For A-plus Writer Only

race__ethnic_relations_chapter_9.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >For A-plus Writer Only

Race & ethnic relations: American and global perspectives

Marger, M. N. (2015). Race and ethnic relations: American and global

perspectives (10th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.

ASIAN AMERICANS CHAPTER 9 Asians have been in the United States since the early part of the nineteenth century. Only in recent decades, however, have they emerged as a sizable element of the American ethnic configuration. Like other ethnic populations, Asians have displayed variant patterns of settlement and adaptation and have been received by the domi- nant group in different ways, depending on social, political, and economic circum- stances. As it has been with other groups, our objective is to trace the historical development of Asians in the United States and examine their place in the stratifica- tion system, the forms of prejudice and discrimination they have encountered, and their patterns of assimilation into the larger society.

At the outset, it is important to stress that Asian Americans constitute an ex- tremely diverse panethnic category. In some ways it is even more disparate than the Hispanic American category, most of whose groups share a common language and religious tradition. To lump together those from numerous Asian societies as "Asian Americans" is therefore a serious oversimplification. In fact, Asian Americans consist of at least a dozen distinct groups, with extremely diverse cultural and even physical features. Currently the largest groups are Chinese, Filipino, and Asian Indian. But ubstantial populations of Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese, as well as small num-

bers from other _Asian societies, are included. The term Asian American, therefore, must be understood as nothing more than a convenient category that enables us to look at the general characteristics of the various Asian groups together, in compari- on with other ethnic populations in the United States.

IMMIGRATION AND SETTLEMENT

The Asian experience in the United States can be divided into two distinct and diver- "'ent parts. The first consists of the old Asian immigration, occurring roughly from iie middle of the nineteenth to the early years of the twentieth centuries. The Chinese n-ere the first to arrive, followed by the Japanese and, in much smaller numbers, Kor- ;;>ans and Filipinos. These first Asian immigrants were mostly unskilled laborers, re- :ruited for construction or agricultural work. Following restrictive measures , very

245

246 PART II ET H N ICITY IN T H E UN IT ED ST AT ES

few additional Asians entered the society until the revision of immigration laws in 1965. That marked the onset of the second period of immigration to the United States from Asia, which continues to the present.

The second, and current, immigration has been markedly different from the earlier movement in that most of the new immigrants have been noticeably higher in class origin, and many have been well educated and occupationally skilled. Moreover, the new Asian immigration has been considerably more diverse in national origin, made up of people from almost every contemporary Asian society. Today, except for the Japanese, Asians in the United States are predominantly first-generation immigrants.

T HE FIRST w A VE C HINESE AMER ICANS The Asian American experience may be said to begin in the mid- nineteenth century. Unfavorable social and economic conditions apd political unrest at that time in China, combined with the lure of labor opportunities in Spanish, Por- tuguese, Dutch, and British colonies, created a swell of Chinese emigration, mostly from the country's southeastern coastal provinces. 1 The United States was also among the destinations of these emigrants, mostly single males, some of whom were lured by the discovery of gold in California in the 1840s (Dinnerstein and Reimers, 1999; Lyman, 1970). In the 1860s, the construction of the transcontinental railroads drew many additional Chinese laborers to the United States. Like other immigrants before them, most intended to return after bettering themselves economically.

In a very short t1me, the influx of Chinese produced one of the most hostile movements in American ethnic history. The cast of an anti-Chinese movement had been set even before the Chinese landed in the United States, notes Stanford Lyman, having been "preceded by a richly embellished but almost entirely negative stereo- type" (1974:56). Perceived by white workers as a labor threat, the Chinese were forced out of their jobs and commonly driven from one town to another. In addition to the antagonism they encountered from hostile white workers, the Chinese were severely restricted by legal measures used to limit their occupational and residential movement. These culminated in the Chinese Exclusion Act, passed by the U.S. Con- gress in 1882 and designed to preclude Chinese immigration for a ten-year period. The act was extended for another ten years in 1892, however, and the ban against Chinese was made permanent in 1907. These measures marked a watershed in American ethnic history: for the first time, a specific group was formally barred from entrance. In fact, the Chinese Exclusion Act was the precursor of numerous anti-immigration laws that would be enacted in the following decades .

Although the exclusionary laws never fully suspended Chinese immigration, they effectively checked any significant population growth of the Chinese in America. When the initial act was passed in 1882, there were about 125,000 Chinese in the United States. For the next six decades, the Chinese population not only failed to grow but actually declined. By 1910 it had dropped to around seventy thousand, a figure that changed only slightly until the 1970s. This decline was the result not only

1 Chinese immigration over many generations has constituted one of the great diasporas. Today Chinese communities can be found in almost every country of the world (Poston et al., 1994). Ethnic Chinese minorities have played an especially important economic role in most Southeast Asian societies (Chua, 2004; Minority Rights Group, 1992).

C H APTE R 9 AS IAN AM ERI CANS 24 7

of the restrictive legislation itself but also of the overwhelmingly male composition of the Chinese population that had made up the mid-nineteenth-century immigration.

Because the Chinese immigrants were almost always male, there existed no pos- sibility of a natural population increase and thus no creation of a stable and thriving ethnic community. The severely unbalanced sex ratio, in addition to the relentless discrimination they experienced, forced the Chinese at the turn of the century into urban ghettos, the familiar "Chinatowns," from which they did not begin to disperse until well after World War II.

By the early 1960s, the Chinese population had begun to grow somewhat, due to the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1943 as well as to the entry of war brides, refugees, and some scientific personnel after World War II. This growth also helped correct the unbalanced sex ratio . As with other non-European groups, however, it was the revised immigration legislation of 1965 that created a large-scale Chinese population increase in the United States. Not only were more immigrants admitted, especially from Hong Kong and Taiwan, but the Chinese population was augmented as well by a large number of Vietnamese refugees who, though having lived in Viet- nam, were ethnically Chinese. We look more closely at these new immigrants, along with others from Asia, in later sections of this chapter.

J APA NES E A M ERICANS The formal exclusion of the Chinese provided for the entrance of Japanese immigrants beginning late in the nineteenth century. In their early immigra- tion and settlement patterns, the Japanese in some ways resembled the Chinese who preceded them. Most of the first Japanese immigrants were males who were confined to lower-status occupational positions. And, like the Chinese, they soon came to be seen as a labor threat in California, where most had settled. A reaction of severe an- tagonism culminated in formal legislation that prohibited t~ir further entrance. In 1907-1908, the United States and Japan entered into a Gentlemen's Agreement, which effectively restricted further Japanese immigration to the United States. Under the terms of the agreement, only nonlaborers and relatives of resident Japanese would be permitted to enter. The Oriental Exclusion Act of 1924 carried the restric- tion a step further, effectively barring all subsequent Japanese immigration.

Despite some similarities, in a number of important ways the early Japanese im- migrant experience differed from that of the Chinese. To begin with, although they initially worked in many of the same jobs as the Chinese, a large percentage of the early Japanese immigrants gradually turned to farming, where they carved out a niche for themselves in the California economy. More important, the sex ratio of the Japanese immigrant population, though heavily male in the early years, eventu- ally was balanced with the introduction of a substantial female immigration. The Gentlemen's Agreement of 1907-1908 had permitted wives and families of men al- ready in the United States to join them ." As a result, the social difficulties created by the demographic imbalance in the case of the Chinese did not materialize. With fam- ilies intact, the base was provided for a second generation and thus a natural increase in the Japanese American population. By 1940 nearly two-thirds of the Japanese in the United States were native-born (Kitano and Daniels, 1995). Today, unlike other _-\ sian American groups, the Japanese have not increased their numbers through large-scale immigration. As a result, the Japanese American population has stabilized an d is rapidly being surpassed by other, more recent, Asian groups.

...

248 PART II ETHNICITY IN TH E UNITED STATES

The demographic and historical characteristics of the Japanese American group today set it apart in some ways from others that make up the Asian American popu- lation. Perhaps most important, because most are native-born, Japanese Americans have a longer history in the United States and are generationally divergent from others. 2 As a result, Japanese American assimilation is more advanced than for other Asian groups.

THE SECOND WAVE

The Chinese and Japanese were the first and largest of the Asian groups to enter the United States. Not until the liberalized immigration law of 1965 did a new stream of Asian immigrants augment these two communities . In addition to the Chinese, the number and variety of Asian societies represented by the post-1965 stream were considerably greater than any previous immigration , and it •is these groups that today make up the major components of the Asian population in the United States. Although small numbers of all these groups had been in the society since the late nineteenth century, none could be said to represent a sizable community comparable to those of the Chinese and Japanese. Other than the Japanese, no more than half the total population of any Asian American group is native-born. The history of these new Asian American groups, therefore, is essentially of the last four decades.

KOREANS In the early ye;rs of the twentieth century, a few thousand Koreans were recruited to work the sugar plantations in Hawaii. Ironically, they were needed to replace Chinese workers who had been barred by the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. Further Korean migration to the United States in any significant numbers did not oc- cur again until the late 1950s, following the Korean War, when many came either as refugees or war brides. Prior to this time, the Korean population on the U.S. main- land never exceeded two thousand (Light and Bonacich, 1988).

In the post-1965 period, a formidable growth of the Korean ethnic group in the United States occurred. Between 1970 and 1980, the Korean American population increased five times-from 70,000 to 355,000. By 2000, Korean Americans num- bered over one million. Like other Asian groups, Koreans have concentrated in Cali- fornia , where almost one-third reside, and in the New York metropolitan area, but in recent years there has been an increasing dispersion to other regions (Reimer, 2006). Contemporary Korean immigrants have tended to be from the urban middle class of Korean society, including many college-trained professionals . What's more, most have come as family units (Kitano and Daniels, 1995; Min, 1991).

Koreans in the United States have been especially prominent as owners of small businesses, usually operated as family enterprises (Kim, 1981; Light and Bonacich, 1988; Min, 1988, 1995, 2007). Indeed, Koreans have one of the highest rates of small-business ownership among all U.S. ethnic groups (Hoffman and Marger, 1 99 1; Zhou and Kim, 2007). Korean-owned arid -operated convenience stores, greengroceries, dry cleaners, manicure shops, and liquor stores have become com- mon fixtures in many large American cities.

2 Although the Chinese ha ve an eve n longer history in the United States, most of the current Chinese

American population is foreign-born.

CHAPTER 9 AS IAN AMER ICANS 249

Even though Christians are a minority in Korea, about three-quarters of Korean immigrants have affiliated with Christian churches in the United States (Min, 2007). Korean immigrants' Christian faith is a significant group characteristic. Indeed, as one study describes it, "[t]he Korean church is perhaps the single most important ethnic institution anchoring this community" (Zhou and Kim, 2007). In addition to religious needs, it provides educational and economic assistance and has been vital in maintaining group solidarity.

The flow of immigration between 1970 and 1990, which had created such a sub- stantial increase in the Korean American group, declined considerably during the 1990s, and some who had immigrated earlier chose to return to Korea. Economic opportunities in Korea were seen as more promising, and the political instability that had characterized Korea in the past had been reduced. These factors diminished the appeal of immigration to the United States. They also created an incentive to re- turn to Korea. For those who had been successful in the United States, having earned a university degree or having run a profitable business, return represented an oppor- tunity to enjoy even greater success in their country of origin, where they may have felt more culturally at ease. Return was also appealing for those who had experi- enced increasing difficulties in adapting to American culture or who found that oper- ating a small business, so common among Korean Americans, was simply too risky in terms of physical safety as well as economic security (Belluck, 1995; Min, 1995). The image of Korean shops being burned and looted during the Los Angeles riots of 1992 and the frequent harassment of Korean shop owners in other cities made Ko- rean Americans more conscious of ethnic conflict, a condition no,t encountered in a homogeneous Korea.

Despite the drop-off in new immigrants and the return of many in the past two decades, Korean Americans remain a substantial part of the Asian American popula- tion. In fact, the overall growth of this group since 1970 has been spectacular, rising to more than 1.4 million today.

F ILIPINOS Few people think of Filipinos 3 when they consider the makeup of America's Asia n population. Yet Filipinos are one of the largest Asian American groups. As with others, the liberalization of immigration laws in 1965 accounts for their rapid and substantial increase. Until recently, only Mexicans had traditionally outnum- bered Filipinos, as immigrants to the United States.

The Philippines was a colony of Spain for more than three centuries before be- coming an American possession in 1899. As a result, most Filipinos are Roman Catholic and have Spanish surnames. After the Spanish-American War, the United States took possession of the Philippines, and the American cultural influence be- came dominant. Following independence in 1946, political ties between the two countries remained close, and American cultural and economic influences continued to be strong. English is one of the country's major languages and is spoken by most educated people. Historically and culturally the Philippines has had little in common with other Asian countries. Geographically, however, it is part of the Pacific Rim, a nd thus Filipinos are considered Asian people.

3 There is no "F" sound in Tagalog-the language, other than English, that is most widely spoken in the Philippines. Hence, rather than Filipino, Pilipino is so metimes used as a preferred term of reference.

2 50 PART II ETH N ICITY IN THE UN ITED STA T ES

No group better illustrates the link between immigration and labor needs than do the Filipinos. Like the early Koreans, a few thousand Filipinos came to Hawaii in the early 1900s, recruited as agricultural workers to replace the excluded Chinese. Many more immigrated to the mainland in the 1920s as California farm producers faced a labor shortage created by newly restrictive quotas limiting cheap ' labor from Mexico. By 1930, almost fifty thousand Filipinos were living on the mainland of the United States, most in California (Mangiafico, 1988). Because the Philippines at that time was a U.S . territory, Filipino immigrants were actually considered American na- tionals though not U.S. citizens. Because of this, they were not subject to the same kind of quota restrictions as other Asians until 1935, when the Philippines was granted deferred independence.

Like the Chinese before them, early Filipino immigrants were almost entirely sin- gle males. And with the general anti-Asian social and political climate on the West Coast, where most settled, Filipinos found themselves subjected to' the same kinds of discriminatory actions as the Chinese and Japanese. Following the outbreak of World War II, the Philippines was a critical ally in the Pacific war against Japan, and as a result, the social climate in the United States reflected a more tolerant view of Filipinos .

Along with discrimination, the low level of education of Filipino immigrants produced a restricted range of occupational opportunities. Most worked as seasonal agricultural laborers and in the service sector in low-status positions such as restau- rant workers, hospital attendants, and hotel workers.

Between 1960 and 1970, the number of Filipinos in the United States nearly doubled, and equally spectacular growth occurred in the 1970s and 1980s. Today's Filipino population is over 2.6 million, and those from the Philippines continue to make up a very significant percentage of America's new immigrants. Cultural compatibility- especially language-and U.S.-Philippines political ties are important factors that account for the continued attraction of the United States for Filipinos.

The social characteristics of the new immigrants are considerably different from those of the earlier period. The strong U.S. military presence in the Philippines follow- ing World War II had enabled many Filipino women to immigrate as wives of U.S. servicemen. But most Filipino immigrants are now families with children, seeking the promise of better economic opportunities. Recent arrivals have also been better edu- cated than those of earlier decades, and many come with professional credentials, en- abling them to move into highly skilled occupational fields like medicine and education (Carino, 1987). Nursing is the most common occupational niche of Filipino immigrant health care professionals, who make up a majority of foreign -born nurses

.. in the United States (Choy, 2007). Filipinos' generally higher occupational positions, along with English proficiency, have dictated against the formation of cohesive and distinguishable ethnic enclaves comparable to Chinatowns (Agbayani-Siewert and Revilla, 1995).

VIETNAMESE The entrance of Vietnamese into the United States has been unlike that of any other Asian group. Most have come as political refugees since the end of the Vietnam War. Prior to that time, very few Vietna mese had been resident in the United States.

CH APTER 9 AS IAN AME RI CANS 25 1

Between 1966 and 1975, some twenty thousand Vietnamese arrived in the United States, but the Vietnamese immigration reached epic proportions following the fall of the South Vietnamese government in 1975. In the nine years between 1975 and 1984, more than seven hundred thousand Southeast Asian refugees came to the United States, most of them Vietnamese (Gardner et al., 1985). Perhaps the most dramatic entrance of these refugees occurred in 1979 and 1980 when thousands fled Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia in crude boats. The United States ab- sorbed more than two hundred thousand of these so-called boat people in a period of fifteen months.

Most of the refugees coming in the second wave were unlike the earlier Vietnam- ese in that they were relatively unskilled, less educated, and spoke little English (Wong, 1986). For example, almost 80 percent of the Vietnamese coming to the United States between 1965 and 1969 were college graduates, as opposed to less than 16 percent of those who arrived between 1975 and 1980 (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1988). Their adjustment to American society, as a result, was far more difficult, and today they remain the most economically depressed element of the Asian American population. The Vietnamese, then, display a bipolar class breakdown- those who have successfully adapted to American society and are at a comfortable economic level, and those at the opposite end of the class hierarchy, disproportion- ately among the unemployed, poor, and socially alienated (Weiss, 1994).4

Though the heaviest concentration of the almost 1.5 million Vietnamese Ameri- cans is in California, the group has dispersed widely throughout the United States. Substantial Vietnamese populations can be found today in Houston, New Orleans, and Arlington, Virginia. The largest communities, however, are in Orange County, California. In the adjoining cities of Westminster and Garden Grove, thousands of Vietnamese have created a Little Saigon, with a full range of institutions serving the ethnic enclave.

O TH ER S OUTHEAST As1ANS During the 1980s, the Asian American population expanded not only in size but in diversity as well. In addition to the Vietnamese, several hundred thousand refugees from other Southeast Asian countries arrived in the United States following the end of the Vietnam War in 197 5. The largest among these were Laotians (mostly Hmong tribespeople from the mountains of Laos) and Cambodians.

These groups, like many Vietnamese, have not easily adapted to American soci- ety. The intention of U.S. policy when they entered as refugees was to resettle them in various regions and cities. The expectation was that this would accelerate their adap - tation and would avoid any negative impact on the labor market in communities that might absorb a large concentration of refugees.

The resettlement of the Hmong, in particular, has been fraught with serious pro- blems (Beck, 1994; Hein, 2006). Culturally, the group had not been exposed to West- ern ways before emigrating from a relatively isolated region of Laos, and the class and educational characteristics of most of the refugees were significantly lower than those of other Asian groups, further contributing to their problems of adaptation.

~As a result of subsequent immigration waves, the Vietnamese in America today constitute not only a class-diverse group but also one that reflects a cross section of Vietnamese society in terms of language, rel igion, and region of origin.

252 PART II ETH N ICITY IN TH E UN ITED ST AT ES

A SIAN l NDIANs 5 Like the Chinese, Indians have a long heritage of immigration to so-

cieties in all parts of the world. Until recently, however, the United States had not been one of their principal destinations. In the nineteenth century, most had gone as indentured servants to various parts· of the British colonial empire, including South Africa and a number of Caribbean societies. In the early years of the twentieth cen- tury, a few thousand workers from India were recruited as agricultural laborers in California and Washington, but because of immigration restrictions, the Indian pop- ulation did not expand. Like other Asian immigrants at this time, they experienced extremely virulent forms of discrimination. In this racially hostile atmosphere, the relatively small Asian Indian population remained isolated in agricultural communi- ties, mainly in California.

As with other Asian groups, the liberalized immigration measure of 1965 repre- sented the point at which Indians began to enter the United States in significant num- bers. And like the others, the new immigrants were sociologically quite distinct from their earlier counterparts. Those who have come in recent decades represent, for the most part, a highly educated and occupationally very skilled population. Indeed, their educational level, compared with that of other ethnic groups, is quite remark- able. More than 70 percent of the adult Indian American population are college graduates, and almost 40 percent have earned graduate or professional degrees. Clearly, Indian Americans are one of the most highly educated segments of the American population. What's more, their income and occupational levels are far above average.

Most Indians coming to the United States represent a select subset of the Indian population- more educated, more skilled, and more generally privileged . They are part of the worldwide migration of those with educational and occupational skills leaving developing societies in favor of the industrialized societies of the West, where economic and professional opportunities are more plentiful. In fact, many of the Asian Indian immigrants of the recent period have been students at American univer- sities who, after completing their studies, find employment and remain in the United States. Asian Indian software engineers, scientists, and other highly skilled technical workers constitute a huge segment of the workforce of the American computer in- dustry (Boxall, 2001) . The relatively high occupational status and high level of edu- cation of Indian immigrants in the past two decades have enhanced the speed and extent of their economic and social adaptation to American society. Indians have also benefited from the fact that on arrival most are fluent in English and have already been exposed to Western values.

In the past decade, the Asian Indian community in the United States has become more diverse, with a larger commercial class augmenting the predominantly profes- sional and technical character of the first post-1965 immigrants. 6 Hence, in addition to their place in skilled occupational areas, Asian Indians have played a significant role as entrepreneurs in the small-business sector; for example, more than half of all motels in the United States today are owned by Asian Indians (Dhingra, 20 12;

5 Increasingly , Asian Indians are referred to as "Indian Americans," though the U.S. Census continues to use "Asian Indian." 6 The post-World War II Indian immigration to Britain, by contrast, comprised not only a much larger but also a more heterogeneous population, with many unskilled and poorly educated people among them (see Watson, 1977).

CHAPTER 9 ASIAN AMERICANS 253

Varadarajan, 1999). This entrepreneurship is comparable to the economic path fo l- lowed by the recent generation of Korean immigrants. In California's Silicon Valley, where their presence in the computer industry is so evident, immigrants who are not high-tech workers-taxi drivers, restaurant workers, truckers, and so on-have be- gun to create a more class-diverse Asian Indian community (Boxall, 2001).

It is important to understand that those classified as "Asian Indian" represent a group that is internally quite diverse culturally. India itself is an ethnic potpourri, ._ with virtually dozens of languages and cultural communities. The religious division among Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs is only the most apparent and profound variance. Moreover, the national and geographical origins of Asian Indians in the United States are varied. Most have come from India, but sizable numbers have come from Paki- stan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. The term South Asian has been used to refer to this culturally and nationally diverse collection of groups. Ethnic Indians have come as well from countries where Indians had settled earlier in the nineteenth century as part of the Indian diaspora. Among these are Inda-Caribbeans, from Caribbean coun- tries including Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana (Sengupta and Toy, 1998 ), and those from East African countries who were forced to flee oppressive governments in the 1970s.

ASIAN AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHICS

Several features stand out in the current demographic patterns of Asian Americans. . '

GROWTH AND DIVERSITY Today, Asian Americans remain a relatively small part of the total American population-not quite 5 percent-but one that is rapidly growing not only in numbers but also, as we will see, in economic and cultural significance. Be- tween 1970 and 1980 the Asian American category grew by 128 percent; between 1980 and 1990, by 108 percent; and in the 1990s, by 69 percent. In the decade be- tween 2000 and 2010, its growth was over 45 percent, four times faster than the to- tal U.S. population and faster than any other racial/ethnic category (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012c) . It is projected that the current Asian American population of more than 14 million will almost double by 2020; by 2050, Asian Americans may make up as much as 13 percent of the total population (Martin and Midgley, 2010) . This

' rapid and sizable population growth is attributable mainly to the fact that Asians now account for more than a third of all immigration to the United States.

Figure 9.1 shows the breakdown of the Asian American population today. In 1970, the Chinese and Japanese formed the bulk of the population, but today these two groups together are less than one-third. With 23 percent, the Chinese category re- mains the largest component. The Indian American population has grown more rap- idly than any of the other Asian ethnic groups during the past decade and is now the second largest, with 20 percent, slightly larger than the Filipino population . The Viet- namese and Korean populations have also continued to grow steadily, each with about 10 percent. In contrast, the Japanese American population is growing much more lowly because of very limited immigration from Japan and a low fertility rate.

REGIONAL CONCENTRATION Although they have begun to settle in all regions of the United States, Asian Americans are most heavily concentrated in just a few states :

...

254 PART II ETH N ICIT Y IN THE UN IT ED STATES

c 15 OJ u

~ 10

0 p:f'

0 0:-0

.0 ~o 00 e:y'lf «.~'< 0'0 ,0

:-._<::-'If .0 c?f'lf ..s,,0

"?-'

q,<::- 00 . q,<::- ~0

00 "'""' +-0 [<'If ~ :,'If x::-0

FIGURE 9.r I ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF THE ASIA N AMERICAN POPULATION Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2012c ).

California, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, and Texas (Figure 9.2). Except for Ha- waii, California by far has a higher percentage of Asians as part of its population than any other state, 13 percent. This is over one-third of the entire Asian American population. Among the specific groups, only Indian Americans have not clustered in California, having dispers~d more widely.

Like other ethnic populations that have arrived primarily in the post-1965 era, Asian Americans dwell mostly in large urban areas. Indeed, urban residence charac- terizes virtually the entire Asian American population, with one-third found in just three metropolitan areas-Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco. As shown in Table 9.1, Asians make up nearly 15 percent of the total metropolitan population of Los Angeles, and in San Francisco they are more than 23 percent.

Susu RBANIZATION One of the more intriguing demographic patterns exhibited by Asians is their rapid rate of suburbanization. Like blacks and Hispanics, Asians, es- pecially those coming since 1970, have been leaving the central cities in ever greater numbers or, as immigrants, have gone directly to the suburbs, bypassing more tradi- tional central-city destinations (Alba et al., 1999; Frey, 2010). Indeed, a majority or near majority of every Asian group lives in suburbia (Logan, 2001). In the Los An- geles metropolitan area, many of the Asian enclaves are now found in suburbs rather

As ian alone or CA

bNY ~n ~ No ~HI h All olhec etal<'

in comb in ation 32.1 9. 1 6.4 4. 6 4.5 43.3

Asian alone CA NY TX NJ IL All other states

33.1 9.7 6.6 4.9 4.0 41.7

FIGURE 9.2 I PERCENTA GE DISTRIBUTIO N OF THE ASIAN POPULATION BY STATE Source: U.S. Census Bur eau (2012c).

CH APTER 9 ASI AN AMERI CA N S 255

TABLE 9 . r I METROPOLITAN AR EAS WITH THE L ARGEST ASIAN POPULATIONS

Los Angeles- Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY- NJ- PA

San Francisco- Oakland- Fremont, CA

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL- IN- WI

Washington-Arlington- Alexandria, DC- VA- MD- WV

Honolulu, HI

Seattle- Tacoma-Bellevue, WA

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX

San Diego- Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA

Source: U.S. Cen sus Bureau (2012e) .

Asian Alone Population (in Thousands)

1,885

1,878

1,006

572

533

517

418

393

389

336

Percent of Total Metro Area

14.7

9.9

23.2

31.1

5.6

9.3

43.9

11.4

6.5

10.9

than in the central city. Monterey Park is an interesting example, In the early 1970s, it was a Los Angeles suburban town of mainly Anglos and Hispanics. Now the pop- ulation is over 60 percent Asian, mainly middle class, anp most of its businesses are Asian-owned (Chowkwanyun and Segall, 2012; Fong, 1994; Horton, 1995) .

ASIAN AMERICANS IN THE CLASS SYSTEM

SO CIOECONOMIC STATUS

What is perhaps most striking about the Asian American population today is its un- usually high ranking on most measures of socioeconomic status: income, occupa- tional prestige, and level of education. Indeed, as a recent wide-ranging analysis of Asian Americans has put it simply, today they constitute "the highest-income, best- educated" racial group in the United States (Pew Research Center, 2013 :1).

The socioeconomic success of Asians in the United States, however, must be looked at with some caution. There are differences among specific groups as well as among members of the same group. For example, although 67 percent of employed Asian Indians and over half of Chinese are professionals or managers, less than 30 percent of Vietnamese are in such occupations (Table 9.2). The income and educa- tional levels of the latter are also considerably lower than those for other Asian American groups. Another internal difference is the tendency toward economic po- larization. That is, members of specific Asian American groups tend to cluster at the two extremes of the economic hierarchy, either at or near the top (such as profes- sionals and business owners) or at or near the bottom (service workers and other low-status job classifications).

256 PART II ET HN ICITY IN THE UNITED STATES

TABLE 9.2 I ASIAN AMERICANS IN PROFESSIONAL AND MANAGERIAL OCCUPATIONS ( % )

Total U.S. population 35.7

White, non-Hispanic 37.7

Asian 48 .5

Asian Indian 66.5

Chinese 54.4

Filipino 42.4

Japanese 53.6

Korean 46.1

Vietnamese ' 29.7

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (201 2a ).

INCOME The household income of Asian Americans far exceeds that of most other minority ethnic categories and, with the exception of the Southeast Asians, surpasses most Euro -American groups as well. In 2011, median household income for Asian Americans was $68,000, which was $15,000 more than for non-Hispanic whites (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a).

Figure 9.3 shows significant internal differences within the Asian category, how- ever. As is seen, the median income for Koreans is little more than half of what it is for Asian Indians. Moreover, although most Asian groups have higher family in- comes than whites, they also have more family members in the labor force. And, de - spite their high socioeconomic status relative to whites, Asian Americans do not control a commensurate amount of wealth (Campbell and Kaufman, 2006).

The same internal discrepancy is evident regarding poverty. The Asian American poverty rate is lower than for the total U.S. population but higher than for whites.

Total U.S. popu lation

White, non -Hispanic

Asian

Asian Indian

Chinese

Filip ino

Japanese

Korean

Vietnamese

- -- -

$0 $10,000

---

$30,000

I I

-- -· '-""'- I . ·-

I I

$50,000 $70 ,000

F IGURE 9 .3 I ASIAN AMERICAN MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 2011 Source: U.S . Census Bureau (2012a).

I I

$90,000 $110,000

CHAPTER 9 ASIAN AMERICANS 257

However, it is extraordinarily high for two relatively small Southeast Asian groups, Cambodians and Hmong.

OccuPATION The rate of labor force participation for Asian Americans is higher than that of any other ethnic category, and the range of occupations held by Asian Amer- icans is broad, extending from working-class jobs to professions such as medicine and engineering.

Here the split between those of previous generations and the more recent immiJ. grants is very evident. In striking contrast to the earlier Asian immigrants, most of whom were unskilled laborers, Asians today are disproportionately among the most highly skilled. A key feature of the immigration reform of 1965 was the prefer- ential treatment given to family members and to those with valuable occupational training. Because Asians had been virtually excluded for several decades, most of the early post-1965 immigrants entered not as family members but as skilled work- ers. As a result, many of the recent arrivals are found in the professions or in highly skilled jobs. Since the 1970s, almost half of working Asian Americans have reported professional and managerial occupations (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007b; U.S. Commis- sion on Civil Rights, 1988). For the past twenty years, Asian immigrants to the United States have been helping to fill shortages in a number of professional and technical areas, especially computer engineering and medicine.

High occupational rank is characteristic of native-born and foreign -born Asian Americans alike. Except for the Southeast Asian groups, Asian American men are more heavily represented in white-collar occupations and less , represented in blue- collar occupations than are non-Hispanic white men. Nearly half of Asian Americans are in managerial and professional occupations, a rate \;:O nsiderably higher than for other ethnic minorities and even for non-Hispanic whites (Table 9.2). At the other end of the occupational hierarchy, the percentage of Asians in service jobs is about the same as for non-Hispanic whites and well below the percentage for blacks and Hispanics (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a). However, the sharp stratification within the Asian American population is, again, very evident in the occupational world. At the same time that Asian Indians, Filipinos, Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese are dispro- portionately in high-ranking professional and technical fields, a high percentage of Vietnamese and other Southeast Asians are in low-paying, unskilled occupations.

Despite J;heir comparatively large numbers in professional and technical posi- tions, Asian Americans are underrepresented in managerial positions. And at the very top of the corporate ladder, their numbers are as small as for African Americans and Hispanic Americans. In 1990, 0 .3 percent of senior corporate executives were As ian Americans (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1992) and were still estimated to be less than 1 percent in 2004 (Zweigenhaft and Domhoff, 2006). Asian Ameri- cans have often spoken of a glass ceiling, referring to the limits to which they are able to rise in the corporate world. For example, in California's Silicon Valley, the major center of the American computer industry, Asians make up as much as one-third of the engineering workforce. But they are not well represented in upper management at the larger companies. Some, as a result, choose to start up high-technology enter- prises of their own (Pollack, 1992). This was a route taken earlier, in the 1950s, by the late An Wang, Chinese American founder of Wang Laboratories, for many years one of the country's largest computer companies. As Zweigenhaft and Domhoff

258 PART II ETH N IC ITY IN T H E UNITED ST AT ES

conclude, it is still "the most frequent pathway for Asians to take to become direc- tors of Fortune-level companies" (2006:189).

Several explanations have been offered to account for the underrepresentation of Asian Americans in executive posts. Some see them at a disadvantage in vying for ad- ministrative jobs because of a lack of communication skills. Also, Asian Americans are often stereotyped as docile and thus not prepared for leadership positions (Min, 2006; Zweigenhaft and Domhoff, 2006). Despite their scant numbers in the executive suites of the American corporate economy, however, the extraordinarily high level of educa- tion of most Asian Americans will likely accelerate their movement into top manage - ment positions at a faster rate than that of other minorities. Furthermore, as the number of Asian Americans in the general population grows, corporations will find it in their interests to seek out and place more Asian Americans in higher-ranking posi- tions, much as they have done with African Americans and Hispanic Americans.

A SIANS IN TH E S MA LL-B USINESS S ECTO R A salient feature of the economic role played by Asian Americans today is the unusually large number who choose to own small busi- nesses. Indeed, Asian American business ownership exceeds by far that of any other ethnic population as well as for all Americans (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010e; Zhou, 2009).

Several factors seem to account for the high rate of participation of Asians in the small-business sector. Most of their firms are family -operated businesses, in which several or even all family -members participate. As a result, labor costs are minimal, and relatively small amounts of capital are needed. Many immigrants thus find small enterprises attractive as opposed to the corporate sector, where there are limited op- portunities for nonwhites, especially those who do not speak English fluently. Own- ing a small business gives immigrants some independence and enables them to avoid having to deal with what are seen as unreceptive dominant economic institutions.

E DUCATION The differences between Asian Americans and other minority ethnic groups regarding education are striking. All Asian American groups are either close to or ex- ceed the average level of schooling of the white population. In the percentage of college graduates, however, the difference between Asian Americans and all other ethnic groups is extraordinary. Asian Americans-both men and women-are more likely to have earned a college degree than non-Hispanic whites. As seen in Figure 9.4, half of all adult Asian Americans hold at least a bachelor's degree, compared to 30 percent of non-Hispanic whites. Moreover, 21 percent of adult Asians hold advanced degrees, almost twice the percentage of whites. Many Asian immigrants, of course, are highly educated before they enter the United States, making them distinctly different from most contemporary Hispanic immigrants as well as Asian immigrants of past eras. No- tice in Figure 9 .4 that despite the extraordinarily high educational levels for Asian Americans generally, the Vietnamese are below average, and this holds for other small Southeast Asian groups-Cambodian, Hmong, Laotian-as well.

In academic achievement, Asian American students are well above the norm on almost every measure. For example, Asian American high school students score higher than students from any other ethnic group in mathematics scholastic aptitude tests and are second only to whites on verbal aptitude tests. In New York, Asian en- rollment in the city's most elite specialized high schools has soared; of the fourteen

CH APT ER 9 AS IAN AME RI CANS 259

Total U.S. population -

Wh ite , non-Hispanic -

Asian -

.----=-:i Asian Indian

- .•. ·'" Chinese

- F"""'9

Filipino

- ,..-_,., Japanese

- ;=--=J

Korean

.. '.••·''"' =Y·<~ Vietnamese

I I

0 10 20

··1

I I

30 40

Percent

I I I I

60 70 80 90

Less than high school D High school graduate or more D Bachelor's degree or more

F IGURE 9.4 I ASIAN AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2012a).

100

thousand students enrolled in these schools, which require a grueling entrance exam, 60 percent are Asian (Spencer, 2012). Predictably, Asian students enter top universi- ties far out of proportion to their numbers. At Harvard and Yale, for example, Asian Americans constitute 15 to 20 percent of U.S. students; at MIT, 27 percent; and at elite University of California campuses they outnumber all other groups, including whites (Gord~n, 2013). Moreover, Asian Americans have the highest co llege gradu- ation rate among all racial and ethnic groups (Min, 2006). And, Asian Americans earn professional degrees fa r out of proportion to their population (Ryu, 2009).

Science, medicine, and other highly technical fields are academic areas in which the excellence of Asian American students is especially apparent . But they are enter- ing the humanities and the arts in increasingly greater numbers and are excelling in those fields as well. For example, Asians and Asian Americans make up a large and growing percentage of students at the most prestigious music schools such as Juil- liard, Eastman, and the New England Conservatory (Wakin, 2007).

ETHNIC AND CLASS F ACTORS IN UPWARD MOBILITY

T he economic and educational success of Asian Americans is, as we have now seen, extraordinary. In looking at the status of the Asian American population, however,

...

260 PART II ETHNICITY IN THE UN ITED STATES

several caveats are in order. First, we need to remember the diversity of this ethnic category. There are differences among specific groups. For example, as previously noted, more than half of all employed Asian Indians, Chinese, and Japanese are pro- fessionals or managers, in sharp contrast to the occupations of most Vietnamese and other Southeast Asians. The income and educational levels of the latter are also con- siderably lower than those for other Asian American groups. Second, not only is the Asian American population made up of many different groups but each group itself is internally varied, stretching over an entire range of social class. Third, the Asian American population consists of two historical components- those who came as early as the mid-nineteenth century and those who have come since 1965. As we have now seen, many of the more recent Asian Americans have come with class and educational backgrounds very different from those of earlier oqes.

Taking these cautionary points into consideration, the economic and educa- tional record of most Asian American groups remains remarkable when compared to other parts of the American ethnic hierarchy. Why have Asian Americans moved up the economic ladder more quickly than other ethnic groups, and why do they seem to outdistance others in the realm of education? Is it because of a unique cul- tural heritage, or are class factors more important? Might Asian Americans even be innately different from other racial and ethnic groups? Attempts to explain the un- usually high rates of Asian American mobility, educational achievement, and social adaptation have employed several different lines of thought.

INNATE SuPERIORrPY? Some contend that Asians are innately superior. A few highly controversial studies have suggested, for example, higher average IQs of Chinese and Japanese compared to others (Herrnstein and Murray, 1994; Lynn and Vanha - nen, 2002). As explained in Chapter 1, most social scientists do not recognize the validity of such genetic arguments, whether applied to seemingly high-achieving or low-achieving groups . Indeed, such explanations border on racist notions. As noted in Chapter 1, social scientists have emphasized either structural opportunities or cul- tural factors in explaining why some ethnic groups seem to display greater collective achievement than others . The intelligence factor is one that nonetheless confounds observers because on certain measures of intelligence, Asian Americans seem to con- sistently outperform other ethnic groups.

CULTURAL FACTORS Many sociologists and psychologists point to cultural factors in ac- counting for high achievement among Asian Americans. Stressed in this explanation are values that emphasize the importance of education and the cohesiveness of the family. Almost all studies that have addressed this issue seem to converge on one point: Asian Americans are prepared to work arduously and, in turn, are able to in- still in their children a great motivation to work hard. Hence, Asian American busi- ness owners, it is often observed, work longer hours than their competitors, and time spent on homework or other school activities by Asian American students consider- ably exceeds that spent by non-Asian students (Butterfield, 1986; Kim, 1981; Light and Bonacich, 1988). In his study of Koreans in New York, Illsoo Kim traces their business success largely to cultural factors. "An emphasis on economic motivation and mobility," he writes, "has contributed to acculturation in the new land because it was already a deep part of contemporary Korean culture and values" (1981:295).

CHAPTER 9 ASIAN AMERICANS 261

He claims that values such as industriousness and the control of impulses and emo- tions, which correspond closely to dominant American values, were carried by Ko- rean immigrants to the United States. A similar argument has been advanced regarding the economic success of Japanese Americans, who it is claimed brought values from Japan that were highly compatible with white, Protestant, middle-class American values (Caudill and De Vos, 1956).

That cultural factors are of key importance in explaining Asian American educa- '- tional and economic success is suggested by a study, conducted by University of Mi- chigan researchers, investigating the adaptation of Vietnamese refugees. At the time of their arrival in the United States, most of the subjects of this study (part of the boat people of the late 1970s) had completed little formal education, few had any marketable skills, and only one in a hundred spoke fluent English. The researchers found that despite these handicaps, many had achieved economic independence after only a few years. Furthermore, whatever success they had realized was almost en- tirely a product of their own efforts; the assistance of outside agencies had played a very limited role (Caplan et al., 1989) .

The academic achievement of school-age children from these families was more remarkable still. Despite their severe language deficiencies and family poverty, after an average of only three years they were experiencing success in American schools. On national standardized tests of academic achievement, 2 7 percent of the refugee children scored in the ninetieth percentile on math achievement-almost three times better than the national average. And despite their somewhat lower scores in English-language proficiency, they earned higher grade point averages than their peers (Caplan et al., 1991, 1992). The researchers found that this rapid educational success was closely linked to a cluster of core values deriving from the Confucian and Buddhist traditions of East and Southeast Asia: education and achievement, a cohe- sive family, and hard work. These, they found, "are, if not identical, congruent with what have been viewed as mainstream middle-class American beliefs about the role of education in getting ahead" (1991:172). 7

Other researchers have also emphasized the importance of Confucian values in explaining the rigid work ethic that Asian Americans and their children seem to ex- hibit. Kim (1981), for example, views Confucianism as a significant factor in ac- counting for Korean business success. Zhou and Bankston (1998) also find this to

' be an important part of the explanation for the educational success of Vietnamese children. In addition to the sanctified place of education and the family, Confucian thought stresses that people can always be improved with effort and instruction, va- lues well suited to the competitive worlds of American business and schooling.

In assessing the achievement of Asians and Asian Americans compared to other Americans (and Westerners in general), psychologist Richard Nisbett (2009) attributes most of the difference simply to greater effort on the part of the former. Notions of higher innate intelligence are deemed essentially meaningless. "Asian intellectual ac- complishment," he writes, "is due more to sweat than to exceptional gray matter." The tendency for Asian students to work harder and to invest more time in school

7 The researchers did find a critical difference between th e two va lue systems, however, in their orientation to achievement: " Amer ican mores encourage independence and individual achieveme nt, whereas Indochinese values foster interdependence and a family-based orientation to achievement" (Caplan et al., 1992:41).

2 6 2 PART lT ETHN ICITY JN T HE UNITED STA T ES

work is closely related to the cultural factors discussed previously, in particular fulfill- ing the expectations of the family and upholding its honor. Nisbett explains:

Asian families are more successful in getting their children to achieve academically be- cause Asian families are more powerful agents of influence than are American families- and because what they choose to emphasize is academic achievement (159).

Accomplishment on behalf of family, then, is a greater incentive to success than achievement for one's self, the more common American motivational force.

S TRUCTURAL FACTORS Although most observers today recognize the importance of un- ique cultural factors in explaining Asian American success, many also see a fortuitous fit between the opportunity structure of contemporary American society and the class background of these immigrants. We have already noted the disproportionate number of highly skilled and educated people who make up the Asian immigrant population. Hence, the existence of many doctors, engineers, and other highly trained professionals among them is largely a function of their preimmigration class position. In some ways, today's Asian immigrants represent a select subset of the population of their origin so- cieties. What has been referred to as a "brain drain" consists of the out-migration of highly skilled and educated people from developing societies. Such people recognize the more abundant opportunities to employ their skills and training in the United States as well as the possibility of earning substantially greater income. Hence, many are not poor, underprivileged-immigrants but are already imbued with achievement- oriented values along with the class qualifications to implement those values.

The importance of a propitious opportunity structure, therefore, cannot be over- stated in explaining the rapid and substantial upward mobility of Asian Americans, especially the more recent arrivals. Many are people who bring their skills and train- ing with them, enabling them to adapt more easily than others with fewer skills and lower educational backgrounds. Structural opportunities, then, in addition to a cul- tural heritage compatible with American achievement values, are critical in account- ing for the relatively rapid success of so many Asian Americans.

In this view, the importance of human capital, especially education, also ac - counts for the relative success of groups with longer histories in the United States, namely Japanese and Chinese Americans. Sakamoto and colleagues (1998) suggest that William J. Wilson's thesis (discussed in Chapter 7) of the declining significance of race applies to Asian Americans in the last half century. In occupation and other measures of socioeconomic status, the disadvantages of racial distinctness, they claim, have been substantially reduced- if not eliminated entirely- for these groups . Their success is explained primarily as the result of high educational achievement. "" Zhou and Kim (2007) suggest that it is a combination of both cultural values and structural conditions that account for the exceptional educational success of Asian Americans. That is, cultural values that stress education need the additional support of ethnic social structures to fully flourish . In their study of Chinese and Koreans in Los Angeles, they found that beyond the public schools, community institutions- Chinese- and Korean-language schools, ethnic media, ethnic churches, and ethnic businesses- played an important role in transmitting and reinforcing Confucian educational values, thereby helping ensure the success of children in high school and ultimately having them gain entrance to prestigious universities.

CHAPTER 9 ASIAN AMERICA NS 263

ASIAN AMERICANS AND POLITICAL POWER

Even though their accomplishments in the economic and educational spheres of American society are increasingly evident, Asians have not exhibited a similar prom- inence in the society's political institutions. In the recent past, Asian American repre - sentation in the political world was limited mainly to Hawaii's congressional and senatorial seats and a few congressional seats from California. There is much e'{_i- dence to indicate that Asian Americans are on the brink of much fuller participation in the political world, both as an electorate and occupying positions of leadership (Nakanishi, 2001; Pew Research Center, 2013).

PARTICIPATION Participation of Asian Americans in political life has traditionally been limited. This has been attributed to a number of factors. The nationally diverse and factionalized nature of the Asian American population has made it difficult to build a power base that can be mobilized for political action. Moreover, because such a large proportion of the Asian American population is foreign-born, many are not U.S. citizens and thus not eligible to vote. Also, among older Asian Americans, espe- cially those who have been victimized by past discrimination, the tendency to remain as invisible as possible continues to militate against strong political activism (Gross, 1989). Finally, many of the newest Asian immigrants come from societies where citi- zen participation in politics is not institutionalized and where there exists a profound distrust of government generally.

As their population base widens and as the newer immigrants experience pro- gressive assimilation, Asian Americans are beginning to play a more active political role, and not only in those areas where they constitute a sizable proportion of the population or where they are a significant minority. The number of Asians elected to political office at state and local levels continues to grow, and today thirteen mem- bers of Congress identify themselves as Asian American (Manning, 2013 ).

Asian American elected officials are unique compared to African American and La - tino elected officials in that they tend to emerge from political districts where, aside from Hawaii, their group does not account for a substantial portion of voters (Lai et al., 2003). One of the most visible indications of an increasing Asian American presence on the American political scene was the 1996 election of Gary Locke as governor of Washington. Locke is a second-generation Chinese American whose election marked the first time an Asian American had been elected to a governorship outside Hawaii. He subsequently served as U.S. secretary of commerce in the Obama administration.

Asian Indians offer another case of entering the American political scene without relying on a large coethnic population base. Despite their relatively recent arrival in American society in significant numbers, they have utilized a few social advantages- namely a high level of education and most being English speakers-to propel them into state and local politics. States and towns with a miniscule Asian Indian popula- tion have elected Asian Indians to state legislatures and to mayorships in small but growing numbers (Vitello, 2007) . Most prominently, second-generation Indian Americans were elected governor of Louisiana in 2007 and South Carolina in 2010. Asians are a tiny percentage of both states.

POTENTIAL PowER Although Asian Americans still represent only a small percentage of the national population, their increasing visibility, numbers (they are the fastest-growing

264 PART II ETHN ICITY IN THE UN ITED ST AT ES

electorate in the United States), and financial power will necessarily force politicians to take notice of them, particularly in states like California, where they are strongly concentrated. Already, for example, Asian Americans have established themselves as significant campaign donors (Kirschten, 1992; Vitello, 2007). Perhaps most impor- tant, future issues may arise that will have a mobilizing effect on the Asian American population. Widespread occurrences of discrimination, for example, real or per- ceived, are apt to solidify the disparate Asian American ethnic groups and to create a more potent political base. The same is true of immigration issues, which are of key importance to all elements of the U.S. Asian population, in much the same way as they are to Latinos (Constable and Lazo, 2013).

Interethnic competition and hostilities, such as the boycotts against Korean shops by blacks or the attacks on Korean businesses during the Los Angeles riots of 1992, may also stimulate Asian American political participation. A governme11t investigation of the contributions of Asian nationals to the Democratic Party in 1996, causing in- vestigators to look primarily at contributors with Asian-sounding names, as well as Republican proposals to curtail immigrant family reunification and deny welfare ben- efits to legal immigrants prompted many Asians to become citizens and thus eligible to vote (Rodriguez, 1998). Moreover, the growing importance of U.S. economic and po- litical relations with Asian nations may create issues that will redound to the Asian American population, pushing them increasingly into the domestic political arena.

PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION

Among voluntary immigrants to American society, none suffered more severe forms of prejudice and discrimination in their settlement experiences than Asians. Although they were not enslaved nor were genocidal measures taken against them, they were constant targets of all forms of social and physical abuse. Indeed, if there is a common thread running through the early history of Asian American groups, it is the experience of rampant prejudice and discrimination of the most vehement and often violent nature.

THE ANTI-ASIAN H ERITAGE

Anti-Asian sentiments have lengthy historical roots, reaching back, as we have seen, to the entrance of the Chinese into the American West in the mid-nineteenth century. The intensity of early anti-Asian actions traditionally seemed to hinge on the perceived threat of Asian immigrants to the jobs of native workers. The anti-Chinese movement, which began in the mines of California, spread to other West Coast areas and eastward to other parts of the country (Lyman, 1974). Everywhere, Chinese were met with deri-

., sion and hostility. They enjoyed hardly any legal rights and were common targets of assault and even murder. "The bewildered Chinese," note tenBroek, Barnhart, and Matson, "speaking little or no English and ignorant of Western customs, became the victims of every variety of fraud and chicanery, abuses encouraged by the absence of an active public opinion which might have alerted the police and the courts, and by the law prohibiting the testimony of Chinese in cases involving whites" (1968:15).

SINO PHOBIA The standard panoply of negative ethnic stereotypes- dirty, immoral, unassimilable- was applied to the Chinese. In addition, they were seen as sly,

CHAPTER 9 AS IAN AM ERICANS 265

untrustworthy, and inscrutable. Much of the negative stereotyping of the Chinese, and later the Japanese, stemmed from their labor role and their alleged impact on the job market. The term coolie labor, for example, denoting undignified work, de- rives from this period. That the Chinese were inferior to whites was beyond question in most people's minds. Perhaps the most devastating aspect of Chinese stereotyping, however, involved the notion of a yellow peril. Chinese immigration, in this view, was an invasion of people who were loyal only to their country of origin and who, if not stopped, would eventually take over the United States (tenBroek et al., 1968). ..

This sinophobia, fueled especially by labor leaders, culminated in the previously mentioned Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. By 1910, the anti-Chinese movement had achieved its primary objectives: Chinese workers had been all but eliminated from the labor market, and restrictive legislation was in place that effectively barred fur- ther Chinese immigration. Moreover, the ban on future immigration, particularly of women, seemed to ensure that the Chinese American population would, in the long run, disappear.

THE ANTI-JAPANESE MovEMENT Many of these same attitudes and actions were cast on the later Japanese immigration. At the time of their first substantial entrance in the 1880s, the Japanese were received enthusiastically by large farm owners and manu- facturers, who saw them as a natural substitute for the Chinese laborers who had been excluded by the restrictive measure of 1882. So long as they occupied only me- nial or unskilled jobs, for which there was a shortage of workers, they were seen as filling a need. But like the Chinese before them, they soon found themselves the tar- gets of labor groups who viewed them as potential competitors. Anti-Chinese agita- tion easily shifted to the Japanese, with many of the same st~reotypes now applied to them, including the yellow peril (tenBroek et al., 1968). Despite the Gentlemen's Agreement between the United States and Japan in 1907- 1908 limiting Japanese im- migration, as well as a California measure restricting Japanese ownership of land, anti-Japanese ferment never fully subsided.

In many ways, the anti-Japanese movement of the 1910s and 1920s was merely a continuation of the earlier anti-Chinese movement. Despite their modest group size (in California, where most were concentrated, they numbered only seventy thousand in 1919, little more than 2 percent of the state's population), the Japanese were seen by many as a th\eat to white dominance. The Japanese in California had become suc- cessful farmers, and although they controlled only about 1 percent of California's farmland, their highly efficient agricultural practices produced more than 10 percent of the value of the state's crops (Kitano and Daniels, 1995). Many whites were alarmed at the growing Japanese economic influence and began to agitate for restric- tions not only on further immigration but also on the right of the Japanese to own land in the state. California newspaper publishers William Randolph Hearst and V. S. McClatchy emerged as two of the leading figures in the anti-Japanese movement, out- lining in their newspapers the themes of the Japanese "threat." Their propagandistic attacks claimed that the Japanese refused to assimilate, that their birthrate was so great they would eventually outnumber whites, and that their "low standard of living" pre- sented an unfair advantage in economic competition with whites (McClatchy, 1978) .

All these charges, of course, had been applied to southern and eastern European immigrants as well, but the anti-Japanese campaign brandished a unique fear of an

266 PART II ET H NIC !TY IN T H E UNITED STATES

immigrant "invasion." Following World War I, a full-blown exclusionist movement developed in California, designed to isolate those Japanese already in the United States and, as one California politician described it, "to influence Congress and the administration at Washington to enact such legislation, even if the amendment of the Constitution be necessary, as will protect the white race against the economic men- ace of the unassimilable Japanese" (quoted in Daniels, 1977:84).

The vehemence of the anti-Japanese movement in California was unmatched against any other American ethnic group outside the South. Much of this hostility was the result of the racial distinctiveness of the Japanese. Southern and eastern Eu - ropean groups, though the targets of virulent racist attacks, were not so indelibly marked. Perhaps of greater importance, however, the Japanese were economically successful in both agriculture and business; therefore, they were resented and easily targeted as a competitive threat to the majority population. The Japanese fear was further fueled by the growing disrepute of Japan as an aggressive, militaristic inter- national power during the early decades of the century. The Japanese military threat, covered sensationally by the press, served as cause for suspicion of Japanese Americans. Finally, that the Japanese were concentrated in California provided an opportune setting for a movement aimed at an Asian group. As one historian describes it, "California, by virtue of its anti-Chinese tradition and frontier psychol- ogy, was already conditioned to anti-Orientalism before the Japanese arrived" (Daniels, 1977:106).

J APANESE I NTERNMENT Fueled by the shock of the attack on Pearl Harbor and reinforced by the stereotype of Japanese treacherousness, the anti-Japanese movement culmi- nated after the start of World War II with the internment of the Japanese population living on the West Coast. No other series of events in American ethnic history, other than the enslavement of African Americans and the genocidal measures employed against Native Americans, was comparable to this action. Two months after the Japa- nese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, acting on the recommendation of Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, issued Executive Order 9066, authorizing the U.S. Army to remove any group viewed as a security risk. Almost all those of Japanese ancestry living in California, Oregon, Washington, and Arizona- 120,000- were affected. They were subsequently rounded up and sent to internment camps (called "relocation centers") in several Rocky Mountain states and in Arkan- sas. Having no time to prepare, most were forced to quickly liquidate their businesses; many abandoned their homes and possessions, losing their life savings. They were per- mitted to carry with them only a single suitcase of personal belongings.

The Japanese Americans were held in the detention camps almost until the end of the war. In an ironic twist, thousands of incarcerated Japanese men were permit-

., ted to enter the U.S. Army as a special unit; in the European theater, where they fought the Nazis, they became one of the most highly decorated battle units in Amer- ican military history.

Several aspects of the Japanese incarceration stand out. To begin with, most of the detained had been born in the United States and were American citizens. Hence, people were denied their fundamental civil rights solely on the basis of their ethnic- ity. In his final report, the commanding U.S. Army general responsible for carrying out the Japanese removal put the matter bluntly: "The Japanese race is an enemy

CHAPTER 9 ASIA N AMERICANS 267

race and while many second and third generation Japanese born on United States soil, possessed of United States citizenship, have become 'Americanized,' the racial strains are undiluted" (quoted in tenBroek et al., 1968:263). Second, that the re- moval of the Japanese was racially motivated was demonstrated by the fact that Americans of neither German nor Italian ancestry were similarly treated despite the war against Germany and Italy. Moreover, after the war it was acknowledged that the Japanese on the West Coast had never presented a military threat, and in fact .. their incarceration may actually have retarded the war effort. The emptiness of the security issue is reflected in the fact that the larger Japanese population in Hawaii was never removed despite its more strategic location. In the end, the exclusionist movement that had begun in California in the earlier years of the century had accom- plished its objective- removal of the Japanese. The fear, suspicion, misperception, and envy bred by decades of negative stereotypes were released in a grievous deed, responsibility for which was shared by nativist groups, farmers, entrepreneurs, the military, the courts, and state and federal politicians.

Not until 1983 did a congressional committee formally acknowledge the politi- cal injustice that had been dealt the Japanese Americans, recommending a formal apology and compensation of $20,000 in damages to each survivor of the incarcera- tion. Legislation to accomplish this was enacted in 1988. 8 The long-term effects of the internment camps, of course, could not be erased so easily, particularly for first- and second-generation Japanese Americans. For them, American democracy had failed to provide its promise of protection for all citizens. Even, for the third and fourth generations, the World War II internment remains the paramount event of the history of the Japanese in America. _

Although the Japanese internment is the most infamous case of direct institu- tional discrimination, all Asian groups have been subjected to various legal forms of discrimination at one time or another. Indeed, during the early years of the cen- tury, anti-Chinese and anti-Japanese measures were usually designed to apply to all Asians. In California, intermarriage of whites and Asians, for example, was barred, and residential segregation was enforced by restrictive covenants aimed specifically at Asians. Even federal laws were designed to handicap Asians. Perhaps most reveal- ing, it was not until 1952 that federal legislation was passed making all Asian immi- grants eligible {or U.S. citizenship (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1988).

PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION IN THE MODERN ERA

Expressions of prejudice and acts of discrimination against Asian Americans in re - cent years are in no way comparable to the widespread and vehement forms these took in the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries. Nonetheless, negative Asian stereotypes as well as occasional violent incidents have been an integral part of the modern Asian American experience.

A similar internment was carried out by the Canadian government at the start of World War II against the twenty-three thousand people of Japanese origin living in the West Coast pro vince of British Columbia, 75 percent of whom were Canadian citizens (see Adachi, 1976; Daniels, 1981; Sunahara, 1980). In much the same fashion as the U.S. Congress, the Canadian parliament in 1988 moved to fo rmally apologize to Japanese Canadians and to make a reparation payment of $19,325 to each ur vivor (Burns, 1988).

268 PART II ETHNICITY IN THE UNITED STATES

PREJUDICE A 2001 national survey sponsored by the Committee of 100, a national organization of leaders of the Chinese American community, revealed a mixed view of Americans, both positive and negative, toward Asian Americans generally and Chinese Americans specifically (Yankelovich Partners, 2001) . The great majority of Americans believed Chinese Americans to have strong family values, to be honest in business, to be patriotic Americans, and to place a higher value on education than most other U.S. groups . At the same time, however, about one-third of Americans felt that Chinese Americans were more loyal to China than to the United States and had too much influence in the U.S. high-tech sector. Moreover, nearly half believed that Chinese Americans might be passing secret information to China. As with other studies of ethnic prejudice, it was concluded that prejudice toward Chinese Ameri- cans was most closely correlated with social class-those at lower educational and income levels were more commonly prejudiced. '

Regarding attitudes toward all Asian Americans, the study indicated that al- most one-quarter of Americans are uncomfortable with the idea of an Asian Amer- ican as president of the United States; only 15 percent expressed a similar feeling about an African American president, and only 11 percent about a Jewish Ameri- can president. One-quarter of Americans indicated that they would disapprove to some degree if a member of their family married an Asian American, as opposed to 34 percent expressing disapproval of marriage to an African American and 24 percent to a Hispanic American. One in six (17 percent) also expressed at least some displeasure with a substantial number of Asian Americans moving into their neighborhood.

D 1scR1M1NATION In the 1980s and early 1990s, anti-Asian sentiment was fueled by the success of Asian Americans relative to other ethnic groups, and also by the economic prowess of Asian societies, especially Japan, and their ability to compete with the United States in the American as well as the global market. Business leaders, labor officials, and politicians accused Japan of unfair trade practices, which they claimed had created many of the ills of American industry. Advertisements encouraging peo- ple to buy American-made products were tinged with anti -Asian sentiments, and many politicians used economic nationalism as a primary component of their cam- paigns. These actions redounded to Asian Americans (Mydans, 1992a).

Perhaps the most compelling and dramatic illustration of the impact of economic nationalism on Asian Americans was the killing in Detroit of Vincent Chin in 1982. While celebrating his impending wedding with friends at a bar, Chin, a young Chi- nese American engineer, was verbally accosted by two white autoworkers, one of them unemployed at the time. Assuming that Chin was Japanese, they told him that he and one of his friends, also an Asian American, were "the reason we're all laid off." A fight ensued, after which the two chased Chin and clubbed him to death on the street. The attackers were fined $3,780 and given three years' probation after one pleaded guilty and the other pleaded no contest to charges of manslaughter. The le- niency of the sentence outraged the Asian American community, and the U.S . Justice Department subsequently filed civil rights charges against one of the attackers. He was convicted by a federal jury of violating Chin's civil rights and sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. That conviction was later overturned on appeal, how- ever, and he was acquitted of all charges, ending any further criminal prosecution

CHAPTER 9 ASIAN AMERICANS 269

(Moore, 1987). The Chin killing and its aftermath still resonate strongly among many Asian Americans several decades after the event (Clemetson, 2002).

In addition to the Chin case, several other incidents in the 1980s provoked strong reactions. Each involved violent attacks on Asian Americans that resulted in only nominal punishment by the courts (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1986). Other less dramatic but no less disturbing anti-Asian actions, many motivated by un- adulterated racist sentiments, were reported in the 1980s and early 1990s (Noble, 1995; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1992).

Two events of the late 1990s seemed to galvanize Asian Americans around issues of perceived discrimination. In one case, some contributions given to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the 1996 presidential election raised by a Chinese American former official of the DNC were later found to be illegal, having been chan- neled by overseas Asian political influence seekers. Subsequent investigation of illegal contributions cast suspicion on Asian American contributors who had done nothing wrong (Ta jitsu Nash and Wu, 1997; Wang, 2003). In another incident, Wen Ho Lee, a Taiwanese-born U.S. citizen and former government-employed nuclear scientist, was accused of espionage in 1999. He was indicted on several dozen felony counts for downloading classified nuclear design and testing information at the Los Alamos Na- tional Laboratory in New Mexico. Subsequently all but one charge was dropped in what was seen as a major embarrassment for federal prosecutors (Farhi, 2006; Wu, 2003). Both of these cases caused much chagrin among Asian Americans, many of whom saw them as blatant instances of anti-Asian stereotyping and dis~rimination.

ASIANS AND OTHER ETHNIC MINORITIES In addition to harassment-and hostilities issuing from the white majority, Asian Americans have sometimes been targets of violence by inner-city blacks and Latinos. As previously noted, many Asian immigrants turn to small business, and they often operate groceries, restaurants, liquor stores, and laundries in minority areas of large cities. In this, they are playing a middleman mi- nority role. And as we saw in Chapter 2, such middleman business owners frequently become the targets of hostility for their customers. Tensions between Asian business owners and blacks in inner-city areas have been especially high in recent years. Ani- mosities have arisep from the perception of blacks that Asian shopkeepers often deal with them disrespectfully and have no interest in the black communities in which they operate, other than earning a profit. Hence, they see Asians as exploiters. Shop- keepers, in turn, complain of the frequency of harassment, theft, and vandalism of their businesses. Spike Lee's 1989 film, Do the Right Thing, is a graphic depiction of the tensions that often accompany the establishment of Asian (mostly Korean) small businesses in African American neighborhoods.

In a widespread pattern, black boycotts of Asian-owned businesses occurred in several cities in the 1980s and 1990s including New York, Philadelphia, Washing- ton, and Los Angeles . During the Los Angeles riots of May 1992, shops owned by Koreans in the South Central district, where most of the disturbances occurred, eemed to be particular targets of looters and arsonists. Before the riots, relations be-

nveen Korean shopkeepers and their black customers had been volatile for years and eemed to reach a high point when a Korean-born grocer shot to death a fifteen-

:·ear-old black girl whom the merchant had accused of stealing a bottle of orange 'uice. Black resentment grew even stronger when the woman grocer, who was

270 PART II ETHNICITY IN THE UNITED STATES

convicted of voluntary manslaughter, was given only a probationary sentence (My- dans, 1992b; Ong et al., 1992). Discordant relations between Koreans and blacks were most dramatic in Los Angeles as a result of the 1992 riots, but a similar under- current was evident in the inner cities of other urban areas where Koreans operated small businesses serving minority residents (Chesley and Gilchrist, 1993; Gold, 2010; Goldberg, 1995; Wilkerson, 1993).

Friction between Koreans and blacks in business relationships should not be seen as unique, however. Similar animosities have arisen among blacks and mer- chants of other ethnic groups operating their enterprises in inner-city areas. In De- troit, for example, most inner-city neighborhood groceries and liquor stores are owned by Arab Americans or Chaldean Americans, who are seen in much the same way as Koreans in other cities (Dawsey, 1992; Gerdes, 1993 ). Moreov~r, conflict be- tween neighborhood coethnics and shop owners of an outsider ethnic group has a long tradition in many countries and has been evident in diverse parts of the world in recent times (Chua, 2004; White, 1993).

MODERATING LEVELS OF PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION Today, there seems little chance of a return to the extreme levels of prejudice and discrimination that characterized the Asian American experience of earlier decades. Labor market discrimination against Asian Americans, for example, is no longer a serious issue (Sakamoto and Xie, 2006). One of the more apparent differences today is that negative stereotypes of the past have given way to a generally positive collective image. Indeed, Asian Amer- icans are increasingly seen as role models for other ethnic groups. As sociologist Pe- ter Rose has put it, "The pariahs have become paragons, lauded for their ingenuity and industry and for embodying the truest fulfillment of the 'American Dream'" (1985:182). Moreover, despite isolated cases of blatant and direct discrimination, such as those that occurred in the 1980s and 1990s, most instances of discrimination today are more subtle and indirect.

Occasional episodes of violence against Asian Americans have been motivated in recent years primarily by identification (or misidentification) as Muslims. Some Asian Americans-namely, South Asian Muslims, mostly from Pakistan and Bangla- desh-found themselves victimized by the anti-Muslim hysteria that characterized the American response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Sikhs from India, although not Muslim, were also harasse d through the mistaken identity of their traditional turbans (Bakalian and Bozorgmehr, 2009). Such incidents occurred with some fre- quency in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, but since then they have been isolated cases. For example, in 2012 in another case of mistaken identity,

-. a gunman attacked a Sikh temple outside Milwaukee, killing six persons. Perhaps the most compelling evidence of the decline of anti-Asian discrimination

is the view of Asian Americans themselves. A 2013 comprehensive study (Pew Re- search Center, 2013) concluded that, in general, "Asian Americans register fairly low levels of concern about group discrimination" (97). Only about one-in-eight re- spondents in the study stated that discrimination is a major problem; about half said that it is a minor problem, and about a third viewed it as not at all problematic (Figure 9.5). Moreover, a majority said that their Asian identity was not a hindrance to getting into college, finding a job, or getting a promotion. Another national survey of Asian Americans (Ramakrishnan and Lee, 2012) indicated that only a tiny per- centage view race and racism as important problems for the Asian American

CHAPTER 9 AS IAN AM ERI CANS 27 1

% saying discrimination against their U.S. Asian group is a ...

Major problem D Minor problem D Not a problem

U.S . Asians ] ""! ~~~-----4_8 ____ ~ ____ 3_5 __ ~ U.S. Asians groups

Korean 46 27

Chinese 56 24

Vietnamese 48 37

Indian 48 38

Filipino 46 45

Japanese 41 45

Among U.S. Asians who are ...

Nat;"-bom 1 ' I 51 36 I 47 34

I Foreign-born

0 20 40 60 80 100

F IGU RE 9. 5 I AS IAN AMERICAN V IEWS OF DISCRIMINATION Source: Pew Research Center, 2013. Note: As a strictly nonpartism, non-advocacy organization, we do not grant permission for reprints, links, citations or other uses of our da ta and analysis that in any way imply that Pew Research Center endorses a cause, candidate, issue, party, product, business or religion. To view our Use Policy and citation guidelines, please visit http:// www.pewresearch.org/a bout/use-policy/.

population. These views contrast very strongly with those of African Americans and Hispanic Americans, who see discrimination in various social areas as a serious on- going problem for their groups.

One key indication of a lower rate of discrimination against Asian Americans than against other nonwhite groups today is their more rapid rate of residential inte- gration, exceeding that for both blacks and Latinos. Even though their presence in American society is more recent than either of those two groups, the level of Asian- white residential segregation is comparable to that of Hispanics from whites and much lower than the segregation of blacks from whites (Bayer et al., 2004; Logan, 2011; Logan et al., 2004; Massey, 2001; Mumford Center, 2001a; Pew Research Center, 2013 ). Ironically, the success of Asian Americans in education has created a potential backlash from majority whites and other ethnic minorities who see them- selves being surpassed in competition for the society's rewards. For example, because Asian Americans qualify for admission in such large numbers, some of the most

272 PART II ETHNICITY IN THE UN ITED STATES

prestigious universities have limited their enrollment through the use of nonacademic criteria. Despite significantly higher GPAs and scores on entrance examinations, Asian applicants are often rejected in favor of lower-ranking students of other ethnic origins (Golden, 2007). Such measures are markedly similar to the quotas used by Ivy League schools in the 1920s to restrict the admission of Jews, who also qualified in disproportionate numbers .

ASIAN AMERICANS AS A "MODEL MINORITY"

The clear movement toward assimilation, demonstrated most powerfully by the ex- traordinary success they have achieved in the realms of education and the economy and by their comparatively less problematic adaptation to American society, has led in recent years to the popular characterization of Asian Americai-is as a mo del mi- nor ity- that is, an example of success that other minority ethnic groups might emu- late. Although the label is seemingly complimentary, many Asian Americans today see it as condescending in a number of ways and, paradoxically, a case of harmful stereotyping. Some have pointed out that this new, positive image tends to gloss over the shabby treatment of Asians in the past and disguises the serious social and economic problems that continue to confront some elements of the Asian American population (Chao et al., 2010; Hurh and Kim, 1989; Wu, 2002) . Obscured is the fact that some, particularly Southeast Asians, remain poor, uneducated , and rela - tively unsuccessful.

In addition, the model minority image has become so well entrenched that it places tremendous social an d psychological pressures on Asian Americans, especially young people. Students, for example, must do exceedingly well in their studies and in other pursuits to uphold this image and may even feel that they must outperform their non-Asian peers. This becomes especially problematic for recent Asian immi- grants whose command of English may be minimal and who therefore suffer added burdens in an educational environment that is not attuned to the unique cultural needs of Asian students (Bernstein, 1988).

T he model minority image has also seemed to create a new set of stereotypes, which though generally positive, nonetheless create the same kinds of group effects as other, negative, stereotypes : they induce the perception of commonality of traits among all individual ethnic group members. A Chinese American schoolteacher ex- presses the frustration produced by the new stereotypes: "Years ago they used to think you were Fu Manchu or Charlie Chan. T hen they thought you must own a laundry or restaurant. Now they think all we know how to do is sit in front of a computer" (quoted in Time, 1987). Moreover, as explained in Chapter 3, positive traits attributed to ethnic groups may easily be manipulated so that they become negative in content and thus serve as the rationales of prejudicial thought and discriminatory behavior. If Asian Americans today are seen as "brainier " and "more ambitious" than others, such seemingly positive traits may easily be transformed into negative ones like "shrewd" and " pushy" should Asians come to be seen as outcompeting the dominant group .

The characterization of Asian Americans as a model minority may also work to deflect attention from the structural problems of other minority ethnic groups in the society. If Asian Americans can attain success despite their racial visibility, it is ar- gued, even race cannot be viewed as an overw helming handicap in American society. As Asian Americans are seen as hardworking, persevering, and highly motivated, the

CH APTE R 9 AS IAN AME RI CAN S 273

failure of other minority racial and ethnic groups to reach comparable levels of achievement is attributed to a lack of determination and hard work rather than to structural problems created by changing economic and social institutions or to dif- ferent group histories (D'Souza, 1995) .

ASIAN AMERICAN ASSIMILATION

As with economic stratification, in a number of ways assimilation for Asians in the United States exhibits a dual pattern. On the one hand, within all Asian American groups those who are highly educated and who hold prestigious jobs are increasingly moving toward both cultural and structural assimilation. On the other hand, those less affluent and educated retain much of their traditional ways and have had more difficulty moving beyond the ethnic enclave.

In examining assimilation among Asian Americans, it is important to consider that much of the Asian American population today is foreign -born. It is thus too early to marshal solid evidence regarding the rate and extent of assimilation for those who have not gone beyond the first generation. Most evidence must necessarily come from Chinese and Japanese Americans, both groups well into the third and fourth generations . With these limitations in mind, let's look at the patterns and prospects of Asian American assimilation.

CHIN ESE AND JAPANESE p A TTERNS

C HINESE AM ERICAN Ass1M ILATION As in other societies to which they have migrated, the Chinese in America traditionally exhibited a resistance to assimilation. The charac- teristic features of Chinese ethnic communities worldwide seemed to be social and cultural exclusiveness and a low level of absorption into the larger society (Lyman, 1968a, 1974; Purcell, 1980). Much of this self-imposed isolation was the product of Chinese community organizations, which in the new society reflected extended fam- ily patterns, known as lineages. Traditionally, much of Chinese social life in the United States was organized around various kin, clan, and secret societies.

Additional reasons have been suggested for the historical lag in assimilation among Chinese Americans. For one, the early demographics of this group-almost all males without wives and families-prohibited a second generation from establish- ing stable families' and moving along an assimilation path comparable to that of other immigrant groups (Kitano and Daniels, 1995; Lyman, 1974). Moreover, the Chinese were prohibited from acquiring citizenship and thus remained legally mar- ginal. Finally, the levels of prejudice and discrimination were unusually harsh, bar- ring Chinese from closer relationships with members of the dominant group or fr om entering into mainstream institutions. For their first one hundred years, the Chinese were a relatively isolated ethnic group in American society.

Despite past patterns of insularity, it appears that Chinese Americans today are moving rapidly in the direction of assimilation, both cultural and structural. Regard- ing cultural assimilation, a study of Chinese Americans in six Southern California counties found that although 79 percent spoke mostly Chinese at home, 68 percent spoke English when conducting personal business; among those between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine , 88 percent spoke English outside the home. Only 16 per- cent of the respondents' children spoke only Chinese (Los Angeles Times, 1997) .

274 PART II ETHNICITY IN THE UN ITED STATES

A more recent study of Chinese Americans in New York found a similar proclivity among the second generation to discard the parental language (Kasinitz et al., 2008) .

JAPANESE AMERICAN AssIMILATION Among Asian American groups, the Japanese have ex- perienced a more profound assimilation than others. This is partly because they have resided in the United States for several generations and their numbers have not been swelled in recent years by new immigrants. Patterns of assimilation among Japanese Americans, however, differ on the basis of generation. Japanese Americans refer to each generation with a particular name. The first, or immigrant, generation is called Issei; the children of the Issei, or second generation, are referred to as Nisei; and their children, the third generation, are called Sansei. Japanese Americans are now well into the fourth generation, referred to as Yonsei .

The Issei represent a generation that did not assimilate. In this , they did not dif- fer essentially from other immigrant groups. However, the much mqre severe preju- dice and discrimination directed against them produced a greater disincentive to venture out of the ethnic milieu and attempt to interact with the larger society.

By contrast, Nisei, and especially Sansei and Yonsei, are highly assimilated cul- turally, as indicated by the very thorough adoption of dominant cultural traits (Levine and Rhodes, 1981; Onishi, 1995). This is not surprising in light of the high level of education among Japanese Americans of the second generation and beyond, and the great strides each generation has made in socioeconomic advancement.

Regarding secondary structural assimilation, we have already seen the marked success of Japanese Americans in economic and educational realms of the society and their increasing movement into various institutional areas. Residential patterns of Japanese Americans also suggest a relatively fluid movement into the mainstream society (Kitano, 1976; Levine and Rhodes, 1981).

At the primary level of structural assimilation, there is strong evidence that Japanese Americans have begun to leave the ethnic community and forge close as - sociations with non-Japanese. This is particularly apparent among those beyond the second generation (Levine and Rhodes , 1981; Onishi, 1995; Qian et al., 2001). The most telling indicator of primary structural assimilation is intermar- riage, and in this , several studies have found significant increases, especially for the Sansei (Kikumura and Kitano, 1973; Kitano and Daniels, 1995; Lee and Fer- nandez, 1998; Levine and Rhodes, 1981; Montero, 1980; Tinker, 1973). Among his sample of Japanese Americans, Montero (1980) found that 40 percent of the Sansei had married a non-Japanese. This compared to only 10 percent of the Nisei and 1 percent of the Issei. Kikumura and Kitano (1973) found a similar pattern and concluded that Japanese Americans chose marital partners as frequently from outside the ethnic group as from within. Data on out-marriage of Asian

., Americans in Los Angeles between 1975 and 1989 showed a rate of more than 50 percent for Japanese Americans (Kitano and Daniels, 1995). More recent stud- ies confirm the strong trend toward exogamy among Japanese Americans, indicat- ing that, among Asian American ethnic groups, they are most likely to intermarry with whites (Qian et al., 2001; Qian and Lichter, 2007). The comprehensive 2013 Pew study of Asian Americans indicated that more than half of new marriages of Japanese Americans are with non-Asians, a rate higher than for any other Asian American group.

CHAPTER 9 AS IAN AMER ICANS 275

In general, these studies indicate a progressive trend toward primary structural assimilation and an increasing dilution of the Japanese American ethnic community with each succeeding generation. In light of their rapid and extensive assimilation, some have even begun to question the ability of Japanese Americans to maintain a viable ethnic community into the next (Yonsei) generation (Montero, 1980; Onishi, 1995) .9 Others, however, maintain that despite very strong assimilation tendencies, Japanese Americans do not appear to be losing all cultural distinctiveness and identifi- cation (Kitano, 1976; Woodrum, 1981). One study, in fact, concluded that Japanese Americans appear to have been able to successfully combine high levels of structural assimilation with a strong retention of ethnic identity and group cohesion (Fugita and O'Brien, 1991).

THE FUTURE PATH OF ASIAN AMERICAN ASSIMILATION

In examining issues of stratification, the internal cultural, racial, and class variability of the Asian American population was emphasized. In looking ahead to future as- similation patterns, these differences once again must be kept in mind. As with strat- ification, the rate of assimilation among Asian Americans will differ from group to group. Vietnamese and other Southeast Asian groups, most recent and least prosper- ous, currently appear to be that part of the Asian American population experiencing the most tortuous path toward cultural and structural assimilation. At the other ex- treme, Japanese Americans, one of the oldest and most prosperous among Asian American groups, continue to move most directly and rapidly in that direction.

Asian American structural assimilation is evident at the secondary level in occupa- tional and residential patterns and at the primary level in the substantial rise in inter- marriage. As to residential patterns, Asian Americans are the least segregated among all American racial/ethnic categories. More than others, they are likely to live in ra- cially mixed neighborhoods. Only 11 percent of Asian Americans currently live in a census tract in which Asian Americans are a majority (Pew Research Center, 2013).

Japanese American intermarriage was noted earlier, but for Asian Americans generally, intermarriage is noticeably higher than for African Americans and His- panic Americans (Lee and Bean, 2010; Lee and Edmonston, 2005; Passell, 2010; Pew Research Cent~r, 2013; Qian and Lichter, 2007; Wang, 2012). Between 2008 and 2010, almost 30 percent of recent Asian newlyweds married a non-Asian (Pew Research Center, 2013). Asian groups with the lowest level of intermarriage are those with the newest immigration cohorts, such as Asian Indians, Vietnamese, and recent Chinese. This may be seen as solid evidence of fading social boundaries be- tween Asian Americans and the larger society with each successive generation. In- deed, as with Latinos, Asian Americans give evidence of following generational patterns of intermarriage that are similar to those of Euro-Americans during the early twentieth century (Lee and Bean, 2010; Stevens et al., 2006; Wang, 2012).

Often overlooked in considering assimilation among Asian Americans generally is the fact that almost half of this population identify themselves as Christian (Kosmin

9 Mo ntero (1980) notes that, ironically, the remarkabl e upward economic mobility of the Japanese in .-\merica may lead to a diminution of the traditional ethnic values that help ed to stimulate that advancement in the fir st place; hence, the loss of those va lues ma y create a leveling off of the achievement of future generations.

276 PART JI ETH N ICITY IN TH E UN ITED ST ATES

and Keysar, 2006; Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 2012a). Among Koreans, a majority do. This religious commonality with the society's dominant group has no doubt served for many as a valuable support in advancing cultural assimilation.

For the new immigrants, the occupational and educational achievements of many will enhance the prospects for both cultural and structural assimilation. Al- ready it is evident, for example, that Asian Americans are dispersing throughout the urban areas in which they are concentrated. More than 60 percent of Asians lived in suburbs in 2008, a higher percentage than for any other ethnic minority, despite their relatively recent arrival in large numbers. And, that suburban trend continues unabated (Frey, 2010).

Another strong indicator of continuing Asian American assimilation is indivi- duals' social networks. Among all Asian Americans, less than half say that all or most of their friends are of the same ethnic origin. Most telling, however, is the dif- ference between native-born Asian Americans and immigrants. Whereas half of the foreign-born say that their friendship network is mainly with coethnics, only 17 per- cent of native-born Asian Americans say the same (Pew Research Center, 2013 ).

IMPEDIMENTS TO AS SIMILATION In Chapter 11, we will see that the assimilation of Jews in the United States has advanced as far as in any society where Jews have lived in large numbers. Yet the religious divergence between Jews and non-Jews remains a factor that continues to impede full assimilation of Jewish Americans. The same can be said for Asians, whose physical distinctiveness makes them even more indelibly conspicu- ous within the larger society. Because of this visibility, non-Asian Americans con- tinue to see Asian minorities as somehow not fully American, as "outsiders"- even though their ancestors may have been in the United States for several generations, they may speak only English, and they have no more ties to Asian societies than Swedish Americans have to Sweden or Italian Americans to Italy. A twenty- four -year-old U.S.-born Detroit resident expresses the common frustration of Asian Americans who are always questioned about their origin. "Where are you from?," she's constantly asked, followed by "Where are you really from?" In the eyes of whites, as she puts it, "[w]e're the perpetual foreigner" (Ding, 2008). Because of ra - cial visibility, then, ethnic identity and consciousness among Asian Americans- regardless of the extent of their assimilation-is not likely to fully erode.

As will be discussed in Chapter 13, the preeminence of multicultural ideology in schools, universities, and the media has made it easier for ethnic minorities to pre- serve or perhaps reaffirm aspects of the ethnic culture. This is no less the case for Asian Americans. Multiculturalism is also helping to create a consciousness of what may have been a quite inchoate Asian American panethnicity. Tamar Jacoby (2000) maintains that young, college-educated Asian Americans appear to be experiencing a kind of ethnic reaffirmation in large measure as a product of the oppositional multi- culturalism to which they are exposed in their university experience. Moreover, the creation of institutionally complete ethnic enclaves in some areas where Asian Amer- icans constitute a significant portion of the population provides a further defense against rapid assimilation.

Despite these impediments to assimilation, Asian Americans, like Hispanic Amer- icans, appear to be reconciling the competing demands of ethnic retention and incor- poration into the societal mainstream. Asian Americans seem determined to be both

CHAPTER 9 ASIAN AMERICANS 277

Asian and American, seeing no inherent incompatibility between the two and no con- flict in balancing them. Jacoby quotes a young Stanford graduate, who asserts that "I'm determined to hold on to my Chinese heritage and my Chinese culture. But there's absolutely nothing about America that I reject because of my ethnicity." And a Chinese business owner echoes this view, claiming that assimilation and ethnic retention are "two parallel tracks, and there's no reason to choose between them" (Jacoby, 2000:25). A poignant illustration of this came in 2013 when a second-generation In- dian American was named Miss America. For the talent portion of this quintessentially American competitive event, she performed classic and contemporary Indian dances. 10

ASIAN AMERICAN PANETHNICITY As explained, the term Asian American is a misnomer given the cultural and physical variety of the population to which it refers.11 Yet a so- cial and political coming together of the various elements of this broad and extremely diverse ethnic category may be becoming a reality. The continued use of the collective Asian American by government, academic, and media institutions already reflects the perception of a more coherent ethnic population than actually exists. This is not un- like the use of the term Hispanic American or Latino to collectively describe the vari- ous groups of Latin American origins. And it is not unlike the process of ethnic group formation that characterized the American experience of many European groups of the earlier immigration periods . Only in the American context were Italians from var- ious provinces in Italy, for example, designated and dealt with collectively as "Italians." Through this common treatment by Americans, an Italian American group consciousness was engendered, and eventually Italians in Ameriq identified them- selves primarily as "Italian" rather than as "Calabrian," "Sicilian," or "Neapolitan."

Weighing against the further development of Asian panethnicity, of course, are the radical cultural and racial differences among the various groups that make up the Asian American population. Moreover, immigration experiences and patterns of adap- tation to American society have not been the same for these groups. It would be hardly meaningful to equate the class and cultural interests of Asian Indians on the one hand and Cambodians on the other, for example. Nonetheless, Asian Americans of diverse ethnic origins may increasingly recognize this collective designation as a useful political strategy, just as Latinos are beginning to do (Espiritu, 1992; Shinagawa and Pang, 1996 ). As separate and dispersed groups, none can exert the kind of political leverage at the national or even local level that a more consolidated position may produce.

Asian Americans, then, will continue to wrestle with issues of ethnic identity and assimilation. A majority of Asian Americans today identify themselves not as "Asian Americans" but as members of specific ethnic subgroups: "Japanese Americans," "Vietnamese Americans," and so forth (Pew Research Center, 2013). This is similar to the ethnic self-identities of Hispanic Americans, as we saw in Chapter 8. Nonethe- less, American racial categorization may drive members of disparate Asian groups toward some collective Asian American identity, while they remain cognizant of their particular ethnic heritage. In her study of second-generation Chinese and Korean

10 In respo nse to numerous bigoted comments made on social media following her selection, she declared th at "I ha ve to rise above th at. I always viewed myself as fir st and foremost American." It is also noteworthy that the first runn er-up in the competition was Chinese American. 11 Jacoby points out that "the very term 'Asian American' traces back to the 1960s, when it was coined, in the spirit of 'Black Power' and 'Chicano Studies,' as a kind of battle cry" (2000: 22 ).

- - - 1

278 PART II ET H N ICIT Y IN T H E UN IT ED STAT ES

Americans, Kibria (2002) found elements of such a dual identity pattern. Beyond ethnic identities at any level, however, there are undeniable forces of assimilation thrusting Asian Americans into the societal mainstream.

SUMMARY

• Asian Americans are a diverse collection of distinct ethnic groups, the largest among them Chinese, Filipino, and Asian Indian.

• Asian immigration to the United States consists of two periods. The first began in the mid-nineteenth century with the immigration of Chinese manual laborers. Exclusionary measures beginning in 1882 halted further Chinese immigration and provided an opening for Japanese workers to replace them in the early part of the twentieth century. Discriminatory laws brought further Asian immigration to a virtual halt in the 1920s.

• The second period of Asian American immigration extends from 1965, when immigration laws were liberalized, to the present. About half of Asian Ameri- cans today are first-generation immigrants who stem from this second wave.

• Many of those of the second immigrant wave have come to the United States with much higher occupational skills and more education than earlier immigrants.

• Asian Americans are heavily concentrated in a few states and urban areas. The largest populations are in California and the New York metropolitan area.

• Asian Americans, as a whole, ate at or near the top of the stratification system in terms of income, education, and occupation. There are important differences between and within the various Asian groups, however.

• Whereas high levels of prejudice and discrimination marked the Asian American experience during the first wave of immigration, Anti-Asian beliefs and actions today are comparatively mild and indirect. In recent years, Asian Americans have been portrayed as a model minority because of their exceptional economic and educational attainments.

• High levels of cultural assimilation characterize those Asian American groups who have entered the third and fourth generations- specifically, the Japanese and Chinese-and there is also evidence of increasing rates of both primary and secondary structural assimilation among them. There are also strong indications of cultural and structural assimilation among Asian Americans of more recent immigration .

CRITICAL THINKING

1. Analyze the factors that account for Asian American economic and educational success, in comparison with other ethnic populations that have entered the United States in large numbers in the past fifty years.

2. Japanese Americans before and during World War II were the targets of some of the most severe prejudice and discrimination ever endured by any American ethnic group. Although most were U.S. citizens, they were commonly seen as "the enemy." Are there parallels to that historical case with the present-day plight of Muslim and Arab Americans?

C H APTER 9 ASIAN AMER I CA N S 279

3. There is strong evidence that Asian Americans are assimilating structurally more quickly than blacks or Latinos. What accounts for this? Consider the various dimensions of structural assimilation, discussed in Chapter 4.

4 . Asians in recent decades have immigrated in large numbers to several societies in addition to the United States, including Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Has their experience in those societies paralleled that of Asian Americans? What are the evident similarities and differences, and how can these be exp lained?

PERSONAL/ PRACTICAL APPLICATION

1. Consider the idea of the "model minority," discussed in this chapter. Can you relate to the social pressures that Asian Americans often describe in meeting social expectations?

2. As explained in this chapter, intermarriage among Asian Americans is higher than for any other racial minority group. What might explain this?