Category: Asian American

Asian Americans are one of the diverse ethnic groups in US. There are 20 million Asian Americans in United State which represent 6% of US population (Yi, S. S.,2020). They are the fastest growing minority in the US. Research shows that Asian Americans are at high risk for hepatitis B, Liver Cancer, Tuberculosis and lung cancer among other condition. Compared with the low-risk group, the odds of having an unmet healthcare need was 1.52 times greater in the moderate-risk group and 2.24 times greater in the high-risk group (Jang Y, Park NS, Yoon H, et al., 2017). Immigrant Asian after adaptation of American culture, they have increased risks of diabetes and other cardiovascular diseases as they started using American diets in their daily food consumptions as well as lifestyle change. Asian Americans have a higher prevalence of tuberculosis compared with others minority group.

Health Disparities

According American Heart Association in 2016, around 19.5% of Asian Americans have high blood pressure. In 2015, 18,819 deaths among Asian Americans were due to Cardiovascular Disease; 8,477 due to Chronic Heart Disease; and 2,616 due to Myocardial Infarction. According to National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD), Asian Americans face health disparities in cancer, chronic diseases, such as heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes, mental health, and among the elderly. In particular Asian Americans have the highest incidence and mortality rates of liver and stomach cancers – the most preventable cancers – largely due to high prevalence of related infections such as hepatitis B. In addition, Asian Americans have the lowest cancer screening rates and are typically diagnosed at a later stage. Heterogeneity in diseases and treatment is the result from cultural and socioeconomic differences and health care disparities. Lack of health insurance, limited access to healthcare, low treatment compliance rates, and lack of culturally sensitive disease prevention strategies causes this disparity. Within this group of population, there’s an expectation to stand out for the ‘good/best’ reasons which means good grades, a fancy job, high salary, good social standing and having husband or wife. Such family will have conservative mind and assume that any health related illness can prevent them from achieving those success. In this group of culture there is a misconception that any sort of illness whether it is mental or physical, will diminished their value among the community or family and also their ability to achieve the things that bring honor. All these factors differ their perception of illness and treatment in comparison with other Americans.

The manifestation of diseases process is affected by culture, generational and acculturation levels. A high percentage of Asian Americans have Limited English proficiency with 77% speaking different language than English at home (AAFP, 2015). Even when people have good command of conversational English their linguistic skills may not be adequate for clinical discussion. Major health care decision in this group are often made by a family and also individual problem reflect family problem. For example, in some Asian cultural groups, the experience of individual illness also reflects as entire family illness. Thus, shame, embarrassment can contribute to whether or not an individual seek treatment on other hand lack/absent of health insurance also hold the individual from seeking treatment. And hence, the patient typically seeks physicians only when they feel symptoms, and perhaps only when symptoms are severe. Regular physical check-up as well as follow up care is not seen among such group of Asian American. Cultural reliance on traditional eastern based practices to treat illness such as herbal medicine and spiritual healing also impact the perception of illness and treatment.

Nurse’s Responsibility

As a nurse we should always understand that Asian-American are immensely diverse in many ways and should not make assumptions about a patient’s experiences about any diseases and treatment. At first nurse should do assessment of language barrier like whether the patient speak English or not. Nurse should listen the patient actively by allowing sufficient time for the patient to share their feeling regarding the illness. This is because sometimes it may take time for some Asian patients to feel comfortable sharing their very personal information with outsiders. Apart from this nurse should also make inquiries about traditional beliefs to gather information on how these beliefs can influence patient’s perception of illness and preferred method of treatment. Some Asian American group may seek traditional healers like acupuncturist and herbalists to treat health, so when appropriate (culturally and individually) health care provider including nurse should always consider traditional practices as supplemental treatment. This not only include medication but also indicated diet and exercise.

Conclusion

Many Asian American patients will not schedule health maintenance visits unless it’s an emergency. For example, patients are often told, “you don’t need treatment now”, but they only hear, “you are fine”. Cultural values such as stigma, language barrier and limited access to culturally competent service contribute to low treatment utilization rate. By proactively addressing the health literacy, linguistic needs and cultural nuances relevant to Asian American patients, nurse can take full advantage of every opportunity to promote the care of population that has often been underserved.

References

1. Yi, S. S. (2020). Taking Action to Improve Asian American Health. American Journal of Public Health, 110(4), 435-437. https://doi-org.ezp.tccd.edu/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305596
2. Ancheta, I. B., Carlson, J. M., Battie, C. A., Borja-Hart, N., Cobb, S., & Ancheta, C. V. (2015). One size does not fit all: cardiovascular health disparities as a function of ethnicity in Asian-American women. Applied Nursing Research, 28(2), 99–105. https://doi-org.ezp.tccd.edu/10.1016/j.apnr.2014.06.001
3. Jang Y, Park NS, Yoon H, et al., The risk typology of healthcare access and its association with unmet healthcare needs in Asian Americans. Health Soc Care Community. 2018;26:72–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12463.
4. National Institute on minority health and health disparity. (n.d.). The Center for Asian Health Engages Communities in Research to Reduce Asian American Health Disparities. https://www.nimhd.nih.gov/news-events/features/training-workforce-dev/center-asian-health.html.
5. American Academy of Family Physicians, (2015, October 1). Challenges and Opportunities in the Care of Asian American Patients. Retrieved October 8, 2020 from https://www.aafp.org/afp/2014/1001/p490.html.

Abstract

This research paper explores how ethnic boundaries salience are maintained by Asian Americans through Culture, Daily experience, and Symbolic repertories. In this study three interviews are conducted with three races being Vietnamese, Thai, and Korean. I was trying to find what aspects of this Asian American life maintained their cultural identity in the United States. The design of my interviews were qualitative interviews which were very useful in finding crucial information of what construction sites made the most impact on these individuals’ lives. What I found was that for culture the main aspects were language, food, and religion that maintained cultural boundaries among Asian Americans. For daily experience, there are stereotypes being put on Asian Americans. One stereotype is put on their intelligence which gets used to benefit others around them. Another daily experience is discrimination being made fun of with interactions on a daily basis due to their small eyes. The final daily experience is the coronavirus it has been very hard for the Asian community since people are afraid to be near them and make jokes of them eating bats. For symbolic repertories, there are cultural practices, and traditions.

Introduction

For Asian Americans throughout all of history in America, they have maintained their identity from their home country. In this study, the populations that are being observed are all first-generation students meaning they were born in their home countries and are the first in their families to become citizens. There is a struggle in maintaining two different lifestyles while living in America because situations are different. This study analyzes in-depth interviews of three Asian American students that go to the University of Irvine and the aspects that maintain their ethnic boundaries in daily life. In this study boundaries in the Asian American ethnic group are maintained through culture, daily experience, and symbolic repertories.

Theory

The race is a social invention it is constructed in society based on physical characteristics, moral, and spiritual domination (Morning 2005). Groups of people that share a mutual origin, based on similar physical characteristics. Ethnicity is associated with having a shared or imagine real past (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007, p. 16). Ethnic groups believe they have a common descent like similarities through language, memories of migration, and symbolic ties. Primordialism shows that ethnic identities are given at birth due to blood ties through ancestors (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007, p. 51). This study focuses on three construction sites mainly which are: culture, daily experience, and symbolic repertories. Culture is individuals’ concepts, understandings, and analyses about themselves and others (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007, p. 191). Culture is wisdom production, and multiple identities are commodities of that process. For example, status attributions is key in identity construction in cultures since individuals implement and resist certain personalities (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007, p. 197). According to Spickard (1989) differences in the status of any group makes intermarriage decline higher and discrimination in jobs, housing, and politics increase. When groups are defined as less worthy, they are disqualified from jobs, housing, and other opportunities in society (Spickard 1989). For example, the Chinese in the United States had been seen with disrespect in society in a big way, where they were limited to areas such as Chinatown only and excluded from many jobs (Lee 2003).

Daily experience is another reason working to maintain ethnic boundary salience. These are the daily struggles experienced on a routine which are mainly due to discrimination and stereotypes being put on ethnicities. For example, there was discrimination on Arab and Muslim Americans following 911 in 2002 since hate crimes against them raised significantly from 28 to 481 which is massive (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007, p. 200). According to Selvin (2004) most of the Arab Americans that were receiving hate crimes had never been to the Middle East in their whole lives and spoke zero Arabic but, still received hate since their image matched the frame of the attackers. This shows that physical characteristics are a huge way in which we are viewed because whites would not get hate crimes during this time even though not all Muslim Americans are Arabs, they can be all of the different races. Since the attackers of 911 were Arab Americans it is assumed that only Arabs are Muslims and that all Arabs are terrorists.

A final reason, symbolic repertories, is another reason working to maintain ethnic boundary salience. Groups use stories, ritual celebrations, and cultural practices to create and bring about something unique among themselves (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007, p. 242). These symbolic repertories raise spirits among groups helping them maintain their true identities in the world. According to Jones (1994), Georgians preserved their own identities through music, stories being passed down, and art being drawn of great times in their history to remind themselves their true worth in life. By using symbolic methods, you can raise your spirits and raise your identity in life no matter what the situation is you are going through (Jones 1994).

Data and Methods

Data collection in this study was done by interviews on three co-ethnic individuals in Irvine California ranging from ages 18-22. One of the interviews was male and two were females, all were college students at UCI. Irvine California was chosen for this study because there is a lot diversity among Asian Americans that live in Irvine, so it was a perfect city to gather data. The interviews were taken at the University of California, Irvine, and each of the three interviews lasted one hour long. My subjects were chosen due to their ethnic identity, I focused on only Asian Americans in my study. All three individuals were of different races being Korean, Thai, and Vietnamese. All three of the people I interviewed were first-time citizens of their families and lived in America most of their lives. This study focuses on first-generation UCI Asian American students. The questions that I asked which were 18 questions were individual-level questions and community level about their friends and how they view their families. The interviews that I conducted were qualitative interviews where I only asked open-ended questions to gain as much information as possible about ethnic boundaries experienced in life.

Data Analysis

For Asian Americans, culture is valuable for the maintenance of ethnic boundaries. During the interviews, there were three factors that contributed to their cultural identity which were language, food, and religion. The first interviewee which is Vietnamese identifies as really Vietnamese and felt the impact most of her ethnicity she said when

“I feel my ethnicity most when I call my parents on the phone every day, it makes me feel closer to my culture because I am privileged enough to be able to speak Vietnamese to be able to communicate with them.”

Language is a huge part of one’s culture when you speak it you feel most at home and feel comfort like no other it brings joy to your soul. When speaking her native language even though she is far from her parent’s memories of good times come to mind because language is a very powerful way of communication. She also said when she goes home,

“At home, we don’t speak English because my parents make it a big deal to always be close to our culture.”

Language is so important that Asian American families restrict their children to only speaking their native language at home. Her parents feel that it is more respectable to just speak the language they were raised on. This maintains ethnic boundaries since her true native language is only spoken reinforcing roots of ethnic background.

The second interviewee which is Thai shows that language is the most important to her when she hears it spoken, she says,

I suppose I feel my ethnic identity the strongest when I listen to my mom talk in Thai to me.

Hearing her mother speak Thai to her brings back beautiful memories of herself in her home country as a little child. Thai was the first language she had learned as a baby so every time she hears it there is joy in her heart and life feels more secure.

Food is another part of one’s culture the second interviewee which is Thai, identifies as her ethnicity because she feels the most connected to it, she said when

“Whenever I go out to eat at restaurants with my friends and family, we always go to a Thai restaurant to eat food from our culture because it reminds us of home and brings back memories of the foods in our native land.”

Food is a really big part of one’s culture because it is an expression of culture identity wherever you live you feel closer to home eating your country’s traditional meals. This is how cultures preserve their cultures when they move to new areas by eating their home country’s foods and cooking them.

Religion is the third and final important part of culture the first interviewee which is Vietnamese mentions that,

“I go to an all-Vietnamese church to practice my religion of Buddhism once every week. This is a big part of who my identity is as a Vietnamese American it is crucial to continue to practice my beliefs around people of the same ethnicity as me.”

Religion is a way of life to worship god and practice key aspects of your beliefs for Buddhists always telling the truth is very important being honest in everything you do is critical. Meditating is important in this religion because it is a way to be at one and connect your body to your mind to be in a relaxed position to clear your thoughts and be enlightened.

The second interviewee which is Thai shows that even though she is not the most religious person in the world she still wants to be close to her culture when she says,

A common religion amongst my culture is Buddhism, so I go to my local temple once every week to pay respects and practice my culture’s practices.”

She is not religious at all but to feel closer to her culture not living in Thailand feels there is an obligation to go to a temple once every week to be moved by the teachings of the religion of Buddhism. This is a great way to maintain her culture she believes even though she doesn’t live in her home nation going to a temple to practice her home country’s main religion is a positive way to keep an identity intact.

Daily experience is another reason for maintaining ethnic boundaries for Asian Americans in society. The third interviewee which is Korean, mentions that Asian Americans are stereotyped as being smart in which this becomes used against them, he says,

“People want to become friends with me for the benefit most of the time. It is rare to find real honest people that want to talk to me just to get to know the real me. It is mainly the case where we talk, I help them with a class and we never talk again.”

Being thought of as smart is not always good in life because you become a target of becoming used for self-interest purposes and feel used when you are getting to know people around in school. Asian Americans feel a maintaining boundary reinforced in school systems on a daily experience that made their day-to-day interactions with whites and other races reminding them that their race affected them no matter how high their achievements were (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007, p. 203). According to Lee and Zhou (2017), Asian Americans are even stereotyped by teachers as being smart, so they are noticed more by teachers because they are known for being intelligent, hardworking, more organized, and more focused.

The first interviewee which is Vietnamese says that she feels discriminated against recently due to the breakout of the coronavirus she says,

“These past couple of months I feel like I have been treated differently with the coronavirus spreading wherever I walk I see people putting their distance between me and other Asian Americans that they see it has been very hard on the Asian community recently.”

Ethnic boundaries are being maintained where there is discrimination being put on anyone who is Asian American even though the main race that started the virus are the Chinese. This goes to show you that anyone that looks Asian is classified as having the coronavirus in America today people are scared and are making fun of them (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007, p. 200). Most of Asian American individuals that live in the United States haven’t been to their native land since this virus has spread, but people just assume and fear for the worst.

The second interviewee which is Thai says that she feels stereotyped on her physical appearance mainly in daily life she says,

“Throughout my years of education, I have always heard Asians being the butt of the joke and have always been allowed to be made fun of since we are known for having small eyes, being good at karate, and being smart.”

Asian Americans are put into all having certain features to them due to most Asians on television having small eyes and different shaped eyes. According to Gray (2004) shows on Tv misrepresent identities constructing the ways people view certain races that stick to the minds of viewers. Mass media represents viewpoints that are biased and constructs false identities that are not true to most races around the world (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007, p. 204). It is wrong that Asian Americans can just be made fun of for no reason we are all human beings and should be treated like humans, not animals.

Finally, symbolic repertories is another reason for maintaining ethnic boundaries for Asian Americans in society. The first interviewee which is Vietnamese, mentions that there are certain traditions that make her maintain the identity of her culture she says,

“A very important tradition to me is Tet, which is the lunar new year this is the most special day out of the whole year for me because me and my whole family celebrate by painting on each other, drinking red wine, using betel nuts to welcome guests, and by eating Chung Cake which is very delicious.”

Traditions are a great way to celebrate your ethnicity and maintain the boundaries between them to celebrate life. In traditions you and everyone act in similar ways which helps continue your ethnicity and the identity you were born with (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007, p. 240). There is harmony in these events which brings families together to celebrate in activities and by eating traditional foods. Days like new Year especially bring about joy in everyone and an energy that had been missing earlier it reinforces one’s true identity. The first interviewee says that there are certain cultural practices that make her maintain the identity of her culture she says,

“There is a certain cultural practice that I feel most proud of being Vietnamese that is when I get to wear an Ao dai, which is a traditional dress that is worn for special occasions only when I wear this dress, do I feel at most with my culture it is a symbolic representation.”

Cultural practices such as traditional dresses and clothing maintain ethnic boundaries. Wearing certain traditional clothing is very symbolic because you are representing your native land and honoring it. When you wear this clothing, you feel more at one with your cultural identity because of the historical representation that you have on you.

References

1. Cornell, S., & Hartmann, D. (2007). Ethnicity and race: Making identities in a changing world (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
2. Gray, Herman. 2004. Watching Race: Television and the Struggle for Blackness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
3. Jones, Stephen. 1994. “Old Ghosts and New Chains: Ethnicity and Memory in the Georgian Republic .” Pp. 149-65 in Memory, History, and Opposition under State Socialism, edited by Rubie S. Watson. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
4. Lee, Erika. 2003. At America’s Gates: Chinese Immigration during the Exclusion Era, 1882-1944. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
5. Lee, J. and Zhou, M. (2017). Why class matters less for Asian-American academic achievement. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(14), pp.2316-2330.
6. Morning, A. (2005). Race. Contexts, 4(4), pp.44-46.
7. Selvin, Peter. 2004.”Arab Americans Report abuse.” Washington Post, July 29, A-5
8. Spickard, Paul R. 1989, Mixed Blood: Intermarriage and Ethnic Identity in Twentieth-Century America. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Appendix

1. Do you view yourself as having a racial/ethnic identity?
2. What are some things that you do that are related to your ethnic identity?
3. Would you consider yourself “really” Asian? Why or why not?
4. When/Where do you feel most Asian? In what aspects of your daily life do you feel your ethnic identity most strongly?
5. How strong is the ethnic identity in your family?
6. Do you have more friends within your ethnic group or outside of your ethnic group? Why do you think that is?
7. How long has your family/ancestors lived in this country (in other words, what “generation” are you)?
8. Do you define your identity differently from your parents or your grandparents?
9. Do you ever consider your ethnic ancestry to be “mixed”? Why or why not?
10. Are there any aspects of your racial/ethnic identity that you feel would be important to pass on to your children?
11. Have you ever felt obligated to do certain things based on your identity?

Community level

1. Do you belong to an ethnic, racial, or national community?
2. What are some of the stereotypes associated with your community?
3. What is your ethnic community’s view of intermarriage? Why do you think that is?
4. What is important to know about the history of your ethnic group? What do you wish American schoolchildren were taught about your people’s history?
5. What are some traditions that are important to your community?
6. Has your community ever been discriminated against solely based on your religion? Physical appearance?
7. How strong is your community? What kinds of events or occurrences bring your community together?
8. Do you get new members to your community? Who are these new members? Are any people ever discouraged from being members?

In 1979, Wong and Houn—the very women who were excluded just three years prior—co-chaired this “third world” orientation program themselves.

Beyond reforming the original minority orientation program, Asian American students also advocated for changes in admissions recruitment initiatives to reflect their full minority status. Prior to 1977, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare only required that the Harvard Undergraduate Admissions Office provide statistical breakdowns of the numbers of applications it received from minority groups. While the classification at Harvard included Asian Americans as minorities, it did not necessarily promote active and extensive recruitment programs for the applicant group as it did for Black and Latino applicants.

In 1976, Asian Americans comprised just 2.5% of the undergraduate student body at Harvard College and had the lowest admissions rate among any single applicant group. To Asian American students, the absence of race-specific recruitment initiatives was one of the sources of their underrepresentation on campus and precluded them from full minority status. Concerned about the small Asian American student body and the disadvantages they deemed possible for prospective Asian American applicants in the admissions process, the Asian American Association made it one of its primary goals in the late-1980s to establish Asian-American-specific recruitment initiatives in partnership with the admissions office.

In a letter sent to Dean Jewett in October 1978, the Asian American Association outlined the necessity of Asian American applicant recruitment for admissions, claiming that, “higher education is a democratic right of Asian Americans, although we have faced systematic exclusion from such universities as Harvard, especially with regard to Asian Americans from the inner city, rural, and Asian ghetto areas.” Students highlighted the ways in which they believed Asian Americans experienced disadvantages in the admissions process, pointing to challenging cultural and language barriers, as well as the common stereotypes of Asians as deferential and solely focused on fields such as science, medicine, and mathematics. Without full integration into all minority-oriented programs and activities, such as admissions recruitment, Asian American students believed that the university’s policies perpetuated the idea of Asian Americans as a socioeconomically and academically homogenous group.

In addition to their formal correspondence with Dean Jewett, Asian American students took the initiative to draft written demands, create pamphlets, and meet with admissions staff to clarify why Asian Americans were, in fact—counter to Dean Jewett’s original insistence in the fall 1976—underrepresented in Harvard’s undergraduate admissions. In the late 1970s and through the 1980s, members of the Asian American Association volunteered as student recruiters in the admissions office to coordinate activities intended to increase the number and diversity of applicants. Students coordinated admissions panels, mailed out letters and brochures, corresponded with prospective applicants, traveled with admissions officers to speak on info sessions, and ran phone-a-thons from the admissions office at night. Some even recruited students into the Asian American Association by inviting newly admitted students to meet with them during on-campus admitted students’ days and stay overnight in freshman dorms.

Between 1980 and 1985, the admissions office witnessed the number of Asian American applicants increase by over 165%. Harvard’s prominence as a leading academic institution was likely a source of interest that attracted the growing number of college-going Asian Americans during this period. However, as Dean Jewett expressed in 1985, the admissions office now made a more concerted effort to recruit underrepresented Asian American applicants specifically from low-income, working-class communities. This shift in focus and approach was attributed to student-initiated efforts from Harvard’s Asian American community, who now comprised 11% of Harvard’s student body. It was clear to both administration and students by this time that the Asian American Association had a clear advocacy-based mission and that the Asian American student community had embraced their investment in the pursuit of inclusion at Harvard College.

Building a Community and an Understanding of Asian American Identity

Running parallel to the awakening of political consciousness and a sense of advocacy was the emphasis that Asian American students placed on cultural understanding and community building. In light of the discrimination against and ambiguity surrounding their identities, many students sought to explore their ethnic backgrounds and learn about Asian American history in greater detail. Hoping that Harvard would follow the example of other institutions such as the University of California at Berkeley and San Francisco State University—both of which had established some of the earliest Asian American Studies programs in the 1960s—students began to petition and stage protests to have an Asian American Studies program instituted at Harvard College. To meet student interest, Harvard professors Jean Wu and Kiyo Morimoto began to offer a seminar on Asian American history in the late-1970s. After several years of persistent advocacy from the Asian American Association, Harvard approved the seminar for elective credit in the early-1980s and began to offer extracurricular seminars on Asian American studies on an ad-hoc basis.

Student efforts to formalize a department for Asian American Studies, however, did not take off during the 1970s and 1980s, leading students to take it upon themselves to create other avenues for exploring their Asian Americanness. As one of the founders of the Asian American Association Renee E. Tajima-Peña ’80 expressed in an interview with The Harvard Crimson, the onus was on students to find out who they were as Asian Americans because the university did not adequately support it. The Asian American Association sought to fill this gap by employing a variety of tactics that would teach classmates about Asian American history, raise peers’ consciousness about what it meant to be an Asian American, and work towards equality as a unified group. As many of its early members recalled in a 2019 interview with The Harvard Crimson, much of their work was casual and often impromptu: walking between classes, chatting over coffee, and sharing meals at campus dining halls.

Other efforts were pre-arranged. In addition to these informal conversations meant to help students navigate their identities, the Asian American Association also directed its efforts to establish a sense of belonging and an intentional social network. Printed flyers and newsletter communication show that students coordinated and promoted regular social events ranging from dances and mixers to picnics with other affinity groups at Harvard. One of the most prominent events that the Asian American Association hosted in its early beginnings was the intercollegiate conference with the Wellesley College Asian Association. First taking place in April 1978, the two Boston-based associations convened students from twelve eastern colleges, including Yale University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to participate in a weekend-long series of discussions, student-led workshops, and keynote speaker panels on issues confronting the Asian American and Pacific Islander community. Though it had political beginnings, the Asian American Association soon became a place where students could participate not only in dialogue about Asian American history but also be in a community with others who shared similar life questions, challenges, and experiences.

Educating the Campus on Asian Americans

The Asian American Association did not limit their educational pursuits to themselves, however. According to its student newsletters, part of its mission was explicitly to educate the larger Harvard community about the experiences of Asian Americans and correct misleading stereotypes. These efforts spanned literary readings from Asian American poets and writers such as Walter K. Lew to displays of historical artwork from Asian American artists. Students also coordinated documentary viewings on issues such as Japanese American internment during World War II, sponsored talks and documentaries on topics such as redress and reparations, produced shows celebrating Asian American culture and worked to bring Asian American theater and performing arts to Harvard’s campus. The events served to increase awareness of the multi-faceted nature of the Asian American experience, as well as differences in the histories of Asian immigrant and ethnic groups.

One of the most memorable events during this period was the “Images of Asian

American Women, 1850-the 1980s” slideshow, which was produced by Florence Houn ‘80, Jane Sujen Bock ’81, and Renee E. Tajima-Peña ’80, members from the Radcliffe Asian American Women’s Group. Presented at the Radcliffe Centennial celebration in 1978, the slideshow presentation was designed to teach about the culture and history of Asian American women and the Harvard-Radcliffe experience. Soundtracked by the first album of Asian American music, “A Grain of Sand” by Nobuko Miyamoto and Chris Ijima, the slideshow conjured the impression of the Vietnam War and Asian American movement. The film and photographic content spanned Japanese American internment notices, silk qipao, the early beginnings of Chinatowns, and the development of traditional practices such as female infanticide and foot binding. In facilitation notes included in the slideshow, Houn, Bock, and Tajima-Peña noted that “traditionally, Asian women have been portrayed as delicate flowers, obedient daughters, or exotic concubines. Outdated as these images are, they still haunt us to affect the Asian women and the identity of Asian American women of today.” In its powerful artistic display, the event highlighted the importance of addressing the lingering stereotypes that stemmed from the historical oppression of Asian women.

This fight against pernicious stereotypes of Asian Americans persisted into the 1980s with the most notable campaign from the Asian American Association emerging in the winter of 1980, following a Hasty Pudding Theatricals show. A theatrical student society at Harvard, Hasty Pudding had employed an evil character named “Edgar Foo Yung” in a student-written and produced a play called “A Little Knife Music.” In the show, the students presented Yung as a stereotypical Asian with broken English, small stature, and pigtails, who bowed to other characters, moved with awkward mannerisms and is killed at the end of the show for his unwarranted romantic interest in the white female protagonist. The insensitive depiction of Asians enraged student groups, specifically members of the Asian American Association, who declared Yung a racist caricature.

A letter to the editor in The Harvard Crimson in February 1980 exhorted the Harvard community to disapprove of the ugly caricature as a form of humor. It argued that the Chinese were not “fair game” for racist jokes and that Hasty Pudding should not have stooped so low “just to elicit a nervous laugh or two.” On March 7th, the Asian American Association sent a letter to Hasty Pudding, requesting the removal of Yung for its “racist, humiliating, and dangerous portrayal.” Following their initial contact, they met with Hasty Pudding’s cast and staff to discuss and demand the removal of the character from the play or to at least to re-characterize him as non-racial. Though Hasty Pudding admitted that some audience members could interpret the character in a controversial way, its producers Charles A. Milot ’80, contended that it was simply intended to be a satirical portrayal of an Englishman’s views, and refused to alter the play.

In response, the Asian American Association launched a massive two-month-long poster campaign against “A Little Knife Music.” They gathered more than 50 protestors in front of the Pudding building as patrons arrived for performances, displayed posters illustrating Hasty Pudding’s racism, distributed leaflets, and chanted “racism isn’t funny” and “don’t support this racist play.” Persistent, the Asian American Association penned a letter to the editor of The Harvard Crimson on March 15th, in which they adamantly disagreed with Hasty Pudding’s understanding of racial portrayals. They asserted that “to callously ridicule racial cultures and classify it as typical humor demonstrates a lack of understanding to the cause of racial problems in our society.” The letter continued on to illuminate how racist caricatures isolated and divided human beings, and drew parallels to the ways in which “gross depictions of Asians as evil and subhuman” had contributed to atrocities such as the condoning of Japanese internment during World War II and the Mỹ Lai mass murder of unarmed South Vietnamese civilians by U.S. troops in 1968.

With increased pressure from the backing of other prominent affinity groups such as the Black Student Alliance, La Organización, and La RAZA, the Asian American Association successfully convinced Hasty Pudding’s production team to include an iteration of the March 15th letter in the play’s future print programs. The modified copy invited audience members to consider the causes and implications behind laughter directed as the character and to join them in their attempts to eliminate the gross racial humor. As a follow-up, the president of Hasty Pudding, David I. Levi ’80, published an article in The Harvard Crimson on behalf of the show’s production team that outlined their team’s response. “As a result of discussions with the Harvard-Radcliffe Asian American Association,” it read, “we have been made aware that our characterizations might be misconstrued. In the future, we will be far more sensitive in the creation of Pudding characters.” The letter concluded by expressing gratitude to Asian American students for raising the issue to their attention and for welcoming further dialogue with communities across campus. SENTENCE

Conclusion

The exclusion of two Asian American women at the minority students orientation banquet in 1976 was an embodiment of the burdensome and challenging position of Asian Americans in the mid-1970s. They were excluded from the white dominant culture in America but perceived as insufficiently disadvantaged to be embraced as minorities. The banquet was a reflection of this shared Asian American experience of being “othered” and yet America’s “model minority,” of being excluded and yet expected to assimilate. Compelled by the blatant discrimination at the banquet, Harvard students assembled to found the Asian American Association as a unified group of pan-Asian ethnicities and to drive an ongoing legacy of activism and community for Asian Americans at the university.

What originated as a protest to acquire minority status quickly progressed into a larger student movement of organizing in the late-1970s and early-1980s. Students advocated for inclusion in campus privileges from minority-oriented programs to admissions recruitment initiatives, built spaces to gather with students with similar life experiences and to make minority voices heard, and invested in campus-wide discussions about attitudes towards and perceptions of Asian Americans. In the process of doing so, they became the primary communicators of their own narratives both to themselves and to administrators and peers. It was a movement in which they demonstrated the value of collective power in reclaiming their identities at Harvard, grounding their presence in the university’s consciousness for years to come.

The most important concept I would say I learned is that no one can distinguish someone else from a specific race as there is no characteristic, trait, not even a gene that can specify all members of one race from all members of another race. This is further proven as there may be more variation between members of the same racial group than two different racial groups.

Some factors that one might consider in order to find out if someone is Asian American is geography, government classification, appearance, culture, and self-identification. All these factors even put together may not help identify whether someone is Asian American. This is because race changes over time and is not easily measurable. Race heavily depends on the social and historical system which means that physical features matter because we give them meaning. This definitely matters to me as any individual should be recognized for who they are rather than just be generalized under a stereotype and not get proper recognition.

Some concepts I learned included people who went to the United States to look for opportunities and were not easily given citizenship due to the fact that they were not white. This may also have been an after effect of the Chinese exclusion acts of 1882 and 1884. This factor was really inconsistent as the people who were making those decisions did not have criteria to go by. This is supported by the fact that Indians were considered white persons in 1910, 1913, 1919, and 1920 but not in 1909 or 1917, or after 1923. This concept is still being practiced today with the immigration ban on Muslim countries, this really impacted me as I am a Muslim myself.

Another concept I learned was about the model minority stereotype and how it is true in some ways but is a generalization of Asian Americans and how that may cause problems for minority groups and just individuals in general. I used to believe this as well but the more I found out about this I realized this stereotype is just a generalization and does not depict the whole picture. The model minority is true in ways that include having higher average education and higher salary. However, this does not mean that every Asian American is getting a higher education and earning a higher salary. This statement is closely attached to the problem which is failing to recognize the variation within the Asian American population.

The article California’s lost and found Punjabi Mexican cuisine, (Week 1 Sonia Chopra) was interesting as it was the first time I had ever heard of a blend of Punjabi and Mexican cuisines. California’s miscegenation law was a driving force in the building of the Punjabi-Mexican community. These laws basically forced the Punjabi men and Mexican women to get married as the interpretation of this law was vague and that meant categorizing Punjabis and Mexicans as brown people. This caused two major cultures to coincide and have an impact on each other through food. Offering two types of cuisine to the locals through the restaurant it gave the Punjabi-Mexicans their own identity. Either of the cuisines never overlapped, the only crossover dish El Rancho offered was the roti quesadilla. This article really hit home for me as I am Punjabi myself and I had never thought about a Punjabi-Mexican mixture in any sort including either cuisine influencing each other.

I really took an interest in the article Tiger Mom, Hold that growl, (Week 7 Martha Pickerill) as I could relate to it in some ways as parents usually have some expectations for their children. However, after reading this article I saw how Amy Chua had control over of her daughters as she wanted them to exceed all expectations. I learned how this method has a greater risk of putting their children through depression and other behavioral problems. The article further discusses another way of parenting and that Amy Chua’s way of parenting is not even that common. The article describes a supportive parenting method which basically means being involved and being supportive of a child in their school age. Furthermore, other studies like What is tiger parenting? How does it affect children? (Week 7 Su Yeoung Kim) also, suggest that Asian Americans endorse an incremental view of intelligence whereas European Americans endorse is as an entity view of intelligence. The scholars making these statements believe that Asian Americans believe in effort being the reason for success rather than innate ability.

This theory is further backed by the article What Asian Americans really care about when they care about education, (Week 7, Pawan Dhingra). The article states that Asian Americans are optimistic about the openness of education in the states because relative to Asian systems. Asian systems are defined by hierarchy and strict exams and that is why Asian Americans want their children to be well educated in STEM fields to overcome any blocked mobility which further includes any barriers related to ethnic minorities.

Another reading I found an interest in was The racial triangulation of Asian Americans, (Week 10 Claire Jean Kim). The author talks about taking a different approach when thinking about race and that is by going beyond black and white. This article peaked my interest as I had no idea that races were being analyzed on a scale. The first approach is called the different trajectories approach which analyses racialization as an open-ended variable process that has affected each group differently. This includes Asians being part of the exclusion. The second approach is the racial hierarchy approach. This method is the ordering of groups into a single scale of status and privilege with Whites on the top and Blacks on the bottom and all other groups in between. These two processes still have problems as the different trajectories approach is that it attributes to respective racialization processes that are in fact mutually constitutive of one another. Asian Americans have been racialized through interaction with Whites and Blacks. There is also a problem with the racial hierarchy approach as that puts up a notion on a single scale of status and privilege. In this approach, whites have appeared to order other racial groups along two criteria historically. Asian Americans have been belittled more often as outsiders or aliens. The article talks about how Asian Americans are portrayed as the other whites which show how the process of racialization is mutually constitutive of one another. This also unveils how there may be more than one dimension or scale at a time.

The author further discusses how Asian Americans have been racially triangulated in the set field of racial positions. The author reiterates her first point by acknowledging the fact that we have major opinion makers which consist of White officials and elites etc. which are being contested every day among other racial groups which causes divide and groups to become racialized in comparison. The author’s second point stresses on the fact that Asian Americans are valorized by a dominant group relative to Blacks. This gives the White power to dominate both groups. The dominant group furthermore processes civic ostracism which constructs the Asian American group as aliens or foreigners in comparison to White which basically ostracizes them from the body politic and civic membership.

Another article that interested me was masculine norms, avoidant coping, Asian values, and depression among Asian American men (Week 13, William Ming Liu). This article talks about how Asian Americans may have higher mental health issues. The stereotype model minority obscures to take into account mental health among the Asian American population and it is alarming as surveys show Asian Americans have the highest amount of psychological stress. The article further talks about how men face and deal with these mental health issues arrive as they adhere to masculine norms. Attempting to fulfill these norms creates a dysfunction strain or psychological stress. Conforming to these norms was associated between self-reliance and depressive symptoms, while dominance was related to psychological distress. In order to deal with these depressive symptoms, the article talks about coping strategies such as alcohol and other drugs. However, this may also have an adverse effect as these coping methods may be in concert with conceptualizing of what it means to be a man. Asian values that steered the factors like cultural values may influence how people manifest categorical psychological issues such as depression. Kim and colleagues (2001) found that despite important within-group variations found among numerous Asian ethnic teams, there are some common values that are shared among Asians, including collective worldview, family recognition through accomplishment, control over emotions, filial righteousness, humility, and hierarchical relationships (Kim, Atkinson, & Yang, 1999). Asian American men who endorse Asian values may have lower levels of depressive symptomology compared to others who do not endorse Asian values. This article shed light on a topic that is not easily discussed even today in Asian American families as also seen in class. This article really helped me understand taking precautions and taking the right steps in order to deal with mental health.

Racial representation, or lack thereof, in the media is not specific to any one ethnic group. Since its infancy, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science has failed to recognize the talents and other works of many actors of color while continuing to praise white actors for roles they have no business playing; this is the whitewashed reality of Hollywood. In 2018, Asian American director Jon M. Chu released his film Crazy Rich Asians, the first Hollywood feature film with an all-Asian cast since Wayne Wang’s The Joy Luck Club which premiered in 1993. Although the release of Chu marks a great moment for East Asian Americans, it lacks the intersectionality to provide an accurate image of the Asian American experience. Chu’s film highlights a significant moment for Asian representation but only for those who conform to the model minority myth. As a Hollywood film, it will always reflect the fantasies of the Asian Diaspora about the mother country rather than the experiences and realities of the model minority which include but are not limited to yellowface and whitewashing. To have a better understanding of these issues, it is important to first examine its origins in yellow peril.

Hollywood images of Asians in social and sexual roles serve a more invidious service. These images reinforce the ideologies of the dominant white middle-class views on ethnicity, gender, and social class. Prevalent sentiments at the turn of the century regarding Asians had their origins deeply rooted in yellow peril which is defined by the fear that the racial other would undermine Western values. White Americans during and even before the early 1900s believed that the “irresistible, dark occult forces of the East” (Wong) were undeniable threats. Subsequent impulses from the West ultimately led to anti-miscegenation laws, punishing any kind of interracial relationship and ensuring the eventual return to an acceptable social order. This mentality was further reinforced with the help of early films as the entertainment industry produced movies such as Broken Blossoms (1919), The House Without A Key (1926)- the first of many Charlie Chan films, and The Good Earth (1937); all of which star white actors and actresses dressed up in the yellow face. Take almost any film produced during the early years of Hollywood with Asian characters and they will almost always be played by a white actor mimicking the “melodramatic mannerisms of the otherworldly Chinaman” with “narrowed eyes; the delicate, bowing movements; the sing-song syntax; the relentless politeness, and the suggestion of opium smoked depravity” (Wong 4). Due to this framework, actors like Warner Oland were able to rise to the top of Hollywood’s elite while many other names like Anna May Wong and Sessue Hayakawa still do not garner the recognition they deserve.

Few remember Sessue Hayakawa despite the fact that he was one of the highest-paid actors in Hollywood during the 1910s and the 1920s. Hayakawa was most well-known for his “roles as a romantic leading man” (Glenn) but by the 1930s he had fallen from the ranks. He was eventually forgotten in the United States “as Asian men were no longer considered ‘proper’ romantic leads” (Glenn). The Japanese actor later found success internationally in England, France, and Japan; Hayakawa continued to deny that “he was forced out [of Hollywood] by anti-Japanese sentiment” (Glenn) despite racial tensions against the Japanese were only increasing as was the overall anti-Asian sentiment.

The growing anti-Asian sentiment in Hollywood at the turn of the century is reflective of the national historic anti-Asian sentiment. This popular opinion began when the United States started to see an increase in Chinese immigration during the late 1800s after gold was discovered along the west coast and the establishment of the railroad industry provides employment opportunities as a reason for immigrating. According to the U.S. Census of 1870, the total population of California was 582,031; Chinese immigrants accounted for 49.310 while Japanese accounted for 33. It is practical to focus on the California population during this time period as the state provided the majority of the Asian population in the nation. By 1880, the Chinese population increased exponentially as it was reported that 804,694 immigrants were living across the state while the Japanese population also indicated a slightly increased to 86. In response to the sudden change in demographics, Congress passed the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act; the first law to prevent immigration and naturalization solely based on race. Following the exclusion act, a large number of Japanese, Korean and Indian immigrants began arriving on the West

Coast to provide labor, replacing the Chinese in the railroad and agricultural industries. According to the 1890 census, the Chinese population dropped to 72,472 while the Japanese population showed a steadier increase to 1,147. In 1910, it was reported that the Chinese population in California had dropped to 36,248 while the Japanese population held steady at 41, 356, the Hindu population was 1,948, the Korean population was 305 and there were a reported 5 Filipino immigrants at the time. Not long after, Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1924 which placed a national origins quota on all immigrants; while it seemed that immigrants of all origins would be given equal quotas, the law essentially barred any further Asian immigration.

This historic national Asian exclusion was also seen throughout and reinforced by Hollywood and the entertainment industry. In 1914, Sessue Hayakawa starred in the film adaptation of The Typhoon where he played a Japanese diplomat in France who ends up killing a chorus girl after a passionate encounter turns violent. “Despite the negative stereotyping of his character, Hayakawa’s brooding good looks made him an undeniable sex symbol amongst white women across America” (Buscher) contributing to the concept of yellow peril. The following year, Hayakawa played a similar role in The Cheat where he shared the “first-ever on-screen interracial kiss with a white woman” (Buscher). Producers ultimately branded his character as the villain after he takes a hot iron to his lover after she attempts to end the affair. Fed up with the consistent typecasting by the major Hollywood studios, he decided to fund his own corporation. Hayworth Pictures Corp. ended up releasing 19 films between 1918 and 1922. When reflecting on Hayakawa’s body of work, Center for Asian American Media Executive Director Steven Gong said in an interview that he believed “Hayakawa was aware of the racism behind his character in The Cheat and was determined to play the hero in his own Hayworth and Hayakawa films” (Buscher). Unfortunately, with the growing anti-Japanese sentiment in California, Hayakawa’s de facto exclusion sent him to Europe where he would continue his work as an actor for the next decade. Sessue Hayakawa returned to Hollywood in the 1930s only to be pigeonholed by his thick Japanese accent in the new talkie era.

Anna May Wong was a silent film star in the 1920s, but she too often found herself limited to stereotypical Asian roles. When Pearl Buck’s novel The Good Earth was released in 1931, Wong publicly expressed her desire to be cast in the film adaptation as it was an extremely rare opportunity for the Chinese American actress to play a Chinese character like this in Hollywood. “During her career, Wong suffered from frequent stereotypes of Asian women as China dolls or dragon ladies” (Buscher). Despite her talents and on-screen presence, she was usually relegated to supporting roles. The closest Wong ever came to playing the lead role was in The Good Earth. It wasn’t until later that she discovered that she was not even considered for the role. Because of the Hays Code which outlined what would and would not be permitted on screens and because of anti-miscegenation laws, Wong was prevented from taking on a lot of roles that involved a romantic white male lead; this was exactly the case during The Good Earth as she lost the role to Luise Rainer who later went on to earn an Oscar for her yellowface performance. Wong was later offered a supporting role as a concubine to which she refused. This decade also brought to the screen the yellowface characters of Fu Manchu and Charlie Chan which were “stereotypical Asian roles played by white actors and were products of Western imagination” (Buscher). By the 1930s, romantic Asian male roles were virtually nonexistent. When the script called for one, a white man was hired and dressed up to appear Asian. Even in the cases when a white actor would portray an Asian man, interracial relationships were too taboo and were forbidden from getting any screen time preventing Wong and others like her from playing roles that should have been intended for them.

Yellowface in Hollywood resulted from Asian exclusion. Casting white actors also played a key role in box office calculation. Hollywood capitalized on these fears accordingly as can be seen in their creations of Fu Manchu and Charlie Chan. some try to justify the use of yellowface by arguing that well-known white actors would be seen as more relatable to audiences thus generating more ticket sales. When white actor Warner Orland replaced his Asian predecessors as Charlie Chane, the film’s success was amplified making it difficult to counter this argument. “Giving the people what they wanted” (Kayimaya) was justification enough for this one-sided deal. Another argument used to justify the use of yellowface was the “lack of qualified or talented Asian or Asian American actors” (Kayimaya) yet we know this to be false because Wong and Hayakawa exist. While the circumstances regarding their careers may have differed, there is one thing that can be said about the two for certain; their careers came to a premature end. One can only wonder where their potential would have taken them had they not had to face racism and discrimination on a daily basis. The use of yellowface grew to be very common among the major Hollywood studios. Other famous actors known to have performed in yellowface include Katharine Hepburn, Fred Astaire, Marlon Brando, Mickey Rooney, and John Wayne. Other contemporary examples include Eddie Murphy’s performance as Mr. Wong in Norbit (2007) and the majority of the cast of Cloud Atlas (2012). Instances of yellowface have become more scarcer in recent years, although it has been replaced with another strategy allowing for the continued prioritization of white actors over Asian and Asian American actors.

Whitewashing, the contemporary yellowface, is another strategy Hollywood uses to maintain its status as a predominantly white institution. This approach calls for the altering of lead characters allowing for white leads without the use of prosthetics, makeup, or other special effects. This technique has resulted in Scarlett Johansson being cast as Motoko Kusanagi in the film adaptation of the popular anime The Ghost in the Shell despite an online petition protesting Johansson’s involvement in the film which garnered over 100,000 signatures (Lee). By using this approach, filmmakers were also able to get away with casting Emma Stone to play Allison Ng, a Chinese-Hawaiian character in Cameron Crowe’s Aloha (2015) as well as casting Tilda Swinton to play the Ancient One in Marvel’s Doctor Strange (2016). When asked about Swinton’s performance in the superhero film, Korean American comedian Margaret Cho talked about the many frustrations throughout the Asian American community as she heard many voices their concerns over the role. Many expressed how they felt that “the role should have gone to a person of Asian descent” (Lee). In response to the criticism, Swinton defended the film arguing that it was “whitewashing in the name of diversity” (Lee) as she explained how the writers wanted to avoid the “orientalist stereotype of the wise old geezer or the Fu Manchu type while also trying to avoid the dragon lady type” (Lee). In the case of Doctor Strange’s Ancient One, writers attempted to avoid falling into historical stereotypes by erasing the character completely and giving it a new face.

Erasure is not the answer to ending stereotypes. In the case of Doctor Strange’s Ancient One, instead of addressing the stereotypes and their roots in racism, they chose to ignore them completely by giving the caricature a white face rather than keep the character Asian; essentially saying that Asians cannot exist outside the parameters of these stereotypes. Another part of the issue relates back to Swinton’s interview in which she described how the film was “whitewashed for diversity.” In the interview, she goes on to say how her character was rewritten to be of Celtic origin to be more complex. By doing so, she implies that the character cannot be as dynamic if they were to remain of Asian origin.

Hollywood has whitewashed Asians for decades, but this pattern may be reaching a turning point. The controversy around this issue is growing stronger and people can no longer stay quiet about it. In August of 2017, British actor Ed Skrein “made the decision to quit Lionsgate and Millennium’s Hellboy reboot” (Sun) after facing criticism for taking on the role of the Japanese American character. Many are now regarding Skein’s decision as a tipping point for Hollywood’s discriminatory practice. Others see the actor’s actions as nothing more than giving into societal pressures as many turn to social media to urge him to resign. Regardless if it was for ethical reasons or not, Director Jon M. Chu believes that Skrein set a new precedent by leaving the film production. While Emma Stone only apologized later after the release of Aloha (2015), Skrein is the first actor to address this issue by stepping down from a role. By doing so, he not only used his platform to bring attention to this issue, but he also opened the door for others in the industry to get involved in the conversation because “this isn’t just an Asian American issue” (Sun). Because of Skrein, Hellboy producers have vowed to recast his part with an actor “more consistent with the character in the source material” (Sun) which could ultimately impact Asian American representation by setting a new standard. This is similar to what happened in 1990 during the production of Miss Saigon. Yellowface came full circle as Asian Americans protested the “casting of a white actor for the role of a Eurasian pimp” (Kayimaya). In response to the public outcry, the newly revived production team for The King and I decided to cast part Filipino actor Lou Diamond Phillips as the King of Siam in an attempt to avoid backlash or controversy. So it seems as though yellowface’s successor will soon follow suit. Following Skrein’s departure, the production company announced that Korean American actor Daniel Kim would be taking over the role. This announcement came after Kim made headlines the previous summer when he announced that he and fellow Asian actress Grace Park would be leaving the CBS show “Hawaii 5-0.”

The Hawaii 5-0 case study illustrates just some of the disparities faced by Asian Americans in the entertainment industry that have resulted from their historic exclusion. The New York Times article discusses how actors Grace Park and Daniel Kim decided to leave the NBC show Hawaii 5-0 amid reports of unequal pay. The two Asian American actors decided to leave the show after they were unable to come to an agreement for the contracts presented to them by the show’s executives. In a Facebook statement following the incident, Daniel Kim addressed the situation implying that unequal pay was the reason for their departure further fueling speculations, stating that “the path to equality is rarely easy.” This is the result of the historic exclusion of Asians in the United States. Their departure from the show represents the longstanding difficulties for Asian American actors who struggle to find steady work and equitable pay to their white counterparts like Scarlett Johansson, one of many white actors who benefit from being able to cross racial boundaries to play any role they please. Kim and Park’s departure from the show highlights a certain lack of diversity necessary for any show that is based in Hawaii needs to be believable or representative of the communities. Their actions also give light to the lack of diversity and equitable pay all throughout Hollywood. The case study also illustrates the power in Hollywood in relation to race. To this day, the American entertainment industry is dominated by white executives, producers, directors, and actors mirroring the pattern of all other institutions in the United States. The race relations graph can be applied to this case study to see how power is unequally distributed and maintained through and by whiteness. Although Kim and Park were doing the same work as the other actors and performing with the same quality, they were not equally compensated by CBS executives for their labor.

Hollywood Chinese was written, produced, and edited by Asian American filmmaker Arthur Dong. The documentary chronicles a century of Chinese American images in a film by including the personal accounts of several well-known actors of both Asian and White ancestry including Joan Chen, Tai Chin, James Hong, Nancy Kwan, Christopher Lee, and B.D. Wong as well as some directors such as Ang Lee to illustrate how Hollywood has contributed to the historic marginalization of the Chinese as “other.” Dong provides a view of Hollywood through the perspective of the Asian American experience to bring light to many patterns that are still a problem in Hollywood today including yellowface, the simultaneous hyper-sexualization of Asian women and emasculation of Asian men, and a greater theme of yellow peril which has resulted in the invisibility of Asian Americans in film today and an obscure Asian American identity.

Asian American invisibility in the media is a reflection of their historic exclusion. Hollywood has come a long way since its days with yellowface. The adversities faced by Asian American actors today are much more covert. In this modern day, it is generally frowned upon to imitate the appearance of monoliths through the use of makeup and other to tools just as was done to American actor Christopher Lee for his role as Chung King in the 1961 film The Terror of Tongs. Instead, it is commonplace for white actors and actresses to be cast in roles originally intended for Asian actors. This process is known as whitewashing. One current and popular example of this process can be seen with the reproduction of Ghost in the Shell in 2017. The film, based on a Japanese manga series, is based in Japan, written with a majority Japanese cast, yet the lead role was cast to Scarlett Johansson. This pattern of modern Asian exclusion continues with Emma Stone’s involvement in the film Aloha where she plays a half-Asian character.

In other cases, it is not the issue of an Asian role going to an Asian actor, but the issue of the protagonist always being cast as white in a story that originates from or takes place in Asia, creating the white savior archetype; just like Matt Damon’s role in The Great Wall or Tom Cruise in The Last Samurai. When Asians are cast in movies, they usually type cast for supporting roles which add to the breakout success of Jon M. Chu’s Crazy Rich Asians. When the film was released in 2018, it was the first time a major motion picture featured an all-Asian cast since The Joy Luck Club, the film adaptation of Amy Tan’s novel, which was released in 1993.

Representation of Asians and Asian Americans has always been alarmingly small and, for the most part, from the white perspective. In a recent study, the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism concluded that Asian Americans only account for 1% of all Hollywood roles despite Asian Americans making up 6% of the national population according to the 2017 United States Federal Census Bureau report. In the history of the Academy Awards, there has only ever been one recipient of Asian descent, Ben Kingsley who is half Indian. Kingsley won the award for Best Actor in 1983. During the 2019 Golden Globes, Sandra Oh made history by being the first-ever host of Asian descent. She also went on to become the second Asian woman to win a Golden Globe for a leading role 39 years after Yoko Shimada was awarded for her role in Shogun (1980). When Saturday Night Live announced that Awkwafina would be hosting, many were quick to note that she would be the first Asian host since Lucy Liu 18 years prior in 2000. In May of 2019, Lucy Liu became the second Asian woman to receive a star on the famous Hollywood Walk of Fame. The first star was awarded to Anna May Wong in 1960. Yet elsewhere in the arts, Asians have flourished as writers, directors, and fashion designers. In other words, it seems as though it is only when Asians are invisible are they allowed to succeed but recent events may indicate a coming change in the status quo.

Works Cited

1. Buscher, Rob. “The Untold Story of Asian Americans in Early Hollywood.” Pacific Citizen: The National Newspaper of the JACL, 18 Aug. 2017.
2. Dong, Arthur E., et al. Hollywood Chinese. DeepFocus Productions, 2007.
3. Films for the Humanities & Sciences. The Slanted Screen: Asian Men in Film and Television. Infobase, 2010.
4. Glenn Norio Masuchika, (2013) ‘“Yellowface” in movies: a survey of American academic collections’, Collection Building, Vol. 32 Issue: 1, pp.31-36, https://doi-org.proxy.lib.csus.edu/10.1108/01604951311295076
5. Kamiyama, Kay M. ‘Hollywood Slant: Hugh Son Looks at Yellow-Face and how it Evolved Over the Decades.’ A.Magazine Nov 30, 1996: 20. ProQuest. Web. 3 May 2019.
6. Lee, Joann. ‘ASIAN AMERICAN ACTORS IN FILM, TELEVISION AND THEATER, AN ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY.’ Race, Gender & Class 8.4 (2001): 176. ProQuest. Web. 5 May 2019.
7. Mizuno, Sachiko. The Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 69, no. 1, 2010, pp. 266–268. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20721806.
8. ‘THE YELLOWFACE FILM HALL OF INFAMY.’ A.Magazine Nov 30, 1996: 20. ProQuest. Web. 3 May 2019.
9. SUN, REBECCA. “‘Where’s the Line?’ Whitewashing Hits a Tipping Point.” Hollywood Reporter, vol. 423, no. 27, Sept. 2017, pp. 9–10. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=126057272.
10. United States Census Bureau. ‘Population Division.’ census.gov. 11 Sep. 2002. Web. 4 April. 2018.https://census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2002/demo/POP-twps0056.pdf
11. Wong, Cynthia F. MELUS, vol. 22, no. 2, 1997, pp. 119–121. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/468139.

Two different ethnic groups that experience the color of culture concept that is described by Martinez in Seeing More than Black and White are Latinos or Chicanos and Asians. Both groups do not fit in either category of black or white, and yet the cultures of both groups are forced into the different molds that society holds for them. The attributes of the cultures of both groups are perceived a certain way and this is largely because of the perception that is held in society of the master narrative. Their oppression is overshadowed and goes unacknowledged because all that is observed is the racism that has been inflicted upon blacks. This isn’t to say that the black experience is illegitimate because it is indeed a horrifying reality, but it is essential to look at racism in its full capacity. The belief that racism is dwindling is a lie that allows injustices to continue for not just Asian Americans and Latin Americans, but for any and all groups that don’t fit the cut of what is ‘American”.

Martinez challenges the master narrative when she asks, “Doesn’t the Black-white model encourage people of color to spend too much energy understanding our lives in relation to whiteness, obsessing about what white society will think and do?”(Martinez, 1993, p.24). This question shows us how the color of culture comes into play, because of the fact that society holds what is perceived as white as the standard. Because whiteness is seen in this light, anything that doesn’t fit this narrative is seen as “other”, and this is when such cultural attributes either fall through the cracks and are simply not recognized, or are considered nonwhite and ultimately black.

When it comes to the American experience for Latinos, this group consists of various nationalities with very different histories and cultures, but their unique experiences are never talked about or acknowledged. The direct actions of the United States in relation to the nations of these various different groups of Latinos have forced them to migrate to the United States, and such groups are pushed into a society that doesn’t recognize their identities or their hardships. Historically, the United States has meddled in the affairs of other nations such as the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala. The people of these nations were put in dire situations where migration to the United States was the only promise of a better life. There are groups that were previously in the territories of what is now the United States such as the Mexicans during the era of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, who were forced out of their own livelihoods simply because of the fact that they weren’t white. The United States has a pattern of starting wars for colonial expansion which also led to the migrations of Cubans and Puerto Ricans. All of these groups were pushed out of their homelands and when they came seeking for a better life they were met with the cruelty of cultural racism.

This cultural racism manifests in many different ways, but the prejudice due to skin color and a disdain for such cultures is clear. It is present in the education system, in the labor force, in the nation’s immigration policies, in our jails, and in our neighborhoods. There have been hundreds of people that have been brutalized or killed by border patrol officers, and yet this is completely overlooked. The fact that this can occur every day without making headlines is appalling, but this is the reality. There are even advocates of these extreme measures because of the anger that is felt towards undocumented people. Police brutality and hate crimes can occur and nothing is done about it. An example of hate crimes such as this occurred in the Zoot Suit Riots of 1943, where young Latin men were attacked by U.S. servicemen simply because they were trying to express themselves and uphold a pride in their culture in the clothes that they were wearing.

Such attacks as in the Zoot Suit riots occurred with no intervention or help from the police force, in a climate that viewed these individuals as un-American. As Martinez states, “Abusive treatment of migrant workers can be found all over the United States.”(1993, p.28). This can occur with hate crimes such as the ones mentioned above, or with taking advantage of these workers in their circumstances and underpaying them immensely, if they are paying them at all. It can also occur with more examples that Martinez has mentioned, of women being fired from their workplace for speaking in Spanish or being fired for taking bathroom breaks and being forced to wear diapers at the factories they worked at.

This cultural racism occurs when something like speaking one’s own language is prohibited or frowned upon, as Spanish speakers have time and time again been shamed for not being able to speak English properly. The dropout rates of Latino Americans were among the highest of the country in recent years and this is all due to the fact that the education system sets these communities up for failure. Latino students believe that the fault is within themselves because they are made to feel that they aren’t capable of a proper education, but the reality is that the opportunities available to them and the material taught inside their schools isn’t inclusive of their needs or cultures. All of this is to say, the plight of Latin Americans isn’t all that different from that of the Asian Americans.

When reflecting on the cultural racism that persists for Asian Americans, the pervasive idea of the “model minority” myth is what stands out. This perception of a model minority paints a picture of a high-status immigrant that has made it in the United States, and its development came to hang over the heads of other immigrants such as Latin Americans. They are depicted to have a successful education, to be studious and hard-working, to make a name in the professional world, and to be stand up citizens who follow the ideals of the American dream. This illusion of Asian Americans is used to highlight the “deficiencies” of other immigrant groups who can’t seem to make it, and ultimately is a way to delegitimize the oppression that is faced by other groups as well as the oppression that Asian Americans face themselves.

Despite being praised as the model minority, Asian Americans have always faced cultural racism and oppression. An obvious example of this racism is with the internment camps of the World War II era that Japanese Americans were forced into because of a disdain and distrust towards their kind. Asian Americans of all kinds, to this day, are distrusted because they are depicted to be conquering the economy and to be taking away jobs from all. Hate crimes and police brutality have occurred to all different types of Asian Americans because of this image. They are often used as scapegoats and have been killed pointlessly because of the resentment that is felt towards them. Martinez uses an example about an Asian American man who came home from the bar and had made a commotion, for which his neighbors had called the police. He waved a stick at the police who in turn shot him down. This excessive force was used on no basis other than the presumptions that are regularly made of Asian Americans. This type of story sounds all too familiar, because many similar crimes have occurred towards Latin Americans for similar reasons.

The reality for many Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders is that though as a whole they may fair better economically than other immigrant groups, their wealth gap is the widest than any other group in the United States. This means that there are many groups of Asian Americans that struggle immensely but despite this they are enmeshed with all Asian groups, and therefore encompass a false image.

According to the Pew Research Center, “Eight of the 19 Asian groups analyzed had poverty rates higher than the U.S. average. Hmong (28.3%), Bhutanese (33.3%) and Burmese (35.0%) had the highest poverty rates among Asian groups…” (2017, para. 10). There are also similar trends for such groups in the education that is attained, with only 17% of the Hmong having college degrees and 40% not attaining high school diplomas. (AJ+, 2017, 6:04). As Martinez points out, many Asian Americans are forced to work low paying jobs with horrible conditions, such as the environments found in sweatshops. This is even worse for women and according to the video “Why Do We Call Asian Americans the Model Minority” by AJ+, the suicide rate for Asian American women is 30% higher than that of whites, with a lifetime rate of suicidal thoughts of nearly 16%, as compared to 13.5% for the general U.S. population (AJ+, 2017, 7:34).

Due to the stereotype of the model minority, many Asian Americans feel as though they need to own up to the identity that is imposed upon them. Because of this fact, Asian Americans are the least likely to seek help for their mental health and other areas of their lives. They are also underrepresented in all fields other than the sciences and are given an identity that is impossible to live up to. As mentioned earlier this is done to cause a division with other ethnic groups, to make other ethnic groups appear more inferior, and to diminish the issues and injustices of Asian Americans themselves. It can be surmised that Asian Americans are given a label of whiteness where is convenient, but underneath it all a large amount inherently falls to the other pole with blacks. This is a type of contradictory existence that is not that different from what occurs with Latinos as well.

Latin Americans have also been given this label of whiteness at times because of the lightness of their skin, or because of their European roots, with those within this category turning against their culture to appease to the system that maintains the standard of white. Martinez refers to this when she says, “The ability to be accepted as white can lead Latinos to deny the reality of racism and thus to discourage solidarity among peoples of color, so that we become our own worst enemy.”(1993, p. 35). This is something that undoubtedly occurs to Asian Americans with the “model minority” label that they are given, this idea of them being the white minority is what tears their relations with other minority groups apart in a similar manner, where they strive to embody this stereotype that is thrown upon them. As for other similarities, as was mentioned earlier they both experience nearly identical patterns of oppression that isn’t acknowledged by society as a whole. Both groups consist of a variety of different rich and unique cultures and nationalities but are all thrown into one stereotype. Both groups immigrated to the United States for a better life and were met with the horrors of racism. It can be seen that are more similarities than differences in the American experience that they have been forced into.

It is important for both Latin Americans and Asian Americans to understand their commonalities and differences, because the only way to tear down the master narrative and approach an equal and inclusive multicultural structure is to learn about one another and share the stories and experiences of all groups. To focus on only one group’s injustices is to turn a blind eye on the insidious nature of racism and oppression, and it is essential for all groups to unify and stand up against the white standard that is prevalent in the United States. The division that is created by only focusing on one group or another is what maintains the master narrative and so it is more important now than ever for minority groups to work together. In doing so, this will change the relationship with the majority, as the oppression can no longer be ignored.

This type of cultural racism still goes on in today’s society, especially with the xenophobic and racist tendencies of the Trump administration. Lies are spread constantly through the lips of our president, he himself takes part in hate speech which sets the example for the rest of the nation. His stance on immigration is extreme and horrifying, with the formation of migrant detention camps where undocumented children are held and separated from their families. Racism is as alive as it ever was and if we are to win the fight against it, we all must come together through our narratives and stand up to this atrocious giant.

I myself have not personally experienced otherness or marginalization, being that I am a white female of Eastern European descent, but I have seen it with my own two eyes and have heard it with my own two ears. I have known people who fall into the master narrative and display pure ignorance to the realities of minority groups. It can be futile to argue such individuals against their perception because they have never been aware of anything else, living in their own bubble. I too had grown up in such bubbles in the past, and this is why the only way to make any type of change is to share the stories and narratives of all groups, because it opens eyes and shatters the illusion of the master narrative.

If Asian Americans are to assume the role of bridge builders across the Pacific, what are the opportunities, the risks, the promises, the perils? Have you ever heard of the saying, “the nation was built on the backs of immigrants”? Immigrants has sometimes brought out the worst in our nation. Other times it has brought out the best as we have remembered what kind of country we claim and aspire to be. People most of the time think by just African Americas, Hispanics, Irish, or Germans etc. However, some tend to forget about the Asian Americans, also have a big part of building our nation. Asian Americans faced discrimination, promises, danger, opportunities.

Throughout Asian American history they have faced a long road of rejection and inequitable treatment, especially during the periods of changing of population, decline in economic activity, or war. In the early 1850s young men were signed up as contract laborers from Southern China. Asian immigrants have taken part of an important role in building this country. Some examples of labor were working on railroads, farming, mining, fisherman, and factory working representing 20% labor force in California by 1870. By 1876 with the depression, up roars of anti-Chinese saying that their taking our jobs violence broke out. In 1882, a law was passed in the United States preventing Chinese immigrant labors from immigrating to the United States. It was the Chinese Exclusion Act was the first immigration law that excluded an entire ethnic group. Following that a large number of Japanese workers and a handful of Koreans arrived to the States to replace the Chinese for much cheaper labor. However, a legislation soon followed of anti-Japanese legislation and violence. By 1907, the “Gentle men’s agreement” was an informal agreement between the United States and Japan. The United States would not impose restrictions on Japanese immigrants and Japan would not allow further emigration to the United States. With most of the Asians excluded, Filipinos then migrated to the United States to take over their spots to continue their cheap labor. Because of the Spanish-American War, Filipinos were not legally excluded by immigration laws since they were already annexed by the United States. The racism and economic competition worsened by the depression of 1929 leading up to severe anti-Filipino violence.

The reality of it all Asian Americans suffered because: the actuality of western colonization, the unequal power relations in Asia, the need for cheap labor that added to the expansion and economic development in the U.S., the impact on social policy and public attitudes is due to the ignorance and racist beliefs of white superiority.

In the United States today, Asian Americans are seen as “model minorities” that prove minorities in the US can succeed. While Asian Americans today do tend to be very successful, there was a period in American history where they were one of the most discriminated groups in the United States. Natalie Ong, a Japanese American, has experienced both discrimination and success. Though she now lives a comfortable life and has been a part of the Houston City Council, as a child, she and her family were among the people sent to internment camps during World War II. The treatment Ong and her family received at Manzanar reflects what many other Japanese Americans faced at that time, and this treatment, along with later unclassified documents, showed a prejudice towards Ong and other Japanese American families.

Natalie Ong was born Kayo Natalie Hayashida on February 20th, 1941 on Bainbridge Island, nearby Seattle to Saburo and Fumiko Hayashida. The island was an agricultural community that grew berries. But this quiet life for her family was thrown into disarray when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. After hearing about this, Natalie’s family was not afraid at first “As an American citizen, Fumiko says she felt safe within the borders of her country” (Medlenka). This was a common sentiment held by second generation Japanese Americans, also known as “Nisei,” who saw themselves as American first. For a few months they went about life somewhat as usual, continuing to farm berries. That was until Executive Order 9066 was signed and their normal lives were changed completely. “On the authority of President Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066, signed on February 19, 1942, and Public Law 503, passed by Congress soon thereafter, some 120,000 Japanese Americans were placed in what Roosevelt without hesitation referred to as ‘concentration camps’” (Sundquist, 532). This order and the subsequent law put into motion the removal of many Japanese Americans, many of whom were natural born citizens, from areas on or near the western coast for what was claimed to be military purposes. A little over a month after this order was put into place, Bainbridge island was visited. “The FBI came. The armies with guns and rifles with bayonets on it, they said ‘You’re going,’ they gave us seven days to close up our business” (Ong, 4). Being March now, it was two to three months before their current crop could be harvested, but since they were basically being forced out, that crop was left to fail. Finally, on March 31st, all people of Japanese descent were taken from Bainbridge Island and were sent to an interment camp in Manzar, California.

“The Manzanar Relocation Center was located in central California, about 220 miles north of Los Angeles” (“Manzanar, California”), and covered almost 540 Acres. It eventually housed around 10,000 internees in flimsy, wooden barracks. Life wasn’t terrible there, but it was not as nice as where they lived previously, “we had army rations, army blankets, army cots. She did say that they were issued a mop and a bucket. And of course, it was just a room, with the cots and the bedding” (Ong, 5). These barracks were cramped with Ong’s family only having two beds for her parents, her and her brother, and her soon to be born brother as well. These bare necessities showed the unreadiness of the Army for the rollout of these camps. But eventually, the camp started to become a town, “…there were varied shops, different shops, and people were assigned to do jobs either to sustain the, the camp” (Ong 5) people would have jobs in the mess hall, the carpentry shop, or in the few small factories in the camp. All of these produced items that improved the camps like cribs for the very young children or for the army itself like garments and mattresses. However, the fact that these people were taken away from their homes and forced to build necessities for themselves showed major oversight on the army’s part. In late 1943, all the families from Bainbridge were moved from Manzanar to Minidoka, Idaho where they would be kept till the end of the war. This camp had more families from the Seattle area. Since the camp had already been established for a year and a half, they did not face the same hardships they did when they first moved to Manzanar. After the war Ong’s family moved back to Bainbridge and were able to resettle with little blowback since it was a tight knit community before they had left and was still welcoming to the Japanese residents. This, however, was only able to occur because they were all born in the United States. “There was the exclusion, where you couldn’t – not only marry, but become citizens or own property if you were not American-born” (Ong, 3). So, anyone who was a first-generation immigrant had nowhere to go back to after the war. Unfortunately, since the land had not been farmed for the past four years, the family was unable to make a sustainable living and Ong’s father had to go and work at the Boeing plant in Seattle.

During the war, many didn’t question the internment camps. There were a few reasons for this. First, some Japanese Americans didn’t question the internment themselves. The Munson Report stated: “the vast majority were loyal to America. Most of all, those Nisei who belonged to the highly patriotic Japanese American Citizens League appeared ‘pathetically eager to show this loyalty” (Sundquist, 541). This was also corroborated by Natalie’s father, as he put it, “‘Well we just did what the government told us we should do, we were Americans, we wanted to be good Americans’” (Ong, 6). They saw listening to the government as just following a law like stopping at a red light and the government took advantage of that. Meanwhile, propaganda that was meant to demonize Japan ended up demonizing those who were in the camps. “In war propaganda and in public opinion, all of the Axis Powers, as well as their ethnic representatives in the United States, were vilified and caricatured” (Sundquist, 533). The Japanese interpretation mimicked the way the Yellow peril was displayed in cartoons. Even after they were out of the camps the government continued to be unfair to the internees. “The Evacuation Claims Act of 1948 paid ten cents on the dollar for losses of personal property, derisively referred to at the time as ‘pots and pans money,’ and precluded any future attempt to seek meaningful restitution.” (Abe 1090). Once again, the second-generation Japanese Americans accepted this and still saw it as the government have their best interest in mind and not as a way to sweep further request for restitution under the rug. It wasn’t until the 1970s that some third generation Japanese Americans that grew up as children and young adults in the camps began to act against the United States. This is when the true intention of the internment of these people came out. In 1942, Roosevelt requested a report on the internment of Japanese Americans which was written by General John DeWitt, however once John McCloy received these reports, he realized he could not present it. “Recognizing that the racist cast of the report contradicted accounts of evacuation procedure already on record and would likely harm the government’s case before the Supreme Court … McCloy ordered Bendetsen [DeWitt’s superior] to rewrite the report, destroying the few released copies and doctoring the accompanying correspondence” (Sundquist, 543). This clearly showed that the government recognized that this was not a military action, but one out of racism. And this exposed cover up is what would eventually get Japanese Americans the compensation, recognition, and justice that they deserved.

But why does this matter in the context of this class. First, Executive Order 9066 is a very clear example of institutionalized racism which is a major issue in today’s society. The government only chose to target the Japanese based on their race alone. This was true even if they had very little connection to Japan itself, “All the Japanese American orphans in the West Coast evacuation zone, including half-Japanese babies living in Caucasian foster homes, were sent to Manzanar” (“Manzanar, California”). Even though it is wrong to assume so, saying that the adult Japanese-Americans might not be loyal is arguable, but the fact that they even took the children without parents and threw them in these camps show it was clearly targeting them based on their race and not a military necessity. This also can be seen when one looks at how the US government treated descendants from other Axis Powers. “I think they thought that a Japanese could not be trusted, whether it was your great-grandparents who, you know, was in Japan… and anyway. It didn’t happen to the Italians in that way, it didn’t happen to the Germans in that way, it happened to the Japan – Japanese” (Ong 5-6). At the time, the US was predominantly white, with many being German and Italian, too many to throw all them into camps. However, since the Japanese are a minority group, it’s easier to put them in camps and show that you are trying to make the homeland safer. This event also showcases the idea of what we consider a citizen. In fact, a majority of those who faced internment were citizens; “Close to 70,000 of the internees were United States citizens by birth” (Sundquist 532). In this case the government sees these people as Japanese before Americans. This can be compared to the immigration laws that allow law enforcement to ask immigration status, and much like how if a law enforcement officer were to ask for immigration status, they are more likely to ask someone who is Hispanic even if they are citizens because they see them as Hispanic first instead of American.

In conclusion, the story of Natalie Ong and her family reflects what a majority Japanese Americans on the west coast experienced during World War II. Although, since they were citizens by birth, they had a better experience than those who had immigrated after they were born. The internment and reasoning behind it also show, in a broader sense, institutionalized racism and the wavering on what citizenship actually entails. As Frank Abe says, “In sum, Executive Order 9066 was not justified by military necessity, and the decisions that followed … were not founded upon military considerations. The broad historical causes that shaped these decisions were race prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership” (Abe 1093). And despite those who suffered getting some compensation, it will never give them back what was unlawfully and prejudicially taken from them for those four years, freedom.

Bibliography:

1. Abe, Frank. “Resistance, Resettlement, and Redress.” Case Western Reserve Law Review, vol. 68, no. 4, Summer 2018, pp. 1085–1095. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=130519663&site=ehost-live.
2. Colborn-Roxworthy, Emily. ”Manzanar, the eyes of the world are upon you’: Performance and Archival Ambivalence at a Japanese American Internment Camp.’ Theatre Journal, vol. 59 no. 2, 2007, p. 189-214. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/tj.2007.0120.
3. “Manzanar, California.” Manzanar, Japanese American Veterans Association, http://www.javadc.org/manzanar.html
4. Medlenka, Carla. “Reflections of a Patriot.” Bainbridge, Http://Hirasaki.net, 2014, http://hirasaki.net/Family_Stories/Bainbridge.html
5. Ong, Natalie, “Natalie Ong oral history interview and transcript,” Houston Asian American Archive (HAAA) oral histories, accessed September 16, 2019, https://haaa.rice.edu/items/show/176
6. Sundquist, Eric J. “The Japanese-American Internment: A Reappraisal.” The American Scholar, vol. 57, no. 4, 1988, pp. 529–547. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41211623

In the research paper, “Love Is (Color) Blind: Asian Americans and White Institutional Space at the Elite University”, Chou, Lee, and Ho express that rich qualitative data can clarify the language Asian American undergraduate students use to get over their social experiences, romantic relations, and identity at the elite university. Chou, Lee, and Ho also examine the intersectionality of race, gender, and sexuality and the racialization of some ethnic minority groups to understand the way color-blind talk of Asian Americans practice (Chou, Lee & Ho 2015:302). Chou, Lee, and Ho claim that racial analysis of Asian Americans is not complete without considering gender and sexuality (Chou, Lee & Ho 2015:305).

Chou, Lee, and Ho mention that the Kappa Sigma party is an example of representing the racialized social scene that the undergraduates go over, and the various reactions show the complications of the racial ideology. Stereotyping which is either “forever foreign” or “model minorities” becomes different from Asian American people from white college people. Chou, Lee, and Ho examine the intersectionality of race, gender, and sexuality and the racialization of this group to understand the concept of these practices. Chou, Lee, and Ho argue that an elite campus can play the same role on people of color by making them the target of racial stereotyping by their white peers as shown by their use of color-blind and how they characterize their romantic tastes and interests (Chou, Lee & Ho 2015: 303).

Chou, Lee, and Ho mention that the interaction between Asian American people and non–Asian American people is formed by the campus environment which consists of the wider racialized community. Nevertheless, elite college campuses, such as HWCUs, are often celebrated by Asian American families as a place in which merit is more precious than anything else. Their data recommends that the race tends to be a consideration for social experiences of Asian American students (Chou, Lee & Ho 2015: 306).

Many Asian Americans coming to Elite University from more racially diversified area find that the social environment of the university much divided along the racial lines given an undergraduate program consisting of smart students, about 40 percent of whom were colored people. Chou, Lee, and Ho state that the process of socialization at college, “white habitus,” clarify the racialized, social and romantic life of students (Chou, Lee & Ho 2015: 312). Chou, Lee, and Ho claim that racialized experiences give people of color permission for affirming each other’s efforts to cope with everyday racism instead of invalidating experiences with color blindness (Chou, Lee & Ho 2015: 313).

The authors of this article did a great job demonstrating the intersectional nature of the racism, particularly how Asian Americans are confronted with the emotional difficulties of withstanding and giving up to sexualized and gendered in everyday racism. This research also points that racism is still a system based upon a philosophy of inferiority allocating societal resources through racial hierarchy today. The color-blind racism is a racial ideology allowing white people for defending their racial interests while invisibility of whiteness and white privilege maintain. I think that the problem of the color blind is never related to either race or racism. The authors of this article demonstrate that the discourse of color-blind is used by Asian Americans at HWCUs by their white college peers. I think that looking at the terms Asian Americans use to characterize these social settings; it is obvious that the discourse of the color-blind can provide ways to counter open and implicit racism in everyday life. The elite college campus is a white institutionalized environment where Asian American women are presented with a white male hegemonic system by racialized dating preferences, and where Asian American males internalize the hierarchy of racial preferences. Also, as the authors mentioned universities should move away from their complacency for Asian Americans and recognize that social culture needs restoration, starting with ways of expressing thoughts, values, and experiences.

Asian American culture is dissimilar from Western culture. Many of the families come to the United States to improve their life, especially for their children. Asian immigrant parents are portrayed as strict and controlling in the media. They can create an impression of having a lack of empathy for their kids. These cultural factors can impact the mental health of children. Many immigrant parents either come from poverty, fleeing wars, or sacrificed everything from their home country including their houses, jobs, and families. Aside from providing resources and everyday needs for their children, parents having higher expectations and requirements. Many Asian American adolescents and adults communicate that they do not feel their parents provide enough emotion or affection.

Asian immigrant families face a great deal of adversity adapting and affording to live in the states. When arriving, Parents have to adjust instantly to the American culture and commonly have to pursue low wage jobs in unfamiliar fields. Language barrier generally decrease opportunities and the adaptation process is significantly tougher and longer for parents to grow accustomed to. In an interview a father states his concerns about his child’s education: ‘It is very hard for me being the only one in the family who works. I am a fisherman. I make enough money for us to live, but I worry all the time. My wife, her English is not good, and she cannot work. So, I want my daughter to go to school so that she and her future family will not have these problems. My daughter is good, so she will do what I say and her life will be better than ours” (Zhou & Bankston III, 2002, p.139).

Obedience has become a crucial aspect in everyday Asian parenting. This father may sound controlling by saying she will do everything she’s told on the other hand, his reasoning behind it is to supply everything for his daughter, to have a rewarding and hopeful future. He wants his daughter to be capable of supporting her future family. Her father doesn’t want her to struggle similar to her parents. Therefore, authoritarian parenting is used more commonly in the Asian community.

For western society, many parents frequently use authoritative parenting. This type of parenting method is regularly used for better and successful relationships. It consists of parent’s being extra encouraging, and compassionate to their child. Whereas authoritarian parenting is unquestionably contrasting to authoritative parenting. One’s parent is more probable to convey less assistance, less general support, and more reinforcement of orderliness. Asian cultures tend to use authoritarian style parenting substantially more than others. The western society portrays authoritarian demeanor as detrimental to the child’s psychological health, however to the Asian society, authority is absolutely mandatory. It is used to shelter and protect their children nevertheless this will cause emotional distress and development issues further down the line. Most parents have the right intentions but then again the considerable amount of control frequently make children feel give the impression of being trapped. In an article, Vietnamese participants stated: “Vietnamese adolescents perceived their parents as too protective and controlling, rarely allowing them to assert their independence. One adolescent said, “My parents are so protective. They never give any power for me to do anything on my own” (VFG). The adolescents believe that parents have to learn to let go of their children and allow them to experience what is right and wrong in life, and learn to take responsibility for their own actions”(Xiong & Detzner, 2004-05, p. 8).

Considerable amounts of parents arrange regulations for their child. The child is anticipated to listen without questioning and to obey, comparable to a one-way conservation. These adolescents feel as if their parents have an excessive amount of control over them, therefore they can’t experience or enjoy life. Instead, they’re in hopes that their parents should be more involved emotionally and sympathetic. Individuals view their parents very unfavourably.

Parent’s authoritarian methods give their children thriving education however, they additionally repressed their emotions and expect their children to do as well. If a child wants to address concerns they take it as if you’re disagreeing and talking back. In a interview study most of the participants voiced numerous negative accounts over positive about their relations with their parents, one of the participants expressed: ‘The great divide between immigrant parents who emphasize instrumental forms of love and children who carve open displays of affection was evident in the following conversion, which occurred between Dat and his father… Dat recalled, “I tried saying ‘I love you’ one time and he looked at me and said, ‘Are you American now? You think this is The Brady Bunch? You don’t love me. You love me when you can support me”’. These different cultural definitions of love contributed to respondent’s constructions of immigrant parents as unloving and cold” (Pyke, 2004, p. 247). Dat was around eight years old, he would dream about sitting down with his father and communicating about their feelings although his dad would always shut him down when he tried. This affected his development and he felt like he could never express feelings or show affection to his father about anything. He would watch American family TV shows and hang out with his American friends and questioned why his father could not be like that.

Mental health can be influenced by the authoritarian parenting style. Children may feel depressed and have lower self-esteem than parents who provided an authoritative parenting style but more research needed to explore possibilities. One’s mental state is affected by relationships with their parents.

In a research study about Vietnamese American teenagers it indicates: ‘Accordingly, the results indicate that adolescents who experience this type of parenting style do generally report higher levels of depression and lower levels of self- esteem. The logistic analyses with parenting style as the dependent variable also found that adolescents who report higher depression or lower self-esteem tended to perceive their parents’ parenting style as authoritarian… These dynamics can cause tension in the family, create a strained parent– child relationship, and adversely affect the mental health of adolescents as well as their parents” (Nguyen, 2008, pg. 344).

The findings indicate the authoritarian method does affect depression and may cause lower self-esteem. Vietnamese American adolescents face hardships in adapting to Western values/parenting and their parent’s traditional values/parenting. This may cause a difficult relationship with their parents and mental health will start declining substantially.

Families should be provided with support groups, education forms their ethnic community center, church, temple, or schools. It may benefit their relationship. Research by Nguyen (2008) the following study suggests that the challenge that affects Asian families are overcoming the language and cultural barriers that may affect their relationships with each other: “Because the core challenge lies in the families’ ability to overcome cultural and language barriers, it would be helpful for practitioners to link their services through these cultural media to lessen mental health stigma and, most importantly, to increase the family’s willingness to share and allow access to intimate family issues and to participate in treatment.. With support from bicultural, bilingual social workers, Vietnamese parents might be willing to talk about their issues while they are waiting for the children to complete their language or religious classes” (Nguyen, 2008, pg. 344). For a mental illness to decrease this study suggest to go to support groups or classes. Families must be willing to talk about their issues with another individual. Bilingual social workers must know cultural differences in parenting styles and support Asian parents to talk about their problems to others. If they do not have the resources or go out to seek help it will affect one’s psychological state.

Asian immigrant parents, generally want the best for their children. However, do not portray it successfully. They are perceived as uncaring and demanding but in reality, they just want the best for you but express it in their way. However, don’t know that it might affect their child’s mental health negatively. Their child can despise their parents for not showing enough affection and love. Parents and their kids should comprehend and accept that western and traditional culture/values is different and should reach out for additional help if they feel their mental health is declining. Both parties must be willing to communicate with each other instead of repressing emotions.