Category: Asian American Discrimination

Intercultural Communications Contemporary Tensions

Intercultural communication is communication between two individuals or groups of different cultural origins or social groups and how culture affects communication between the two individuals or groups. It can be defined as a concept and competence that individuals or groups should acquire to facilitate better communication. Acquiring intercultural competence equips one with qualities that can enhance intercultural communication. It means having skills, knowledge, and attitudes towards understanding intercultural communication. Intercultural communication not only studies the interaction between individuals from different cultures, social, educational, racial and ethnic backgrounds but also studies social attributes, the culture and thought patterns of these groups. Intercultural conflict may erupt where people from different cultural backgrounds have incompatible communication, goals, values or scarce resources. America with its diverse population is one state that experiences intercultural clashes. The Asian Americans-African American interethnic clash is one of the intercultural communication situations that create tense.

Socially, one of the major causes of the Asian-American and African-American clash is the rise of the Asian-American socioeconomic ladder. This remarkable climbing of the Asian-American socioeconomic ladder was attributed to different aspects. According to Fuchs (np), investments in the education sector led to this upward mobility. Asians are highly educated and excel compared to other minorities such as African-Americans. Higher education, highly skilled and hardworking earned the Asian Americans more opportunities hence their excelling as they had higher incomes compared to the blacks (Fuchs np). There was a little language barrier between the whites and the Asian Americans and they could understand one another easily compared to the blacks. This made the whites to work closely with the Asians. As a result, the Asians had more opportunities than blacks. Getting more opportunities compared to the African Americans led to conflicts between the two racial groups. However, Guo (np) claims that the rise in the socioeconomic status of Asian Americans is a result of less racist towards them by their fellow Americans. Apart from their color, Asian Americans are classified as the most hardworking, law-abiding and non-complainant race in America.

By the 1950s and 1960s, the Asian Americans became the model minority for their success as they had increased their household earnings closing their wage gap with the white Americans (Guo np). The model minority stereotype has its origin tangled up in different aspects of minority struggles for equality such as rising of the civil rights movement, geopolitics and civil wars. Being regarded as the model minority created racial clashes with the African-Americans. For instance, after the civil wars, the Asian-American voice was more valued than any other minority voice by the political leaders since the whites liaised with the Asians to fight the other minority groups. For instance, during the Cold War, whites sought Asian support. As a result, the African Americans in the 1960s fought for equality questioning the Asian favors by the whites. This means that geopolitics played a crucial role in eliminating the Asian American discrimination by other Americans. The Asians seemed to be capable of assimilating American life hence been considered as the best potential American citizens (Fuchs np).

The white politicians co-opted Asian Americans during the Cold War intending to earn their support as allies to win the war (Fuchs np). Also, during the civil rights movement, the whites liaised with the Asian Americans as they had declared them as their preferred race. As a result, the Asians seemed to be favored which made the other minority groups crash with the Asian Americans. Been portrayed as a hardworking race that had unwavering faith by the whites, the African Americans could not find a convenient way to convince the whites about their demands. Since the Asians were collaborative with the whites while the blacks opposed the white ruling, it became easy for Asian Americans to become American citizens compared to the African Americans (Guo np). Hence, the whites’ liaising with the Asians more than the blacks create the Asian American-African American interethnic conflicts.

Works Cited

1. Guo, Jeff. 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/the-real-reason- Americans-stopped-spitting-on-Asian-Americans-and-started-praising-them/. Accessed 9 Oct 2019.
2. Fuchs, Chris. ‘Behind The ‘Model Minority’ Myth: Why The ‘Studious Asian’ Stereotype Hurts’. NBC News, 2017, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/behind-model- minority-myth-why-studious-Asian-stereotype-hurts-n792926.

The issue of diversity has been present for a very long time and it has been subject to many debates with various leaders taking a different position regarding the matter. The world today as it was many decades ago is a diverse place with people coming from diverse backgrounds in terms of their culture, political and religious views, race and ethnicity and diversity of thoughts among others. Several strides have been made over the years in trying to promote diversity. However, the issue was a big problem especially during the period of slavery and the decades after the Civil War. The period 1865 to 1920 perhaps presented some of the biggest challenges in managing diversity. The period after the Civil War saw former slaves attained some form of freedom and renewed opportunities of interacting with other members of the society but the freedom were short-lived as some laws were later enacted to curtail or reduce such freedoms. Unfortunately, it came with a lot of prejudices especially among people who felt that they were superior to others. That period also saw large numbers of immigrants coming from Europe and Asia despite facing a lot of social and political restrictions. Although there are laws that tried to encourage diversity, several deliberate efforts were made in terms of coming up with laws and policies meant at discouraging and dealing with the issue of diversity. It is therefore important to note that the political policies in the period from 1865 to the 1920s generally tried to hinder or restrict diversity and the “melting pot”, in part because of widespread prejudices.

Three Examples

One example worth mentioning is the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. During that period of time, the U.S saw an influx of immigrants into the country. On its onset, many of the immigrants were welcomed although the Asians were not. Asians were especially resented because they were seen as coming from an alien culture. They were also not welcomed because of the mentality that they seemed ready and willing to work in harsh conditions with meager pay, therefore, they were destroying the wages paid to workers by offering cheap labor. The Act was passed by Congress in 1882 after more anti-Chinese agitation sentiments intensified in California and the west. The Act placed a ban of ten years for Chinese immigrants from entering the U.S. The other legislation related to the Chinese Exclusion Act in the 19th and 20th century that hindered and restricted diversity was the Jim Crow laws. Towards the end of the 1870s saw many African Americans lose many civil rights that they had received during the reconstruction period. The rights became subject to racial discrimination was there was an increase in cases of increased racist violence and lynching. In practice the law allowed racial segregation to be practiced in public institutions and facilities form 1870sn to 1880s. The law was upheld by the U.S Supreme court in 1896 under the “separate but equal” legal doctrine. Public facilities such as schools, public transport, medical care, housing, and employment were segregated by race. The separate but equal doctrine made racial segregation to appear not to violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution that guaranteed all people “equal protection” in the eyes of the law. However, in practice, there was no equality because the services offered to African Americans and people of color were usually below standards, inferior and poorly funded compared to those offered to the white Americans.

This could be seen from the bank’s lending practices, employment preference discrimination, and labor union practices. The Jim Crow laws trampled own the gains that had been made during the reconstruction era where legalized slavery had ended allowing citizenship for former slaves. However, the laws made African Americans to become second-class citizens. The period from 1863 to 1877 with President Lincoln setting up the Freedmen’s Bureau in 1865 to assist former slaves receive better healthcare, get education and employment. The thirteenth amendment brought to end slavery. Most radicals at the time tried to impose some more legal restrictions that would deny the former rebels voting rights and the opportunity of holding elective positions. While this was happening, there was a conflict between some Indian tribes and the miners, settlers, and ranchers. The government decided to force American Indians to be assimilated to the general society or be assigned reservations and be forcefully kept there. In 1887 the Dawes Act was enacted in a bid to integrate the American Indians to the mainstream and be absorbed to the American society. The ones that refused to be assimilated and were left to languish in poverty on the reservations where they were supported using federal food, medicine, and education. The Dawes Act was clearly a political policy that aimed at dictating the means by which different ethnicities could be accepted within the American mainstream society and given land to farm. It thus hindered and or restricted diversity as a result of the widespread prejudice that the American Indians. It, therefore, means that the political leaders of the time had the power to determine whoever received certain services through the laws that they were enacting.

Another legislation during that period that seemed to suggest that the political policies of the time played a key role in hindering or restricting diversity and the “melting pot” largely in part as a result of the widespread prejudices. One such policy was the Immigration act of 1924 passed by Congress. The period immediately after the civil war saw several people migrating to the U.S from different countries and continents in search of better living and plenty of opportunity in terms of jobs and farming land. The law was passed in response to a large number of immigrants that were coming from places considered by the policymakers of that time to be unwanted to the Anglo-Saxon. The country had received growing sentiments from the public who were against unrestricted immigration. The Act introduced quotas by restricting the number of immigrants coming from certain countries. For instance, immigrants coming from southern and eastern Europe and Asia was restricted to less than 2% of the total number of population of people living in America at that time. This can be seen in the context that the leadership at the time was wary of the future racial composition of America. Persching a close ally to the president at the time was present during the signing of the bill a clear indication that he was in support for it and the views of the policymakers. The immigration lawn became selective because the number allocated to each country every year took into account a proportion of the number of nationalities that were present in the U.S by 1920.

The third aspect at play that hindered diversity was the Anti-miscegenation laws. The laws outlawed marriages between whites and non-whites. In practice, the laws mainly targeted the marriage between whites and blacks. Other states also passed laws that outlawed marriages between the whites and Native Americans or Asians. A case in point is Utah’s 1899 marriage and anti-miscegenation law outlawing marriage between whites and anybody that was considered to be a Negro, mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, Mongolian and Malay race while it remained silent on the marriage between people that were not “white persons”. Outlawing marriage between people from different backgrounds meant that the policies were supposed to ensure that there was no cultural exchange and that people who were considered as minority continued being marginalized and remained in poverty. This was yet another clear indication that the policies were meant to further segregate people and prevent inter-marriages that could promote diversity within the nation. Even in the armed forces, the units were segregated where black soldiers received poor training and equipment yet they were usually put on the frontline when in battles.

Dealing With the Opposing View

But while it is evident that the political leadership at the time did a lot to ensure that huddles were placed on diversification, there are others that may disagree with my thesis and argue that political policies in the period from 1865 to the 1920s generally tried to promote diversity and “the melting pot” despite the strong prejudices from the few. The policies during that period support the notion that the leadership was afraid of or unwilling to accept a diverse nation. Legislations such as the Jim Crow Act is a clear pointer to this fact. According to that law, sort to promote racial segregation in public facilities. The whites had better schools, better healthcare, and better recreational facilities and were employed ion plum jobs. On the other hand the African Americans, Asians and people of color lived in poor housing, their schools had fewer facilities with teachers that were not properly trained, poor health facilities and they were considered second-class citizens with the introduction of the “separate but equal” doctrine that served to make the Jim Crow Act not appear to contravene the fourteenth amendment that guaranteed all citizens equal protection within the law. These laws were an affront to the freedom and diversity that could help integrate people from different backgrounds to live peacefully with one another.

The Chinese Exclusion Act also banned the Chinese for ten years from migrating to the U.S for they were considered to be of a different culture and they were ready to work in harsh conduction in exchange of small wages, therefore, providing cheap labor. The Chinese whom were mostly brought in the north to work on the railroads were unwanted by the community because they were seen as having taken up the job opportunities present by offering cheap labor under some of the harshest conditions. The number of other Asians entering the U.S was also restricted to 2% of the total number of their population in the U.S by 1920. The Dawes Act put a condition for the American Indians being able to win farming lands where they were forced to be assimilated to the mainstream American society or remain enclosed in reservations where they would be left to languish in poverty. These tactics were hindering racial diversity among the population in the U.S during that period of time. Women were also disadvantaged as they were not allowed to vote because of the prejudice that they were not yet ready to make the right decisions regarding the political leadership of the nation until after several demonstrations and agitation by the women suffrage before they could be allowed to exercise their democratic right of choosing their political leaders and taking part in the elections. These are some of the political tactics used by the political leaders at the time to hinder diversity in part by their widespread prejudices.

Legacy Today and Conclusion

The issue of diversity continues to play a big role in the world today especially in the workplace and in different professions. The diversity as covered over the decades has helped to shape the rules and regulations that revolve around hiring in the workplace. Deliberate efforts have been made over time to make sure that the workforce is as diverse as possible. Many organizations have policies touching on diversity at the workplace where employers are required as a matter of law to make sure that their workforce does not consist of people from one ethnic background. Diversity has also promoted cohesion because working with people from different backgrounds promotes cultural exchange and understanding of how different cultures behaves. Perhaps the most important role that diversity has played is the fact that a person can work anywhere in the world provided they are competent and they have the qualifications that are needed for the job. It has also promoted inter-marriages between people from different cultural backgrounds thereby making the world a global; the village where people can live, work and interact with one another from any part of the world. The laws ensure that there is a fair share that anybody that is qualified can be employed based on their qualifications and not factors such as race and ethnicity. Laws were also enacted to ensure that the issue of equality is upheld and that all citizens are equal before the law and are supposed to receive the important services form the government of state without being discriminated against or segregated in schools, hospitals, houses and or recreational facilities. One can get an education in different countries and even get employed theirs without the fear of being victimized as was the case during those years.

Preserving the American Dream

The American dream, is “a happy way of living that is thought of by many Americans as something that can be achieved by anyone in the U.S. especially by working hard and becoming successful” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.), This definition is used to describe ‘The American Dream’ and is a representation for the ideals that America is striving for, however is it still applicable in this day and age? The inequality in income in America is larger than in other Western countries, including the two largest European nations based on their GDP, respectively, Germany and the United Kingdom (Jenkins & Van Kerm, 2006). This income inequality is largely being tolerated by the American population and it seems that there is little support for public policies to reduce the difference, because of the belief that either they themselves, or their children are likely to climb the economic ladder, this belief is called the “prospect of upward mobility” hypothesis (Benabou & Ok., 2001). Nonetheless, there seems to be a connection between income inequality and the ability to achieve the American Dream, income inequality can reduce the effects of one talent and hard work, and let family background and upbringing play a larger role in deciding the future of young people (OECD., 2011). The American Dream is a crucial part of America and should be preserved, to restore the value of the American Dream there must be a decrease in the inequality in income. Two possible solutions for this problem are a change in taxation and reforming the funding system for public schools, the change in taxation would directly affect the gap between the ‘rich’ and the ‘poor’, while the reform of the funding system would increase the opportunities for the less fortunate.

Taxation can be used to reduce income inequality in America, by favoring the wealthy less and using their share of tax to help the poor. Taxation for income of dividends is different than the taxation for ‘normal’ income, for example, the upper bracket of the marginal tax rate is 37 percent, meanwhile the upper bracket for capital assets and dividends is 20 percent (Thornton & Hendricks, 2019). In 2013, 92 percent of the 10 percent of highest earning households owned stocks with an average value of $969,000, This means that a large source of income for the wealthiest people is getting taxed differently than the income of an average Joe. To reduce the income inequality in America it is essential that the income of families should be taxed the same, no matter if it is through dividends or not. A solution for this is to align the dividend tax rate to the marginal tax rate of income, this would mean that the tax for dividends would be at least ten percent and at most 37 percent. These additional funds could then be used to help the poor, by giving the lowest-income households a tax break which then could be compensated with the additional tax revenue generated, because of the new tax system for dividends.

However, there may be another solution to this problem, to reduce income inequality in the long term, education seems like a possible solution as well. In America, public schools receive funding from three different sources: federal, state, and local sources (Biddle & Berliner, 2002). Fifty percent of the funding; however, is provided through the local property taxes, This means that schools in low-income areas receive less funding than schools in high-earning areas, because the high-income areas often have more expensive houses, so they need to pay more property taxes, for the low-income areas applies the opposite (National Center for Education Statistics, 1998). With access to more funding, the schools in high-income regions often provide better education since they can afford to pay higher wages to teachers, and they can buy ‘better’ learning material for example: recent books, tutoring programs, etc… Students are not granted the same level of education and this is crucial in keeping the American dream alive. If students get different qualities of education, the gap between the rich and the poor will remain, since the poor will get a worse education so they are not able to go to renowned universities and colleges, This means that they also have a decreased chance of gaining a quality degree and with that obviously comes a decrease in the chance of obtaining a job that pays well. To level the educational playing field and with that the income inequality in the long run, the funding system for public schools should be adjusted, instead of funding through the local property taxes, there should be a national amount per student-funded and an additional bonus for every public school. This will grant the schools relatively the same budget, because for every single enlisted student, a school gets X amount of money, for example, if X would be $2000, then for every student a school has, for our example, we will use 200 students, a school would get 200 x 2000= $400,000 as its budget. Furthermore, the additional bonus will benefit the schools that prioritize the success of their students, it will motivate the public schools and their teachers to achieve the highest number of graduates possible and to use their recourses as efficiently as possible (Martin, Boser, Benner, & Baffour, 2018).

During the 1900s, there were lots of controversy between America and other axis countries. There is so many reasons why the Japs and Americans were at each other necks. First, the Japs had attacked Pearl Harbor and this was one of the brutalist attacks that has ever happened. The Americans didn’t react fast enough and didn’t know what to do once it had happened. All they could do is try and fight for their country and their lives. At that time, President Roosevelt was the president and the attack affected how Americans look at the Japanese descent. America had restricted all trades to Japan because they didn’t want anything to do with them. The Americans were forced to enter the war because they had been attacked and it was time to wake up the sleeping giant. After, Roosevelt had died Harry Truman had to take over and finish the battle with a bang. If President Truman turned to me and asked would I drop the atomic bomb on Japan, I would have said yes because they attacked us unexpectly and now its time they see how it feels, the Americans would cut the chances of the having another invasion on their soldiers, and the Japs would have no choice to surrender and the war will be over.

The Japs attacked the Americans on December 7,1941 in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. This was one of the craziest wars that affected the Americans and created so much hatred toward the Japs. The Americans started teaching their children to hate the Japs in class. ‘The Japanese race is an enemy race’, wrote Lieutenant General John DeWitt in Final Report, ‘Japanese Evacuation from the West Coast’ (1942). “While many second and third generation Japanese born on American soil, possessed of American citizenship, have become ‘Americanized’, the racial strains are undiluted”. So, all of the Japanese descent were booted out of America and but into an internment camp located in a gated area away from society. They were excluded from society because of the decisions that the Japanese made. It effected both races and the Americans had most of the control of what they wanted to do about the situation. The Americans wanted the Japs to feel their pain that they experience during the Pearl Harbor attack and more.

Second, the Americans would cut the chances of the having another invasion by the Japanese. President Truman said that they rather protect their men then put their life in risk if they don’t end this war as soon as possible. He declared that the two atomic bombs should be dropped on Japanese cities because “an invasion would cost at a minimum one quarter of a million casualties, and might cost as much as a million, on the American side alone’. The president added that “a quarter of a million of the flowers of our young manhood was worth a couple of Japanese cities”. (Walker 4,5). This just shows that he values his young soldiers’ lives. The soldiers were very grateful for him because some presidents wouldn’t have thought that way about the situation. Truman made that decision because his country is valuable to him and his peers.

The Japanese would have no choice but to surrender and the war will be ended with the Americans victory. It had finally come to the moment were the Americans where about to drop the two atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Hiroshima it is the port city and army headquarters in southern Japan. “It killed approximately 78,000 people including thousands of Japanese soldiers and 23 American Prisoners of war housed in the city” (Shi 990). This first bomb had done more damage than the Americans had expected. Anything that was close to that area they were burned to death by the radiation. Also, if anyone looked into the fire their eyes would be fried to death. They had so much damage to recover from that it would take years to get everything back to normal. Truman and his aids, frustrated by the stubborn refusal of Japanese leaders to surrender (Shi 991). If Japan would just surrender at that moment then nobody else would have been effected from the second atomic bomb. But since they didn’t surrender the second bomb was dropped and the Japanese finally gave in. They surrendered on August 14,1945 and the ceremony was on September 22,1945. Finally, American had the victory over Japan, and Truman was so victorious because he saved his country and soldiers from another disaster.

With my actions on agreeing with Truman for dropping the atomic bomb, you will find that some people with disagree. They will feel that we shouldn’t have reacted in that way and using violence to defeat a country that started with us first. The Japanese felt some type of way because we ruined two countries that were very important to them. So, I would see why people would disagree with that decision because what if that was our country they were destroying. Always put yourself in their shoes, and you would feel completely destroyed in life and depressed. Also, when the Americans sent the Japanese descent off to an Internment camp in a gated area. Basically, they were removed because of their race and was forced to lose everything that they worked for in the United States.

In conclusion, both Americans and Japanese were wrong for their actions but they will never see it in that way. They did what they had to do to protect their country and people. Truman made the wises decision by releasing that bomb because the Japs came and attacked Pearl Harbor, then the Americans had to decided if they wanted to wait or go ahead and make the final decision. Japan was finally able to surrender and the Americans were able to relax.