Bipolar Assimilation of the Latinos and the Asians - Essay Example

Question: What makes both Latinos and Asians different from whites in term of how they express color-blind racism? Answer: The growth of the Latinos and the Asians in the US population not only tends to blur the dichotomous segregation of the US society, but also it overshadows the society’s ideology of color blind racism with a neither-black-nor-white type perspective. Indeed such tendency to substitute the dichotomous ideology of the color-blind racism necessarily evolves either from the racial status (of the Latinos and the Asians in the society) that is almost similar to the ‘black’, the victims of the white-discrimination, or from an diverse racial status that cannot be identified either as black or as white, rather simply be identified as “people of color” as Eileen O’ Brien calls it. Though different scholars speculate a bipolar assimilation of the Latinos and the Asians either with the “white” or with the “black”, O’Brian’s indicates that the Latinos and the Asian have some inherent as well as shaped-by-circumstance perspectives -for color-blind racism- that are significantly capable of assimilating the “black” and the “white” into itself by influencing the apparently antagonistic dichotomous racism of the American society. The perspective from which the Latinos and the Asian views the color-blind racism appears to be unique in comparison to that of the “white’s” or the black’s. Indeed this uniqueness evolves from the polarity of the views that the white and the black hold for each other (Healey, 2010). The white view for the black is grossly influenced by the stereotypical ingredients that continually tend to characterize the black ethnicity within certain moulds. Therefore, Bonilla and Silva’s statistics shows that the highest percent (96%) of American white people are driven by the abstract liberalism frame of color-blind racism, while only 35% of the Latino-Asian population holds the abstract liberal view of it. The polarity of both the white’s and the black’s perspectives on color-blind racism has its root in the history of America. Josef Healey (2010) notes that “blackness” itself as an ideology was crucial to the exploitation of the labor of the African in early America, and it “provided the very source of whiteness and the heart of racism” (Healey, 2010, p. 288). This master-slave relationship greatly influences both the American’s and the Black’s view of the color-blind racism. Whereas the White American’s view is that of a repenting master, the Black people’s view is a grudging slave. This historical dichotomy of bipolar black-white racism is reflected in the following quote: “The discrimination, oppression and hatred experienced by Native Americans, Mexicans, Asian/Pacific Islanders and Arab Americans are forms of racism” (Healey, 2010, p. 288). The percentage of the Latino-Asian is found to be equal to the percentage of the Black who holds the abstract liberal view of the color-blind racism. Indeed the percentages clearly show that when the American white people view color-blind racism from an idealistic viewpoint, the Latino-Asians conform to this idealism at a lower rate. Thus the Latino-Asian view of color-blind racism differentiates itself from both the White’s and the Black’s view- on a realistic basis. Again this intermediate position of the Latino-Asian is further supported by the conformation rates -of the White, the Latino-Asian and the Black- with the minimization frame. These conformation rates reveal the 84% white’s situational ignorance that is almost opposite of the black percentage (6%). But the percentage (50%) of the Latino-Asian more or less reveals their experience what both the White and the Black go through. Again while 88% percent white people believe that racial difference is a cultural factor, only 24% percent of the Black participants are found to support it. But at the same time the percentage of the Latino-Asian (65%) who supports the cultural racism frame reveals that unlike the White and the Black this sect of the US population does not overtly emphasizes the cultural factors to be responsible for racial differences, as O’Brian (2007) says in this regard, “The whitening thesis is partially substantiated in Latinos and Asians’ racial attitudes…the browning thesis is more correct only when it comes to abstract realism” (p. 293). Regarding all the four ideological frame of color-blind racism the Latino-Asians hold the intermediary percentage that distinguish them from both the white and the black. It necessarily reflects that the Latino-Asians do not view a minority from a superior vantage point like the White, neither they view the white dominance as a fact of discrimination like the Black. Question: Is “patriotic assimilation” a reasonable policy to deal with the concerns over “Hispanization”? What would this policy look like if implemented in schools and other institution? Answer: The fact whether “patriotic assimilation” is a reasonable policy to deal with the concern over “Hispanization” primarily depends on what “patriotic assimilation” is and on how “Hispanization” is viewed. In both of the articles, “How to Make an American” and “We Should Not Worry about the Hispanization of the United States” both authors, Fonte (2004) and Fukuyama are in a flaw in terms of their notion of traditional American life; rather Fonte simply calls it the “American of Way of Life”. None of these two authors define what the “American Way of Life” really is. Fukuyama (n.d.) simply refers to a quotation, “America’s religion has been the religion of work” (p. 303). But this sentence is merely a small part of the ethos of American Identity. The way how Huntington defines the American culture, society and religion is certainly not the American Way of Life that the founder fathers of America envisioned. The philosophical basis on which the image of America as a state is built is oft-repeatedly ringed with two terms, “justice” and “protection of human right”. Indeed obviously America is not the country of Huntington’s “Anglo-Protestant” values that are supposed to be built more on blind traditionalism than on rationalism. Both Fonte’s and Huntington’s view of an Anglo-Protestant America is revelation of a hegemonic racist soul, as Healy (2010) says, “The exclusively white/black concept of race and racism in the US rests on a western Protestant form of dualism woven into both race and gender relations from earliest times. In the dualist universe there is only black and white. A disdain, indeed fear, of mixture haunts the Yankee soul; there is no room for any kind of multi-faceted identity, any hybridism.” (p. 289). Regarding the Hispanization of the Southern States of America Fonte as well as a school of American scholars like Huntington shows their anxiety depending on some factual basis. For example, in a study it is reported that “whereas the dominant [American] society is largely protestant, the overwhelming majority of Mexican-American are Catholic and the Church remains one of the most important institutions” (Healey, 2010, p. 287). In this case, Fonte’s concerns over the religious difference as well as some other differences like language, value systems, socioeconomic condition etc between the traditional American and the Hispanics are, though, factual, these authors are idealistically flawed, because the American National Identity is neither religion-specific nor language specific. Though the Hispanics are going to be the largest community by 2050 in the US population, the cultural issues are so well diversified that the ‘Hispanization’ does not pose a threat for the dominant American society and culture (Healey, 2010, p. 286). Rather it can strengthen the color-blind racism of America more ideally. Now if “Hispanization” tends to disintegrate Huntington’s Anglo-protestant traditions that do not go in line with the rational humanitarian basis of America as a state, then “patriotic assimilation” is not the appropriate policy to deal with the concerns over the “Hispanization”. In such case, “patriotic assimilation” does not do anything good but to serve the interest of the bureaucrat and elite class of a society in which values are often found to be fabricated in favor of the most privileged groups. But if “Hispanization” is detrimental to the rationalistic, humanitarian and democratic values of the American Way of Life, simply “assimilation” of the Hispanic Group with the American way of life is enough to deal with the concerns over the Hispanization. Even the real “American Way of Life” does not permit the use of the word “patriotism” if it is devoid of the rationalistic, humanitarian and democratic values of the American Way of Life. Therefore if the Hispanics are properly assimilated with the American Way of Life, patriotism is supposed to be one of the greatest aftermaths of their assimilation and such patriotism will not be devoid of rationalistic and humanitarian values of America and it will not be the obstinate love for the country, when it is unjust in cases like Hitler’s. Also patriotism should be the emotional affinity of a matured individual. Therefore the implementation of the policy in schools will be rather detrimental to the American way of life. Yet simply “assimilation” as a policy to be implemented in schools is far better than “patriotic assimilation”. References Fonte, J. (2004). How to make an American, In J. F. Healy E. O’Brian (Eds.), Race, Ethnicity and Gender (pp. 285-304), Place: Publishers. Fukuyama (n.d.). We should not worry about the Hispanization of the United States. In J. F. Healy E. O’Brian (Eds.), Race, Ethnicity and Gender (pp. 285-304), Place: Publishers. Healey, J. F. (2010). Hispanic American. Diversity and Society Race, Ethnicity, and Gender (pp. 201-304). Place: Publishers. O’Brian, E. (2007). Not white or black, but in Between: Latinos and Asian Americans Expanding the Language of Color-Blind Racism. In J. F. Healy E. O’Brian (Eds.), Race, Ethnicity and Gender (pp. 285-304), Place: Publishers. Read More