Racism of Decades Past - Essay Example

Racism of decade’s past was visible, tangible, and brutal. The history of the United s is colored with and endless slew of examples of racism, including Slavery, internment camps, and anti-Muslim hate crimes. Although terrifying to those on the receiving end of this racism, visible racism is easier to locate and fight against. In contrast to this visible racism, today’s preferred racism of choice is more subtle and more difficult to locate. It resides within the walls of government buildings, courthouses, and educational facilities and, although it is constantly present during policy formation and implementation, during trials and sentencing, and during curriculum development and funding initiatives, the power of this form of racism is that it has worked its way into the very foundations of every institution, becoming entrenched in every process until it has been rendered invisible. Its presence is known, but avenues to fight against institutionalized racism are strictly curtailed by the argument of those in power that racism no longer exists. Racism today is more cunning and sly, appearing in posters depicting “Asian” car bombs dropping on America and politicians who weave racist rhetoric into public speeches. In the end, it is argued that systemic racism is far more difficult to dismantle than overt racism because it is present for minorities at every step in the upward trajectory to success. An example of systemic racism is the “model minorities” theory which posits that certain ethnic groups are more likely to become successful due to genetic qualities that are particular to their culture. Deborah Woo elaborates on this theory by stating that these differences are perceived as natural and innate, and seen as the real cause of social inequality between ethnic groups (194). For example, because of the perceived success of Asian Americans versus the perceived lack of success of African Americans in the United States, “model minorities” theory suggest that these differences between the two ethnic groups are a result of personal flaws and faults, rather than institutionalized disadvantages and biographical advantages. In this regard, the dominant group shifts blame from “us” to “them” in the process of victim-blaming, in which the marginalized group is held accountable for their own problems. This situation proves destructive to both groups in the binary between desirable and undesirable minorities because the theory is created in such a way to instigate hostility in inter-ethnic groups, unattainable expectations for intra-ethnic groups, and the subordination of all ethnic groups to the dominant group, regardless of the marginalized group’s level of success in comparison to the dominant group. Unfortunately, the case of Vincent Chin is the brutal manifestation of the “model minorities” theory. Deborah Woo’s article, “The Inventing and Reinventing of ‘Model Minorities’”, serves three purposes: first, it explains how Asian Americans were cast in the role of model minority; second, it discusses how this myth of the model minority is invented and reinvented by a dominant group who benefits from its existence; and third, it outlines the consequences of creating and encouraging the myth for the model minority as well as the unfavorable minority. Starting in the 1970s, Asian Americans were heralded as the “good” immigrants who achieved high educational status and affluent positions in industry and society. This over-generalized information is frequently cited as a counter attack against affirmative action projects. The central argument is as follows: if certain minorities can achieve success with minimal assistance from the United States government, why can’t the other minorities? In this regard, the minorities in precarious socio-economic situations are perceived as having a lack of intelligence or a lack of determination to succeed and, thus, should not be entitled to a “hand out” from the State. Central to this theory is the Horatio Alger myth, which tells the story of a man from humble beginnings who “pulled himself up by his bootstraps” to become an extremely successful member of society (Woo 193). However, although there are a few cases in which this story rings true, the myth is the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of Asian Americans who have become successful in America have done so as a result of being beneficiaries of additional avenues of support, including family wealth and status, social connections, and pre-immigration skills and education. However, these biographical details are purposefully omitted from the news stories because, if included, they would serve to undercut the Alger myth, which would serve to dismantle the “model minorities” theory (Woo 196). The preservation of this myth serves the dominant society in that it creates the justification needed to remove social funding for minority advancement, it silences the model minorities from complaining about obvious injustices against their group because the myth results in casting racism as non existent between the dominant and model groups, and it creates tensions between the minority groups which effectively inhibits their ability or desire to create a collective and cohesive voice against oppression. The “model minorities” theory is, quintessentially, the story of the unscrupulous parent who favors one child over the other, which results in psychologically damaging both children, equally. All countries are built on stories, known as the writing of History, that cast certain groups in the roles of protagonist and antagonist; “stories about Asian Americans which have been tailored to mirror the ethos of the American Dream generally attribute this population’s resourcefulness and resilience to cultural values” (Woo 197). However, Woo argues that these stories are invented and reinvented myths that are maintained through five avenues (196-207). Firstly, the media tends to highlight only certain stories that construct Asian Americans as successful, while ignoring biographical information that would disprove the believe that these individuals achieved success as a result of their own, unassisted initiative; biographical details frequently show that these Asian Horatio Alger’s started out from “high rings of that ladder” of success (Woo 197). Secondly, the argument that all Asians tend to achieve higher levels of success in education attainment ignores the reality that Asian American families tend to have more financial and social support to ensure that their children attend better schools, for longer periods of time. Thirdly, over-generalized statistics on Asian American groups fails to take notice of the divergent levels of success within the heterogeneous category of “Asian”, and it also ignores the cultural reality that Asian American families tend to have more members contributing paid and unpaid labor to the family’s income levels. Fourthly, once statistics start accurately reflecting the different realities of groups within the “Asian” category, the argument of the connection between culture and mobility will become tentative at best. Lastly, the “model minorities” theory “maintains the status quo”. “Given the value placed on social quality in the United States, gross inequities have been a source of national embarrassment, ill ease, and the source of social if not ideological crises;” therefore, the political agenda behind the theory is to redirect blame for discrepancies and failures at the institutional level towards the individual level, in which the ethnic group is seen as the maker of their own misfortunes (Woo 205). As discussed in class, the “model minorities” theory revolves around issues of identity and belonging. This theory works on a three-fold premise: first, the dominant class, defined as white Europeans, is perceived as rightful heirs of the United States, and thus their identity as legitimate citizens is universal, fixed, and infallible; second, as a group that rightfully belongs in America, the dominant group also believes it is their right to construct the “other” – non-white ethnic groups – as enemies or friends of the State; third, regardless of the actual citizenship of non-white ethnic groups, because of the process of “othering”, they will always be considered illegitimate, inauthentic, and undeserving aliens in America. Regardless of Vincent Chin’s family history, which includes a father who worked in America for almost 60 years, fought in World War Two on the American side, and raised a family as American citizens, Vincent Chin would always remain an outsider to “legitimate” citizens, synonymous with white citizens, and to the legal system that continuously shows favor towards white defendants in terms of more lenient sentences for criminal acts (Zia 62-63). The consequences of upholding the “model minorities” theory are obvious. As a result of this theory, the model minority is subjected to abuses on three different levels. On the inter-ethnic level, hostilities between the model minority and their unsavory counterpart arise as a result of the dominant “parent” playing favorites. These hostilities were seen in the Vincent Chin case, in which the AFL was initially not supported by African American activist groups, such as the NAACP (Zia 72-73). Their arguments against the AFL were as follows: first, Asian Americans do not experience racism and, thus, cannot claim civil rights violations; and second, Asian Americans have prospered as African Americans have suffered. These hostilities manifest in physical and psychological attacks in which violence between inter-ethnic minority groups become more common. In addition, this segregation also serves to keep minority groups from creating a powerful voice in opposition to the dominant group because of deep seated hostilities towards each other – hostilities that were instigated by the dominant group. Consequences of the theory also manifest themselves between the model minority group and the dominant group, especially when the minority group is perceived as “out-doing” the dominant group in terms of educational and financial success. The racist mentality of Ebens and Nitz is not an isolated incident among these two men, but a widespread hatred of the achievements of the “other” that is nurtured and encouraged through systemic racism. The reason why Ebens and Nitz reacted so violently to Vincent Chin was because the political and public sentiment of the day was that Asians, all Asians, were responsible for the economic crisis experienced in Detroit at that time. Rather than focusing on their own deficiencies, which would result in having to take the blame and correcting the mistakes, governments search out scapegoats to shoulder the burden of national failure. This type of strategic maneuvering creates an atmosphere, rife with racial hatred, which frequently manifests into physical violence on the individual level, in which the dominant group assumes the role of cowboys, enacting “frontier justice” on minority groups, defined as the enemy within (Zia 69). The deadly consequences of this maneuvering is see throughout the pages of history, most poignantly in the treatment of Indigenous peoples in the Americas, the annihilation of Jews as part of the Nazi agenda, and the daily struggles faced by people of Middle Eastern and South-East Asian descent after September 11th. The very real consequence of this theory is the death of the model minority with impunity. In the end, the collaborators in Vincent Chin’s death, from the men who wielded the bat, to the judge who set them free, and to the national rhetoric that spun the sentiment of anti-Asian hatred, were exempt from punishment. The final consequence of the theory is the inner turmoil it causes the model minority. First, it effectively silences their ability to speak out against injustice because, as they are perceived to be in a good position relative to other ethnic groups, they do not want to “make waves” with the dominant group. This results in a lifetime of enduring humiliation, in silence, without recourse. In addition, it sets unattainably high standards for all ethnic groups who fall under the umbrella category of belonging to a particular race. For example, individuals of East Asian decent have, historically, had access to more formal and informal sources of support and, as a result, tend to do better in terms of educational and career success. However, individuals of South-East Asia have a muddled history with colonial conquest and capitalistic endeavors, which has resulted in lower educational and economic opportunities for the inhabitants. By not taking these important histories under consideration, the umbrella category of “Asian” serves to further humiliate East and South-East Asian groups by pointing an accusatory finger at them while asking, ‘if your Japanese and Chinese brothers can become tycoons of world business, why can’t you, Indonesians and Cambodians?’ This causes individuals who are considered part of the model minority group, but who do not live up to the standards, to internalize feelings of inadequacy, shame, and anger, which maintains their subordinate position, while fueling intra-ethnic hostilities. The rationale behind the “model minorities” theory is simple; it creates an oppressive environment for all minority groups, while playing favorites to ensure that minority groups are busy hating each other rather than the legitimate source of these conflicts. It also, simultaneously, provides justification for the atrocities instigated by the dominant group against the minority group on the grounds that the minority groups are not legitimate citizens who are not entitled to the same freedoms and rights. Deborah Woo’s article explains why the theory was created, how it is maintained, and how it is constantly invented and reinvented to serve the dominant class. Helen Zia’s article depicts the grisly outcome of the theory as it shifts from racist concept to tangible forms of racist hatred, as seen in the brutal killing of Vincent Chin, and the battle to secure justice against an unjust legal system. Although the theory figures prominently in the national rhetoric, the rallying of marginalized groups for the purpose of securing justice for Vincent Chin must be viewed as the happy ending to this tragic story, in that, the theory can only work if people continue to accept their position in society as unchangeable and continue to endure the humiliation and oppression in silence. Works Cited Woo, Deborah. “The Inventing and Reinventing of ‘Model Minorities’: The Cultural Veil Obscuring Structural Sources of Inequality.” Asian American Dreams: The Emergence of an American People. Ed. Timothy P. Fong and Larry H. Shinagawa. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2000. 193-212. Print. Zia, Helen. Asian American Dreams: The Emergence of an American People. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003. 55-81. Print. Read More