Asian American

mauta11

HealeyDS_PPT08.ppt

Home >History homework help >American history homework help >Asian American

Part 3: Asian Americans

Chapter 8

Introduction

A variety of groups from Asia and the Pacific Islands are becoming increasingly prominent in the United States.

Although they are often seen as the same and classified into a single category in government reports, these groups vary in their language, cultural and physical characteristics, and in their experiences in the United States.

One of our major concerns will be to explore the perception that Asian Americans are “model minorities.”

Introduction

Asian American and Pacific Islander groups differ from each other in language, customs and culture, physical appearance and, most importantly, in the ways in which they have entered American society.

Several features are worth noting:
Asians and Pacific Islanders are tiny fractions of the total U.S. population.
Most Asian American groups have grown dramatically in recent decades.
This rapid growth is projected to continue for decades to come, and the impact of Asian Americans on everyday life and American culture will increase accordingly.

Ten Largest Asian American Groups 2012

Nations of Origin for Ten Largest Asian American Groups

Foreign-Born by Group 2012

Origins and Cultures

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders speak many different languages and practice a diversity of religions.

Asian cultures predate the founding of the United States by centuries or even millennia.

Although no two of these cultures are the same, some general similarities can be identified.

Origins and Cultures

Asian cultures tend to stress group membership over individual self-interest.

Asian cultures stress sensitivity to the opinions and judgments of others and to the importance of avoiding public embarrassment and not giving offense—saving face.

Traditional Asian cultures were dominated by men, and women were in subordinate roles.

The experiences of Asian Americans in the United States modified these patriarchal values and traditional traits.

The cultural and religious differences among the Asian American groups also reflect the recent histories of each of the sending nations.

Instructors Note:

For example, Confucianism, which was the dominant ethical and moral system in traditional China and had a powerful influence on many other Asian cultures, counsels people to see themselves as elements in larger social systems and status hierarchies, emphasizes loyalty to the group, conformity to societal expectations, and respect for one’s superiors.

Group harmony, or wa in Japanese, is a central concern, and displays of individualism are discouraged.

Women of high status in traditional China symbolized their subordination by binding their feet, which was considered beautiful, but also immobilized women and was intended to prevent them from “wandering away” from domestic and household duties (Jackson, 2000; Takaki, 1993, pp. 209–210).

For the groups with longer histories in U.S. society, the effects of these values on individual personality may be slight; for more recently arrived groups, the effects are more powerful.

Early Immigration and the Anti-Chinese Campaign

Chinese immigrants were “pushed” by the disruption of traditional social relations, caused by the colonization of much of China by more industrialized European nations, and by rapid population growth (Chan, 1990, pp. 37-75; Lyman, 1974; Tsai, 1986).

At the same time, immigrants were “pulled” to the West Coast of the United States by the Gold Rush of 1849 and by other opportunities created by the development of the West.

Early Immigration and the Anti-Chinese Campaign

Ethnocentrism based on racial, cultural, and language differences was present from the beginning.

At first, competition for jobs between Chinese immigrants and native-born workers was muted by an abundance of jobs, but as the West Coast economy changed and eastern Anglo migration continued, the Chinese came to be seen as a threat, and elements of the dominant group tried to limit competition.

The Chinese controlled few power resources with which to withstand these attacks as they were a small group, and by law, were not permitted to become citizens.

Early Immigration and the Anti-Chinese Campaign

In 1882, the anti-Chinese campaign experienced its ultimate triumph when the U.S. Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act banning virtually all immigration from China.

Consistent with the predictions of split labor market theory, native-born workers, organized labor, and white owners of small businesses felt threatened by the Chinese and supported the Chinese Exclusion Act (Boswell, 1986).

Conflicts such as the anti-Chinese campaign can be especially intense because they confound racial and ethnic antagonisms with disputes between different social classes.

Population Trends and the “Delayed” Second Generation

Following the Chinese Exclusion Act, the number of Chinese in the United States actually declined as many Chinese men sojourners were not replaced by newcomers (Chan, 1990, p. 66).

At the end of the 19th century men outnumbered women by more than 25 to 1, and the sex ratio did not approach parity for decades.

The scarcity of Chinese women in the United States delayed the second generation and it wasn’t until the 1920s, that as many as one third of all Chinese in the United States were native born.

The decades-long absence of a more Americanized, English-speaking generation increased the isolation of Chinese Americans.

The Ethnic Enclave

The Chinese became increasingly urbanized as the anti-Chinese campaign and rising racism took their toll.

The earliest urban Chinese included merchants and skilled artisans who were experienced in commerce, and who established businesses and retail stores that were typically small in scope and modest in profits.

As the number of urban Chinese increased, new services were required, the size of the cheap labor pool available to Chinese merchants and entrepreneurs increased, and the Chinatowns became the economic, cultural, and social centers of the community.

The Ethnic Enclave

The social structure was based on a variety of types of organizations, including families, clans, and huiguans.

Life was not always peaceful, and there were numerous disputes over control of resources and the organizational infrastructure—“Tong Wars.”

Despite internal conflicts, American Chinatowns evolved into highly organized, largely self-contained communities complete with their own leadership and decision-making structures—CCBA.

Instructors Note:

Huiguans, or associations based on the region or district in China from which the immigrant had come, performed various, often overlapping, social and welfare services, including settling disputes, aiding new arrivals from their regions, and facilitating the development of mutual aid networks (Lai, 1980, p. 221; Lyman, 1974, pp. 32–37, 116–118).

In particular, secret societies called tongs contested the control and leadership of the merchant-led huiguan and the clan associations.

These sometimes bloody conflicts were sensationalized in the American press as “Tong Wars” and they contributed to the popular stereotypes of Asians as exotic, mysterious, and dangerous (Lai, 1980, p. 222; Lyman, 1974, pp. 37–50).

The internal “city government” of Chinatown was the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association (CCBA), dominated by the larger huiguan and clans, coordinated and supplemented the activities of the various organizations and represented the interests of the community to the larger society.

Survival and Development

Despite the widespread poverty, discrimination, and pressures created by the unbalanced sex ratio, Chinatowns appeared and grew in New York, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, and many other cities.

Chinese Americans responded to their exclusion by finding economic opportunity in areas where dominant group competition for jobs was weak, continuing their tendency to be an “invisible” minority group—restaurants and laundries.

Relatively hidden from general view, Chinatown became the world in which the second generation grew to adulthood.

The Second Generation

The second generation tended to look beyond the enclave to fill their needs.

They founded their own organizations that were more compatible with their American lifestyles (Lai, 1980, p. 225).

WWII brought more opportunities—jobs, military service, GI Bill, socioeconomic mobility.

Women of the second generation also pursued education, and as early as 1960, their median years of schooling were slightly higher than for Chinese American men (Kitano & Daniels, 1995, p. 48).

The Second Generation

Although well-educated Chinese Americans could find good jobs in the mainstream economy, the highest, most lucrative positions—and those that required direct supervision of whites—were still closed to them.

Many Chinese Americans who stayed in the Chinatowns and the immigrants who began arriving after 1965, rely for survival on low-wage jobs in the garment industry, the service sector, and the small businesses of the enclave economy.

Thus, Chinese Americans are often said to be “bipolar” in their occupational structure (see Barringer, Takeuchi, & Levin, 1995; Takaki, 1993, pp. 415–416; Wong, 1995, pp. 77–78; Zhou & Logan, 1989).

Population Growth for Chinese and Japanese Americans 1850-2012

Instructors Note:

Immigration from Japan began to increase shortly after the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 took effect, in part to fill the gap in the labor supply created by the restrictive legislation (Kitano, 1980).

The 1880 census counted only a few hundred Japanese in the United States, but the group increased rapidly over the next few decades.

By 1910, the Japanese in the United States outnumbered the Chinese and remained the larger of the two groups until large-scale immigration resumed in the 1960s (see Exhibit 10.2).

The Anti-Japanese Campaign

The contact situation for Japanese immigrants resembled that of the Chinese.

Although Japanaese immigration was partly curtailed in 1907 when a “gentlemen’s agreement” was signed, a loophole allowed women to continue to immigrate until the 1920s.

Japanese Americans were thus able to develop a second generation without much delay that numbered about half of the group by 1930, and were a majority of 63% on the eve of World War II (Kitano & Daniels, 1995, p. 59).

The Anti-Japanese Campaign

In 1910, between 30% and 40% of all Japanese in California were engaged in agriculture, owned small plots of land and comprising only a minuscule percentage of West Coast farmers (Jibou, 1988, pp. 357–358).

Their presence and relative success stimulated discriminatory legislation in the Alien Land Act, which declared aliens who were ineligible for citizenship to be also ineligible to own land (Kitano, 1980, p. 563).

Japanese Americans were able to dodge the discriminatory legislation, mostly by putting titles of land in the names of their American-born children, who were citizens by law (Jibou, 1988, p. 359).

The Ethnic Enclave

By World War II, the Issei (first generation) had come to dominate a narrow but important segment of agriculture on the West Coast.

Other Issei in urban areas, were concentrated in a narrow range of businesses and services, such as domestic service and gardening (Jibou, 1988, pp. 362).

Japanese Americans maximized their economic clout by doing business with other Japanese-owned firms as often as possible.

In the years before World War II, the Japanese American community was largely dependent for survival on their networks of cooperation and mutual assistance, not on Americanization and integration.

The Second Generation (Nisei)

Unable to find acceptance in Anglo society, the Nisei (second generation) established organizations that reflected their high levels of Americanization—Japanese American Citizens League (Kitano & Daniels, 1995, p. 64).

Although the Nisei enjoyed high levels of success in school, the intense discrimination and racism of the 1930s prevented most of them from translating their educational achievements into better jobs and higher salaries.

Many Nisei were forced to remain within the enclave, and in many cases, their demoralization and anger over their exclusion were eventually swamped by the larger events of World War II.

The Relocation Camps

Two months after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which led to the relocation of Japanese Americans living on the West Coast.

By the late summer of 1942, more than 110,000 Japanese Americans, young and old, men and women —virtually the entire West Coast population—had been forcibly transported to relocation camps where they were imprisoned behind barbed-wire fences patrolled by armed guards.

The Majority of these people were American citizens, and no one was given the opportunity to refute the implicit charge of disloyalty.

The Relocation Camps

The government gave families little notice to prepare for evacuation and secure their homes, businesses, and belongings.

Eventually more than 25,000 escaped the camps by volunteering for military service, many with distinction.

The camps did reduce the extent to which women were relegated to a subordinate role.

Some Japanese Americans brought lawsuits to end the program, and in 1944, the Supreme Court ruled that detention was unconstitutional.

Japanese Americans After World War II

In 1948, Congress passed legislation to authorize compensation to Japanese Americans, but these claims were eventually settled for less than one tenth the amount of the actual economic losses.

Demand for meaningful redress and compensation continued, and in 1988, Congress passed a bill granting reparations of about $20,000 in cash to each of the 60,000 remaining survivors of the camps.

The law also acknowledged that the relocation program had been a grave injustice to Japanese Americans (Biskupic, 1989, p. 2879).

Japanese Americans After World War II

For the Nisei, when the war ended they were unwilling to rebuild the Japanese community as it had been before.

When anti-Asian prejudice declined in the 1950s and the job market began to open, the Nisei were educationally prepared to take advantage of resultant opportunities (Kitano, 1980, p. 567).

By 1960, Japanese Americans had an occupational profile very similar to that of whites except that they were actually overrepresented among professionals, and there was a tendency to choose “safe” careers that did not require extensive contact with the public or supervision of whites (Kitano & Daniels, 1988, p. 70).

Japanese Americans After World War II

An additional factor contributing to the perception of “model minority” status for Japanese Americans is the small number of immigrants from Japan that the community has not had to devote resources to.

Furthermore, recent immigrants from Japan tend to be highly educated professional people whose socioeconomic characteristics add to the perception of success and affluence.

In any case, the Sansei and Yonsei are highly integrated into the occupational structure of the larger society.

Comparative Focus

Two of the most important characteristics of minority groups:

are the objects of a pattern of disadvantage and
are easily identifiable, either culturally or physically.

These two traits work in tandem: Members of the dominant group must be able to determine a person’s group membership quickly and easily so the discrimination that is the hallmark of minority-group status can be practiced.

Japan’s Invisible Minority

The Burakumin of Japan, have been victimized by discrimination and prejudice for hundreds of years but are virtually indistinguishable from the general population.
The identity of the traditional Burakumin areas of residence are well-known, and this information—not race or culture—is what establishes the boundaries of the group and forms the ultimate barrier to Burakumin assimilation.

Comparing Minority Groups

Unlike the situation of African Americans in the 1600s and Mexican Americans in the 1800s, the dominant group had no desire to control the labor of these groups.

Unlike Native Americans, Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans in the early 20th century presented no military danger to the larger society so there was little concern with their activities once the economic threat had been eliminated.

Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans had the ingredients and experiences necessary to form enclaves.

Contemporary Immigration from Asia

Immigration from Asia has been considerable since the 1960s and continues to increase

As was the case with Hispanic immigrants, the sending nations (other than Japan) are considerably less developed than the United States, and the primary motivation for most of these immigrants is economic. However, unlike Hispanic immigration, the Asian immigrant stream also includes a large contingent of highly educated professionals seeking opportunities to practice their careers and expand their skills.

Contemporary Immigration from Asia

Other factors besides mere economics attract these immigrants.
Many Asian immigrants are the spouses of American military personnel.

There are also a number of immigrants from India, many of who are highly educated and skilled.
Immigrants from India are at the “immigrant” end of Blauner’s continuum.

Refugees from Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, many of whom lived in camps and relocation centers for years before immigrating to the United States.
Because of the conditions of their escape from their homelands, they typically bring little in the way of human or material capital with them.
For example, Vietnamese Americans have a socioeconomic profile that in some ways resembles those of non-Asian racial minorities in the United States.

Prejudice and Discrimination

American prejudice against Asians first became prominent during the anti-Chinese movement of the 19th century.

The Chinese were seen as a threat to the working class, to American democracy, and to other American institutions.

Many of these stereotypes and fears transferred to the Japanese later in the 19th century and then to other Asian groups as they arrived in the United States.

Prejudice and Discrimination

A recent survey suggests that discrimination and prejudice are not perceived as major problems by most Asian Americans. Is this due to:

downplaying the issue
really experiencing less discrimination
benefitting from ‘positive’ stereotypes - so seen in more favorable light?

Assimilation and Pluralism: Acculturation and Structural Assimilation

The extent of acculturation of Asian Americans is highly variable from group to group.
The great variability both within and between Asian American groups makes it difficult to characterize their overall degree of acculturation.

Asian Americans in general are highly urbanized, a reflection of the entry conditions of recent immigrants as well as the appeal of ethnic neighborhoods, such as Chinatowns, with long histories and continuing vitality.

Asian American groups are generally less residentially segregated than either African American or Hispanic Americans.

Distribution of Asian Americans 2010

Instructors Note:

Asian Americans tend to reside on either coast and around Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York, with other sizable concentrations in a variety of metropolitan areas.

The 2000 census showed that more than 96% of the Asian American population were living in metropolitan areas (vs. about 80% of the total population) and about 48% lived in central city areas (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000l).

As a group, Asian Americans are less concentrated in central city neighborhoods than blacks and Puerto Ricans, but much more than Cuban Americans and non-Hispanic whites.

The degree of residential segregation for Asian American groups varies by group and by region of the nation.

Urbanization of Asian Americans 2000

Gender and Physical Acculturation: The Anglo Ideal

A number of studies document the feelings of inadequacy and negative self images that result when minority group members – especially women – compare themselves with the Anglo standards of attractiveness and beauty that dominate U.S. culture.

Asian American women, like all women in this still paternalistic society, are pressured by the cultural message that physical beauty should be among their most important concerns. As racial minorities, they are also subjected to the additional message that they are inadequate by Anglo standards and that some of their most characteristic physical traits are devalued – indeed ridiculed – in the larger society. For Asian American women, the attempt to comply with Anglo standards of beauty may include cosmetic surgery to sculpt their noses or to “open” their eyes.

Assimilation and Pluralism: Education

The extent of schooling for Asian Americans is very different from that for other U.S. racial minority groups, at least at first glance. Asian Americans as a whole compare favorably with society-wide standards for educational achievement, and they are above those standards on many measures.

Asian American children experience less school segregation than Hispanic and Black American children (Fry, 2007), although the extent of segregation for this population may have increased in recent years because of high rates of immigration and residential concentration, particularly in larger cities.

Educational Attainment 2012

Educational Levels 2012

Median Household Income 2012

Assimilation and Pluralism: Political Power

The ability of Asian Americans to pursue their group interests has been sharply limited by a number of factors, including their relatively small size, institutionalized discrimination, and the same kinds of racist practices that have limited the power resources of other minority groups of color.

However, and contrary to the perception that Asian Americans are a “quiet” minority, the group has a long history of political action, including a civil rights movement in the 1960s and 1970s.

The political power of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders today is also limited by their high percentage of foreign-born members.

There are signs of the groups’ power of the group, especially in areas where they are most residentially concentrated

Distribution of Household Incomes

Families and Children in Poverty 2012

Assimilation and Pluralism: Jobs and Income

The occupational profiles of Asian American groups tend to sustain the image of success.

Both men and women are overrepresented in the highest occupational category, a reflection of the high levels of educational attainment for the group.

Consistent with the educational qualifications and occupational profiles, Asian Americans have averaged higher median yearly income.

Their pattern of income distribution is “bipolar.” That is, they are over-represented in both the highest and lowest income groups.

Assimilation and Pluralism: Jobs and Income

While the poverty levels of all Asian Americans, considered as a single group, are comparable to non-Hispanic whites, several of the groups have much higher rates of poverty, especially for children. As we have seen in other figures, Japanese Americans, Filipino Americans, and Asian Indian Americans are “successful” on this indicator, but other groups have poverty levels comparable to colonized racial minority groups.

Assimilation and Pluralism: Primary Structural Assimilation

Levels of integration at the primary level for Asian Americans, are highly variable from group to group. Japanese Americans tend to be the most integrated on this dimension.
One study found that Japanese Americans were the most likely to have friends outside their group and to marry across group lines (Pew Research Center, 2013c, pp. 98, 32). The same study found that, as would be expected, integration at the primary level was lower for the foreign-born and those with less English language ability.

Focus on Contemporary Issues: How successful are Asian Americans? At what cost?

The view of Asian Americans as “model minorities” is exaggerated and stereotypical.

First, the group is concentrated in cities where the cost of living is very high.

Second, per capita income for Asian Americans is lower than the national average.

Third, researchers commonly find that Asian Americans get lower income returns for their years of schooling and earn less than whites of the same educational level. Also, Asian Americans face a glass ceiling that limits their access.

Finally, while it might seem that the “model minority” stereotype is benign and positive, it can have serious negative consequences.

Comparing Minority Groups: Explaining Asian American Success

Chinese and Japanese immigrants arrived in America at about the same time as immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, yet the barriers to upward mobility for European immigrants (or, at least for their descendants) fell away more rapidly than the barriers for immigrants from Asia.
Whereas the cultural and linguistic markers that identified eastern and southern Europeans faded with each passing generation, the racial characteristics of the Asian groups continued to separate them from the larger society.

Immigrants from southern and eastern Europe entered the industrializing East Coast economy, where they took industrial and manufacturing jobs that gave them and their descendants the potential for upward mobility in the mainstream economy. On the other hand, Asian Americans exclusion from the mainstream economy was reinforced by overt, racially-based discrimination from both employers and labor unions.

Comparing Minority Groups: Explaining Asian American Success

Some Asian groups rank far above other racial minority groups on all the commonly used measures of secondary structural integration and equality.

However, if we also observe the full range of differences within each group (e.g., the “bipolar” nature of occupations among Chinese Americans), we see that the images of success have been exaggerated and need to be placed in a proper context.

The relative success of Chinese American and Japanese Americans has become a device for scolding other minority groups.

The social class differences between these groups today flow from their respective situations in the past.

Comparing Minority Groups: Explaining Asian American Success

Many of the occupational and financial advances made by Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans have been due to the high levels of education achieved by the second generations.

At the time that native-born Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans reached educational parity with whites, the vast majority of African Americans, Native Americans, and Mexican Americans were still victimized by Jim Crow laws and legalized segregation and excluded from opportunities for anything but rudimentary education.

Comparing Minority Groups: Explaining Asian American Success

The structural explanation is not consistent with traditional views of the assimilation process.

The immigrant generation of Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans responded to the massive discrimination they faced by withdrawing, developing ethnic enclaves, and becoming “invisible” to the larger society.

Like Cuban Americans, Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans used their traditional cultures and patterns of social life to create and build their own subcommunities from which they launched the next generation.