It's a question, if properly punctuated.
People do ask whether it's liberal to push for an 'Asian-American' identity; whether it makes historical sense to group together Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipinos etc; whether it's any better (or different) than white chauvinism; whether it's not in fact harmful to the cohesiveness of us 'Americans' as a people (and a democratic constituency).
At the risk of being annoyingly academic, I consider 'Asian-American' a set of issues, a set of questions, rather than simply an identity. And I argue that people have the freedom, in fact should have the freedom, to interpret their own identity as they see fit. That's not a terribly unreasonable position to take, especially since 'assimilation' itself is not inherently good or bad. Two-direction cultural assimilation in the United States is one version, forced one-way 'assimilation' of Koreans into the Japanese Empire (1910-1945), quite a different one. The degree of forcefulness, and the power dynamic is more related to whether or not it's a progressive or oppressive practice.
Recently, I've heard the ostensibly reasonable argument that we're all 'Americans' and we shouldn't have 'Asian-Americans' 'African-Americans' 'Hispanic-Americans' etc. I can't help thinking there's something odd about this argument because it's always directed at these minorities. What that suggests to me is a certain logical blindspot despite the apparent airtightness of the argument. What I want to contribute here is not an outright denial of the validity of this concept of Americanness. Specifically, it's necessary to understand that 'American' is a specific political, but vague cultural category. Furthermore, it's precisely the regressive form of assimilation that only calls upon the minority to become similar to the majority. Hence, before we can dissolve 'Asian-American' into just 'American', we need to also broaden the definition of what it means to be an 'American' in the first place. And that requires educating everyone, not just minorities, to accept a wider range of cultural practices as part of an inclusive 'Americanness'.
End of diatribe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think that, just as it matters who's initiating the assimilation, it matters who's doing the identifying. An individual group promoting its own identity seems to invoke a very different set of arguments than an external group trying to identify someone else.
I think there's definitely a place for self-identified groups, and not just on the basis of ethnicity - why not liberal-americans or gay-americans or whatever. The same arguments seem to hold.
Anyway, I haven't heard from you enough lately. Hope everything's going well there.
KST
I'm alive, though sick. I'm taking aspirin though, so I'm also trying to get some work done as well. Not easy though, when you have a fever. . .
I agree with you totally about different groups and different versions of being 'American'. Again, I think it's a sign of a progressive polity that can accept these alternative formulations. I also think that external and internal definitions of a group are not entirely separate. Being seen as a group (i.e. Asian-Americans) tends to create an internal consciousness of the group, which in turn produces a visible community to outside eyes as well. There are also plenty of examples where external images of a group are reworked by people on the inside, turning a sign of inferiority into a point of pride.
Also, just finished watching 'Hana to Arisu' by Iwai Shunji. Pretty good film, though a bit long.
Post a Comment