Farm Workers

Union. In the 1970s, this struggle, which had brought together Filipinos and Mexican Americans in the farming communities of California, attracted activists in the urban areas as it spread to the cities in the form of a boycott against table grapes. Filipino activists from this move- ment also became active in the opposition to martial law in the Philippines (Scharlin and Villanueva 1992).

In September 1973, a fourth source emerged: the Movement for a Free Philippines (MFP), headed by Raul Manglapus. The MFP represented the perspective of the former political oligarchy that Marcos had disenfran- chised. It drew its membership from former political leaders who had fled the Marcos regime, but it also attracted immigrants who were anticommunist and anxious to maintain or establish ties with the former leaders.

A month after the establishment of the MFP, a group of

antiwar and church-affiliated Americans and their Filipino

allies formed the Friends of the Filipino People (FFP). This fifth stream of support originated in the antiwar move- ment, and was primarily anti-interventionist. The FFP

brought mainstream political savvy into the movement,

establishing the Congress Education Project, a Washing- ton, DC-based lobby.

A key organization that emerged from those elements

critical of U.S. involvement in the Philippines was the Katipunan ng mga Demokratikong Pilipino (KDP- Union

621 PSOnline www.apsonet.org

This content downloaded from 128.97.27.20 on Sat, 11 Aug 2018 22:38:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

of Democratic Filipinos). The product of a merger of

organizations, the KDP had a dual focus: participate in

the struggle for a socialist alternative in the U.S., while

actively supporting the national democratic struggle in

the Philippines. The KDP was the most organized, and the

most ideologically driven of all the organizations that

would emerge after the declaration of martial law in the

Philippines. In 1974, it formed the Anti-Martial Law

Coalition (AMLC), which then became the main umbrella organization for anti-Marcos opposition in the United States.

The American anti-Marcos movement worked closely

with grassroots anti-Marcos groups in the Philippines.

The Philippines-based groups had a strong left wing/

socialist component, which heavily influenced the

leadership and ideology of the opposition movement in

America.

The anti-Marcos movement emphasized the elimination

or reduction of U.S. military and economic aid towards the

Marcos regime. A key element of its strategy was to

expose the undemocratic character of the Marcos regime

by calling attention to its human rights abuses, its sup- pression of the media, and the absence of free and demo-

cratic elections. The left wing of this movement would go

one step further and demand the withdrawal of U.S. bases

in the Philippines, but the principal push remained the

reduction or elimination of aid.

Despite persistent efforts to change U.S. policy towards

the Philippines in the 1970s, there were only cosmetic

changes, as the U.S. was reluctant to abandon a long-term

ally in the midst of the cold war. Even when Congress

made foreign aid conditional upon the individual coun-

tries receiving of a clean bill of health on human rights,

President Carter moved to exempt the Philippines and

South Korea.

In 1983, the Manila airport assassination of popular

opposition leader Benigno Aquino re-energized the

movement here and in the Philippines. Under mounting

pressure, Marcos called for a special presidential election.

The elections took place in early February 1986, and were

so fraught with fraud that it led to Marcos's ouster in a

bloodless coup, and the installation of Corazon Aquino as

president.

With the removal of Marcos, much of the energy within

the opposition drained away. Some members of the

political oligarchy began to return to the Philippines to

join the opposition, and others returned en masse to

compete for political office when Ms. Aquino called for

new elections shortly after she took power. In the United

States, those in support of the Philippine nationalist

struggle and those who believed in U.S. nonintervention

continued to monitor the new Aquino government with an

eye on the institutionalization of democratic reforms and

human rights.

One major goal remained: the withdrawal of U.S. bases from the Philippines. In 1991, when the basing agreement

came up for renewal, the Philippine Senate saw an oppor-

tunity to send a message to the U.S., and voted against

renewal of the treaty. Without a new agreement, the

United States abandoned its bases in the Philippines at the end of 1992.

As the bases closed, a new cause emerged. Drawing energy from the environmental justice movement while

including a number of activists from the Marcos years, a new coalition is campaigning to get the U.S. to acknowl-

edge responsibility for the environmental cleanup of its former base areas.

Defense of Ethnic Enclaves

Unlike more recent arrivals, early Asian immigrants

often had to focus much of their effort at protecting

themselves. Long before the establishment of black communities in New York and Chicago, "the Chinese were

forced by racial violence and legal restrictions to retreat

into Chinatowns throughout the West" (Ong and Umemoto

2000). In contrast to nineteenth-century white ethnic

neighborhoods that served as transitional locations where

immigrants learned to adapt to American society, the

Chinese were forced to live in segregated areas in urban

and rural communities (Kwong 1997). Although condi-

tions have changed considerably, ethnic enclaves still

attract newcomers as they face continuing threats to their

existence.

Recent Asian immigrants and refugees have formed new

enclaves or integrated into existing ones, including these

Californian enclaves: New Phnom Penh in Long Beach,

serving the Cambodian community; Little Saigon in

Westminster, serving the Vietnamese community; and Koreatown in Los Angeles. There are also more affluent

Asian Pacific enclaves, such as Jackson Heights/East

Elmhurst area in Queens, New York, and Monterey Park in

Southern California; and a growing number of South Asian commercial centers.

Many of the earliest enclaves disappeared due to racist

violence by white workers and farmers who felt threatened

by Asian immigrants (Chan 1991), and since the 1960s,

many of the remaining inner-city ethnic enclaves have

come under increasing pressure. San Francisco's

Manilatown (located adjacent to Chinatown), for instance,

was leveled for redevelopment. As urban renewal efforts

targeted "blighted" areas, ethnic enclaves were declared redevelopment zones. Local governments used the power

of eminent domain to force poor and elderly residents out

of their homes, replacing them with office buildings, hotels, and tourist attractions.

There have been several grassroots campaigns to

preserve ethnic enclaves. In San Francisco in 1968, efforts

to evict elderly residents of the International Hotel

sparked one of the longest running urban struggles in the

post-World War II era. After tenants stalled the initial

efforts, their building was transformed into a thriving

community center, as community organizations, arts and

cultural groups, and a bookstore moved into the street level of the hotel (Rodan 1970). From 1968-77, the hotel

tenants and their community supporters rallied thousands

of people to stop the evictions and demand the preserva- tion of low-cost housing. The campaign was waged by a

broad coalition which included community supporters, affordable-housing advocates, gay and lesbian activists, trade unions, women, and other progressive groups

(Salomon 1998). The tenants were forcibly evicted in

1977, and the International Hotel was eventually torn down, but efforts to preserve Asian-American ethnic

neighborhoods continued elsewhere in the country. In the 1970s, the Los Angeles and San Francisco

Japantowns were faced with attempts to transform the enclaves into tourist attractions (Little Tokyo Anti- Eviction Task Force 1976, Little Tokyo People's Rights

Organization 1977). Much of the government-sponsored redevelopment efforts were ultimately successful and

622 PS September2001

This content downloaded from 128.97.27.20 on Sat, 11 Aug 2018 22:38:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

thousands of residents and small businesses were evicted. However, due to grassroots efforts in both communities, much of the physical community still remains, with small businesses and some affordable housing, primarily for

elderly community members. Today in Los Angeles the Japanese-American commu-

nity continues to rebuild the historic Little Tokyo neigh- borhood, establishing the Japanese-American National Museum and constructing the first multifamily housing since World War II.9 On October 28, 2000, 500 people rallied to demand a Little Tokyo recreation center. The coalition supporting the recreation center viewed it as crucial to restoring Little Tokyo as a community center for the larger Japanese-American community in Southern

California (Yoshimura 2000). On the East Coast, ethnic enclaves have also been under

attack by developers. Boston's 125-year-old Chinatown faced increased pressures from urban renewal after World

War II. Various grassroots organizations have responsed to these issues, beginning with the Free Chinatown commit- tee in the 1960s. The most recent effort has been the Campaign to Protect Chinatown (CPC), a joint project of several community organizations.l°

In Philadelphia, a coalition of Asian Americans re-

cently defeated efforts to build a new baseball stadium near Philadelphia's Chinatown. Business and city leaders sought to construct a stadium complex that would have destroyed the city's only Asian-American enclave. Led by the Philadelphia Chinatown Coalition to Oppose the Stadium, nearly 1,000 people rallied to oppose the project, and Chinatown businesses closed their doors to attend the protest.

In these cases, and others in Washington, DC's

Chinatown, Seattle's International District, and New York City's Chinatown (Lin 1998), the ethnic enclaves are perceived as politically weak, transitional communities with no sustainable community leadership, and thus vulnerable to attack by powerful economic interests supported by local governments seeking economic development. Asian Americans have countered with grassroots campaigns, which, while not always successful, have reflected a determination by residents to defend historic communities from destruction.

Conclusion

An increasingly diverse Asian-Pacific American popula- tion continues to organize to pursue goals and respond to threats. Advances in communications have helped in building nationwide networks. In April 2001, after a collision between U.S. and Chinese military planes led to increased tensions between the two countries, reports began to circulate of harassment of Chinese Americans. A leading Asian-American group, the Organization of Chinese Americans, responded with a statement that was transmitted around the country via the internet, while countless individuals used email to develop strategies to counter the racist attacks. When a poll (taken before the spy plane incident but released after it) revealed striking prejudicial attitudes toward Chinese Americans, the results were posted on the web for the benefit of advocacy groups nationwide. The latest technology aids an old struggle that continues in a new millennium.

Notes

1. This pan-ethnic label includes immigrants from Pakistan, Nepal,

Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Bhutan, and India.

2. The Ghadar Party assumed the formidable task of trying to set

India free from the colonial rule of the British Empire, while operating

in a foreign country on the other side of the globe. It advocated the

immediate removal of the colonial rulers of South Asia, going so far as

to try to militarily dislodge the English. Remarkably, the Ghadar Party

united behind one common cause, for a time, South Asian immigrants

of immensely differing backgrounds, beliefs, and loyalties. 3. In 1790, Congress passed the United States' first naturalization

law, limiting citizenship rights to "free white persons."

4. Dalip Singh Saund, the first Asian-American member of congress

(elected in a district that included almost no Asians), was among the

leaders in the national struggle to overturn the legislation that denied

immigrants from South Asia the right to naturalize.

5. K. Connie Kang, "Indo-Americans Begin to Flex Political

Muscle," Los Angeles Times, 30 October, 2000.

6. In 1990, there were fewer than half-a-dozen South Asian

Americans working on Capitol Hill. Today there are over 40, many in

positions as trusted advisers.

7. Vijay Prasad, "The Day New York Stood Still," ColorLines, Fall

1998, vol. 1, no. 2

8. For an extended overview of the Marcos opposition movement in

the United States, see Barbara S. Gaerlan's "The Movement in the

United States to Oppose Martial Law in the Philippines, 1972-1991:

An Overview" (1999). Except for Gaerlan's essay and two other

essays published in Amerasia journal (Bello and Reyes 1986; Toribio,

H.C. 1998), there is not much that has been published about the anti-

Marcos movement in the United States. An account of opposition

activities in Seattle, Washington, may be gleaned from Triumph Over

Marcos by Thomas Churchill (1995). For a history of Filipinos in the

farm workers movement, see Craig Scharlin and Lilia Villanueva's

Philip Vera Cruz: A Personal History of Filipino Immigrants and the

Farmworkers Movement (1992). For more information, contact

Enrique de la Cruz.

9. The Japanese American National Museum has drawn on support

from Japanese Americans nationwide.

10. A web site chronicles this ongoing struggle:

<www.protectchinatown .org> .

References

Abelmann, Nancy, and John Lie. 1995. Blue Dreams: Korean

Americans and the Los Angeles Riots. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press. Bello, Madge, and Vincent Reyes. 1986. "Filipino Americans and the

Marcos Overthrow: The Transformation of Political Conscious-

ness." Amerasia Journal 13.1:73-83.

Bulosan, Carlos. 1973. America Is in the Heart: A Personal History.

Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Chan, Sucheng. 1991. Asian Americans: An Interpretive History.

Boston: Twayne Publishers.

Cho, Wendy Tam. 1995. "Asians A Monolithic Voting Block?" Political Behavior 17:223-49.

Churchill, Thomas. 1995. Triumph Over Marcos. Seattle, WA: Open

Hand Publishing.

Cornell, Stephen. 1988. The Return of the Native: American Indian Political Resurgence. New York: Oxford University Press.

Daniels, Roger. 1988. Asian American: Chinese and Japanese in the

United States since 1850. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Erie, Steven P., and Harold Brackman. 1993. Paths to Political

Incorporation for Latinos and Asian Pacifics in California.

PSOnline www.apsanet.org

623 This content downloaded from 128.97.27.20 on Sat, 11 Aug 2018 22:38:59 UTC

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Berkeley: California Policy Seminar.

Espiritu, Yen Le. 1992. Asian American Pan-ethnicity: Bridging

Institutions and Identities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Espiritu, Yen Le, and Michael Omi. 2000. "'Who Are You Calling

Asian?': Shifting Identity Claims, Racial Classifications, and the

Census." In The State of Asian Pacific America: Transforming Race

Relations, ed. Paul Ong. Los Angeles: LEAP and the UCLA Asian

American Studies Center.

Fong, Timothy P. 1994. The First Suburban Chinatown. Philadelphia:

Temple University Press.

Gaerlan, Barbara S. 1999. "The Movement in the United States to

Oppose Martial Law in the Philippines, 1972-1991: An Overview." Pilipinas: A Journal of Philippine Studies Fall 1999 no. 33: 75-89.

Horton, John. 1995. The Politics of Diversity: Immigration, Resistance,

and Change in Monterey Park, California. Philadelphia: Temple

University Press.

Ichioka, Yuji. 1988. The Issei: The World of the First Generation

Japanese Immigrants, 1885-1924. New York: The Free Press.

Kwong, Peter. 1996. The New Chinatown. Canada: HarperCollins.

.1997. Forbidden Workers: Illegal Chinese Immigrants and

American Labor. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Lin, Jan. 1998. Reconstructing Chinatown: Ethnic Enclave, Global

Change. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Lipsitz, George. 1988. A Life in the Struggle: Ivory Perry and the

Culture of Opposition. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

. 1998. The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People

Profit from Identity Politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Little Tokyo Anti-Eviction Task Force. 1976. "Redevelopment in Los

Angeles's Little Tokyo." In Counterpoint: Perspectives on Asian

America, ed. Emma Gee. Los Angeles: UCLA Asian American

Studies Center.

Little Tokyo People's Rights Organization Newsletter. (n.d.1977)

Lo, Clarence. 1992. "Communities of Challengers in Social Movement

Theory." In Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, ed. Aldon D.

Morris and Carol M. Mueller. New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press.

Lopez, David, and Yen Espiritu. 1990. "Pan-ethnicity in the United

States: A Theoretical Framework." Ethnic and Racial Studies

13: 198-24.

Lowe, Lisa. 1996. Immigrant Acts: On Asian American Cultural

Politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Maki, Mitchell T., Harry H.L. Kitano, and S. Megan Berthold. 1999.

Achieving the Impossible Dream: How Japanese Americans

Obtained Redress. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois

Press.

Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. American Apartheid.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Nagel, Joane. 1994. "Constructing Ethnicity: Creating and Recreating

Ethnic Identity and Culture." Social Problems. 41:152-76.

.1996. American Indian Ethnic Renewal: Red Power and the

Resurgence of Identity and Culture. New York and Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Nakanishi, Don.1991. "The Next Swing Vote? Asian Pacific Americans

and California Politics." In Racial and Ethnic Politics in California,

ed. Byran O. Jackson and Michael B. Preston. Berkeley, CA: IGS

Press.

Omatsu, Glenn. 1990. "Movement and Process: Building Campaigns

for Mass Empowerment." Amerasia Journal 16(1): 63-80.

.1994. "The 'Four Prisons' and the Movements of Liberation:

Asian American Activism from the 1960s to the 1990s." In The

State of Asian American Activism and Resistance in the 1990s, ed.

Karin Aguilar-San Juan. Boston: South End Press.

Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the

United States. New York: Routledge.

Ong, Paul, ed. 1994. The State of Asian Pacific America: Economic

Diversity, Issues & Policies. Los Angeles: LEAP Asian Pacific

American Public Policy Institute and UCLA Asian American

Studies Center.

, ed. 2000. The State of Asian Pacific America: Transforming Race

Relations. Los Angeles: LEAP Asian Pacific American Public

Policy Institute and UCLA Asian American Studies Center.

, and Don Nakanishi. 1996. "Becoming Citizens, Becoming

Voters: The Naturalization and Political Participation of Asian

Pacific Immigrants." In Reframing the Immigration Debate, ed. Bill

Ong Hing and Ronald Lee. Los Angeles: LEAP Asian Pacific

American Public Policy Institute and UCLA Asian American

Studies Center.

, and Karen Umemoto. 2000. "Life and Work in the Inner City."

In Contemporary Asian America: A Multidisciplinary Reader, ed.

Min Zhou and James V. Gatewood. New York: New York Univer-

sity Press.

, Edna Bonacich, and Lucie Cheng, eds. 1994. The New Asian

Immigration in Los Angeles and Global Restructuring. Philadel-

phia: Temple University Press.

Padilla, Felix M. 1985. Latino Ethnic Consciousness. Notre Dame:

University of Notre Dame Press.

Park, Edward J.W. 1996. "Our L.A.? Korean Americans in Los

Angeles After the Civil Unrest." In Rethinking Los Angeles, ed.

Michael J. Dear, H. Eric Schockman, and Greg Hise. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rodan-Northern California Asian American Community News. 1970.

Volume I, number 5 (November).

Saito, Leland T. 1998. Race and Politics: Asian Americans, Latinos,

and Whites in a Los Angeles Suburb. Urbana and Chicago:

University of Illinois Press.

Salomon, Larry R. 1998. Roots of Justice: Stories of Organizing in

Communities of Color. Berkeley, CA: Chardon Press.

Salyer, Lucy E. 1995. Laws Harsh as Tigers: Chinese Immigrants and

the Shaping of Modern Immigration Law. Chapel Hill: University of

North Carolina Press.

Saxton, Alexander. 1971. The Indispensable Enemy. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Scharlin, Craig, and Lilia V. Villanueva. 1992. Philip Vera Cruz. Los

Angeles: UCLA Labor Center, Institute of Industrial Relations, and

Asian American Studies Center

Toribio, H.C. 1998. "We Are Revolution: a reflective history of the

Union of Democratic Filipinos." Amerasia Journal 24:2.

Vo, Linda Trinh. 1996. "Asian Immigrants, Asian Americans, and the

Politics of Economic Mobilization in San Diego." Amerasia Journal

22: 89-1 08.

Yoneda, Karl G. 1983. Ganbatte: Sixty-Year Struggle of a Kibei

Worker. Los Angeles: UCLA Asian American Studies Center.

Yoshimura, Evelyn. 2000. "Fighting for Community in Little Tokyo."

<www. aamovement. net/community/ltrec .html>.

Zia, Helen. 2000. Asian American Dreams: The Emergence of an

American People. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

624 PS September2001

This content downloaded from 128.97.27.20 on Sat, 11 Aug 2018 22:38:59 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms