Hoe het Asiatiese Amerikaners daarin geslaag om ryker te word as 'n gemiddelde Amerikaner?

Hoe het Asiatiese Amerikaners daarin geslaag om ryker te word as 'n gemiddelde Amerikaner?

Met 'ryker' bedoel ek 'n hoër mediaaninkomste.

Grootskaalse immigrasie van Asiërs na die Verenigde State het in die 19de eeu begin. Aan die begin was die meeste van hulle armer as 'n gemiddelde Amerikaner. In die daaropvolgende eeu neem die inkomste van Asiatiese Amerikaners egter geleidelik toe. Tans het hulle 'n hoër mediaaninkomste as 'n gemiddelde Amerikaner.

Persoonlike en huishoudelike inkomste in die Verenigde State in 2005:

Hoe het hulle dit bereik, al kom hulle oorspronklik uit lande wat baie armer as die Verenigde State was?


Daar is geen goeie antwoord op hierdie vraag nie, want baie Asiaties-Amerikaanse etnisiteite is armer as die Amerikaanse algemene publiek. Die hoë inkomste van Asiatiese Amerikaners is eintlik grootliks te wyte aan Indiese Amerikaners, wat nie noodwendig die groep is waaraan die meeste Amerikaners dink as hulle die term 'Asiatiese Amerikaner' hoor nie.

Kom ons kyk na 'n Pew -studie van 2012 oor "The Rise of Asian Americans:"

Die opname van die Pew Research Center is ontwerp om 'n nasionaal verteenwoordigende steekproef van elk van die ses grootste Asiaties-Amerikaanse groepe per land van herkoms-Chinese Amerikaners, Filippynse Amerikaners, Indiese Amerikaners, Viëtnamese Amerikaners, Koreaanse Amerikaners en Japannese Amerikaners-te bevat. Saam beslaan hierdie groepe ten minste 83% van die totale Asiatiese bevolking in die VSA

Die basiese demografie van hierdie groepe verskil op baie maniere. Byvoorbeeld, Indiese Amerikaners lei alle ander groepe met 'n beduidende marge in hul inkomstevlakke en opvoeding. Sewe uit tien Indiër-Amerikaanse volwassenes van 25 jaar en ouer het 'n universiteitsgraad, vergeleke met ongeveer die helfte van die Amerikaners van Koreaanse, Chinese, Filippynse en Japannese afkoms, en ongeveer 'n kwart van die Vietnamese Amerikaners.

Aan die ander kant van die sosio-ekonomiese grootboek, Amerikaners met 'n Koreaanse, Viëtnamese, Chinese en 'ander Amerikaanse Asiatiese' oorsprong het 'n groter aandeel in armoede as die Amerikaanse algemene publiek, terwyl diegene met 'n Indiese, Japannese en Filippynse oorsprong laer aandele het.

Drie "Asiatiese Amerikaanse" groepe is dus meer geneig om verarm te word as die gemiddelde Amerikaner en drie "Asiatiese Amerikaanse" groepe is nie. Viëtnamese Amerikaners en 'ander Asiatiese Amerikaanse' groepe verdien ongeveer $ 5,000/jaar minder as die gemiddelde Amerikaner ($ 40,000/jaar); die gemiddelde Filippynse Amerikaner verdien ongeveer soveel as die gemiddelde Amerikaner; die gemiddelde Koreaanse Amerikaner verdien $ 5,000 meer, die gemiddelde Chinese Amerikaner verdien $ 10,000 meer, terwyl Japannese Amerikaners gemiddeld $ 15,000 meer verdien en Indiërs ongeveer $ 25,000 meer. Verder verskil hierdie groepe almal van mekaar oor talle ander belangrike kulturele dimensies. Daar is dus geen redelike antwoord op hierdie vraag soos gestel nie. 'N Mens sou afsonderlik moes vra oor die geskiedenis van hierdie groepe.

Bron: Volledige Pew -verslag, 2013


Die Asiatiese voordeel

DIT is 'n ongemaklike vraag, maar hier volg: Waarom is Asiërs-Amerikaners so suksesvol in Amerika?

Dit is geen geheim dat Asiatiese Amerikaners buite verhouding sterre is in Amerikaanse skole en selfs in die Amerikaanse samelewing as geheel nie. Sensusdata toon dat Amerikaners van Asiatiese erfenis meer verdien as ander groepe, insluitend blankes. Asiaties-Amerikaners het ook hoër opvoedkundige prestasies as enige ander groep.

Ek het verlede jaar 'n reeks rubrieke geskryf, "When Whites Just Don't Get It", oor rasse -ongelykheid, en een van die mees algemene reaksies van kwaai blankes was in hierdie rigting: Hierdie dinge oor wit bevoorregting is onsin, en as swartes agterbly, lê die rede in die swart gemeenskap self. Kyk maar na Asiatiese Amerikaners. Daardie Koreane en Chinese haal dit in Amerika omdat hulle hard werk. Alle mense kan hier slaag as hulle net ophou tjank en begin werk.

Kom ons konfronteer die argument direk. Gee die sukses van Asiërs-Amerikaners te kenne dat die ouderdom van diskriminasie agter die rug is?

'N Nuwe wetenskaplike boek, "The Asian American Achievement Paradox", deur Jennifer Lee en Min Zhou, merk op dat Asiër-Amerikaanse immigrante die afgelope dekades met een voordeel begin het: hulle is hoogs geleerd, selfs meer as die gemiddelde Amerikaner. Hierdie immigrante is buite verhouding dokters, navorsers en ander hoogs opgeleide professionele persone.

Dit is nie verbasend dat die kinders van Asiaties-Amerikaanse dokters in die Verenigde State sou floreer nie. Maar Lee en Zhou merk op dat kinders van die werkersklas Asiatiese Amerikaners dikwels ook floreer en merkwaardige opwaartse mobiliteit toon.

En laat ons net een idee uit die weg ruim: dit lyk nie asof die verskil gedryf word deur verskille in intelligensie nie.

Richard Nisbett, 'n professor in sielkunde wat 'n uitstekende boek oor intelligensie geskryf het, haal 'n studie aan wat 'n poel Chinese-Amerikaanse kinders en 'n poel wit kinders gevolg het tot volwassenheid. Die twee groepe het begin met dieselfde tellings op I.Q. toetse, maar uiteindelik het 55 persent van die Asiatiese Amerikaners beroepe met 'n hoë status aangeneem, vergeleke met 'n derde van die blankes. Om as bestuurder te slaag, het blankes 'n IK nodig gehad. van 100, terwyl Chinese-Amerikaners 'n I.Q. van slegs 93.

Die Asiatiese voordeel, voer Nisbett aan, is dus nie intellektuele vuurkrag as sodanig nie, maar hoe dit benut word.

Sommige stem nie saam nie, maar ek is redelik seker dat een faktor die lang konfusiaanse klem van Oos -Asië op onderwys is. Net so help 'n fokus op opvoeding ook om die sukses van Jode te verduidelik, wat na bewering 1700 jaar voor enige ander groep universele manlike geletterdheid gehad het.

Immigrante Oos -Asiërs probeer dikwels besonder goed om in goeie skooldistrikte te kom, of om ander opofferings te maak vir kinders se opvoeding, soos om kinders die beste ruimte in die huis te gee om te studeer.

Daar is ook bewyse dat Amerikaners glo dat A na slim kinders gaan, terwyl Asiërs meer geneig is om na harde werkers te gaan. Die waarheid is waarskynlik iewers tussenin, maar die gevolg is dat Asiatiese-Amerikaanse kinders geen verskoning mag kry om B's-of selfs 'n A-te kry nie. Die grap is dat 'n A- 'n 'Asiatiese F.' is.

Sterk tweeouergesinne is ook 'n faktor. Egskeidingsyfers is baie laer vir baie Asiaties-Amerikaanse gemeenskappe as vir Amerikaners as 'n geheel, en daar is bewyse dat twee-ouer huishoudings minder geneig is om in armoede te versink en ook beter uitkomste vir veral seuns het.

Onderwysers se verwagtinge kan ook 'n rol speel. Hierdie idee is ondersoek in 'n beroemde eksperiment in die 1960's deur Robert Rosenthal en Lenore Jacobson.

Nadat ek I.Q. toetse van studente aan 'n skool in Kalifornië, het die eksperimenteerers die name van 'n vyfde van die kinders wat volgens hulle spesiaal was, aan die onderwysers vertel en na verwagting styg. Hierdie spesiale studente in die eerste en tweede graad het dramaties verbeter. 'N Jaar later het 47 persent van hulle 20 of meer IK gekry. punte.

Tog is die spesiale studente ewekansig gekies. Hierdie 'Pygmalion-effek' was 'n geval van selfvervullende verwagtinge. Onderwysers het hoër verwagtinge vir die spesiale studente gehad en het hulle in staat laat voel - en dit is wat hulle geword het.

Lee en Zhou, van hul kant, dink dat positiewe stereotipering moontlik deel kan wees van 'n verklaring vir die sukses van Asiaties-Amerikaners op skool.

'Hulle sê:' O, jy is Chinees en goed in wiskunde ',' sê 'n meisie met die naam Angela. 'Dit is voordelig as hulle dit dink.'

(Natuurlik skep positiewe stereotipes hul eie las, met soms geweldige spanning op kinders om die A's te verdien, ten koste van die kinderjare. En dit kan moeilik wees vir Asiaties-Amerikaanse kinders wie se vergelykende voordeel nie in wetenskap of wiskunde is nie, maar in teater of punkrock. Onder Asiate is daar soms kommer dat daar te veel fokus is op memorisering, nie genoeg op kreatiwiteit nie.)

'N Ander faktor in Asiatiese skolastiese sukses kan die interaksie van sosiale stereotipes en selfvertroue wees. Geleerdes soos Claude Steele het gevind dat swartes soms aan 'n "stereotipe bedreiging" ly: angs van negatiewe stereotipes benadeel prestasie. Lee en Zhou voer aan dat Asiatiese Amerikaners soms op die teenoorgestelde van 'stereotipe bedreiging', 'n 'stereotipe belofte' ry dat hulle slim en hardwerkend sal wees.

Lee en Zhou sê ook die sukses van Asiatiese Amerikaners, wat nie 'n gebrek aan diskriminasie toon nie, is deels 'n bewys daarvan. Hulle sê Asiatiese Amerikaners werk hard om sukses te behaal in gebiede met duidelike statistieke soos wiskunde en wetenskap, deels as 'n beskerming teen vooroordeel-en in elk geval sien baie Asiërs steeds 'n 'bamboesplafon' wat moeilik is om deur te breek.

Vir my is die sukses van Asiërs-Amerikaners 'n huldeblyk aan harde werk, sterk gesinne en passie vir onderwys. Bravo! Ditto vir die sukses van Jode, Wes -Indiërs en ander groepe wat getoon het dat mobiliteit opwaarts moontlik is, maar laat ons nie die lesse hier oordryf nie.

Waarom moet die sukses van die kinders van Asiatiese dokters, wat deur onderwysers gevoed word, gerusstellend wees vir 'n swart seuntjie in Baltimore wat grootgemaak word deur 'n sukkelende alleenstaande ma, wat die samelewing as 'n moontlike bedreiging beskou? Nadeel en marginalisering is kompleks, dikwels diep gewortel in sosiale strukture en onbewuste vooroordele, soms vererger deur hopeloosheid en selfvernietigende gedrag, en omdat een groep toegang tot die Amerikaanse droom het, beteken dit nie dat alle groepe dit kan nie.

Dus, laat ons die sukses van Asiatiese Amerikaners vier en navolg die respek vir onderwys en sterk gesinne. Maar laat ons nie die sukses van Asiërs gebruik om onsself op die skouer te klop en te maak asof diskriminasie geskiedenis is nie.


Wat het eerste gekom: rykdom of opvoeding?

'N Voorspelbare veranderlike in Asiatiese rykdom is onderwys, het die skrywers geskryf, maar dit is nie die enigste faktor in die vergelyking nie, en dit is ook nie heeltemal lineêr nie. Die winste onder Asiërs as 'n groep laat die vraag ontstaan ​​of onderwys tot hul welvaart bygedra het en of rykdom hulle in staat gestel het om meer opvoeding te verkry.

Die Fed Emmons voel dat dit laasgenoemde is.

"Hoe ryker jy is, hoe meer kan jy bekostig om in onderwys te belê," het Emmons gesê.

In 2013 het 73 persent van die Asiërs van 35-39 jaar 'n graad verder as die hoërskool behaal. Die persentasie was 54 persent vir blankes, 36 persent vir swartes en 23 persent vir Spaans. Die ongelykheid neem toe as daar gekyk word na individue met ten minste 'n vierjarige universiteitsgraad: 65 persent (Asiër), 42 persent (wit), 26 persent (swart) en 16 persent (Spaans).

Die implikasies van hierdie akademiese ongelykheid is verreikend en vorm 'n soort siklus. Die opvoedingsgaping dryf die gaping in die opbou van rykdom, wat op sy beurt die onderwysgaping dryf.

Die finansiële geletterdes kan ryk word deur hul skerpsinnigheid. Of meer rykdom kan u leer oor finansiële kennis, 'sê Rakesh Kocchar, mededirekteur van navorsing by die Pew Research Center 's Hispanic Trends Project. Hy het bygevoeg dat rykdom ook gedryf word deur dit waaraan die individu blootgestel word in hul ekonomiese lewe.

As u nooit groot finansiële keuses hoef te maak nie. Sê iemand met 'n lae opvoedkundige prestasie en werk as 'n busboy, u is nooit 'n 401 (k) aangebied nie en u is afhanklik van regeringsprogramme, dan het u nooit die geleentheid gehad om te leer hoe om geld effektief te bestuur nie, 'het Kocchar gesê.


Asiatiese Amerikaners toe en nou

'N Kykie na die lang geskiedenis van Asiatiese Amerikaners en die rol daarvan in die vorming van Amerikaanse identiteit. Die opstel kyk ook na die stoot-trek-faktore wat gehelp het om die demografiese neigings in die Verenigde State tot vandag toe te definieer, en dek ook 'n paar donkerder tydperke van die Amerikaanse geskiedenis, insluitend die Congressional Exclusionary Act wat immigrasie beperk op grond van ras en die Japannese Amerikaanse internering tydens die Tweede Wêreldoorlog .

Ons kinders moet nie in 'n posisie geplaas word waar hul jeugdige indrukke beïnvloed kan word deur omgang met leerlinge van die Mongoolse ras nie. —San Francisco School Board, 1905

In reaksie op die uitdaging om die demografie meer as 'n eeu gelede te verander, het die San Francisco School Board 'n gesegregeerde Chinese Laerskool vir Chinese kinders gestig, insluitend diegene wat in Amerika gebore is. Teen die begin van die eeu nadat Japannese immigrante hulle gevestig het in die nasleep van Chinese uitsluiting, het die skoolraad ook die Chinese segregasiebeleid op Japannese studente toegepas. Skoolhoof, Aaron Altmann, het die stad se hoofde in kennis gestel: 'Enige kind wat aansoek doen om inskrywing of tans u skool bywoon wat onder die hoof van' Mongools 'aangewys kan word, moet uitgesluit word. by die Chinese skool vir inskrywing. "

Asiatiese Amerikaners het gedurende hul geskiedenis 'n lang erfenis van uitsluiting en ongelykheid in verband met skoolbeleid en -praktyke gekonfronteer, veral gedurende periodes van veranderende demografie, ekonomiese resessie of oorlog. Ten spyte van historiese, taalkundige verskille, is verskillende Asiatiese nasionaliteite saamgevoeg en op dieselfde manier behandel in skole en in die groter samelewing. Die groepering van Asiatiese Amerikaners is dus sinvol in die lig van historiese bande van die verlede na die hede.

Begin in die 1850's toe jong alleenstaande mans as kontrakarbeiders uit Suid -China gewerf is, het Asiatiese immigrante 'n belangrike rol gespeel in die ontwikkeling van hierdie land. Die Chinese werk as mynwerkers, spoorwegbouers, boere, fabriekswerkers en vissers en verteenwoordig teen 1870 20% van die arbeidsmag in Kalifornië, hoewel dit slegs 0,002% van die hele Amerikaanse bevolking uitmaak. Met die depressie van 1876, te midde van die geroep van "Hulle neem ons werk weg!", Woed anti-Chinese wetgewing en geweld dwarsdeur die Weskus.

In 1882 het die kongres die Chinese uitsluitingswet aanvaar - die enigste Amerikaanse reg om immigrasie en naturalisasie op grond van ras te voorkom - wat die Chinese immigrasie vir die volgende sestig jaar beperk het. Die beweging "Chinese Must Go" was so sterk dat die Chinese immigrasie na die Verenigde State van 39 500 in 1882 tot slegs 10 in 1887 afgeneem het.

Teen 1885, volgens die Chinese uitsluitingswet, het 'n groot aantal jong Japannese arbeiders, tesame met 'n kleiner aantal Koreane en Indiërs, aan die Weskus begin aankom, waar hulle die Chinese vervang het as goedkoop arbeid by die bou van spoorweë, boerdery en visvang. Groeiende anti-Japannese wetgewing en geweld het spoedig gevolg. In 1907 is die Japannese immigrasie beperk deur 'n 'Gentleman's Agreement' tussen die Verenigde State en Japan.

'N Klein getal Koreaanse immigrante het na Hawaii en daarna die vasteland van die Verenigde State gekom na die Russies-Japannese oorlog van 1904-1905 en Japan se besetting van Korea. Koreaanse immigrante, wat as stakingsbrekers, spoorwegbouers en landbouwerkers gedien het, het nie net rassistiese uitsluiting in die Verenigde State in die gesig gestaar nie, maar ook die Japannese kolonisering tuis. Sommige Koreaanse patriotte vestig hulle ook as politieke ballinge in die Verenigde State en organiseer vir Koreaanse onafhanklikheid.

Suid -Asiatiese Indiese immigrante het ook die Verenigde State as arbeiders binnegekom na Chinese uitsluiting. 'N Paar duisend Sikh-immigrante uit die Punjabi-streek, wat aanvanklik deur die Kanadese-Pasifiese spoorwegondernemings gewerf is, het na Kanada geëmigreer, wat net soos Indië deel uitmaak van die Britse ryk. Later het baie na die Stille Oseaan Noordwes en Kalifornië getrek en plaasarbeiders geword. Ironies genoeg word die 'gety van die Turban' in 1917 verbied as '' 'Hindoe-inval' 'deur uitsluitingsbewustes en blanke arbeid, toe die kongres verklaar dat Indië deel uitmaak van die Stille Oseaan-gebied van uitgesluit Asiatiese lande.

Teen 1924, met die uitsondering van die Filippynse "onderdane", was alle Asiatiese immigrante, insluitend Chinese, Japannese, Koreane en Indiërs, heeltemal deur die wet uitgesluit, burgerskap en naturalisasie geweier en kon hulle nie met Kaukasië trou of grond besit nie.

Aangesien alle ander Asiërs uitgesluit is, het duisende jong, enkellopende Filippyne gedurende die twintigerjare in groot getalle na die Weskus begin migreer om op plase en inmaakbedrywe te werk, wat die volgehoue ​​behoefte aan goedkoop arbeid vervul het. Filippyne is nie wettig uitgesluit deur die immigrasiewette nie, omdat die Filippyne reeds as gevolg van die Spaanse-Amerikaanse oorlog van 1898 deur die Verenigde State geannekseer is. Rassisme en ekonomiese mededinging, wat deur die depressie van 1929 verskerp is, het egter gelei tot ernstige anti-Filippynse geweld en die tyding van die Tydings-McDuffie-wet van 1935, wat 'n jaarlikse kwota van vyftig op Filippynse migrasie geplaas het-wat ook effektief uitgesluit het. Gedurende die halwe eeu van 1882 tot 1935 het drie golwe van vroeë Asiatiese immigrante hul arbeid bygedra tot die bou van hierdie land, maar is uiteindelik toegang geweier en eers in 1952 naturalisasieregte verleen. , Koreane, Indiërs en Filippyne het elk voor soortgelyke uitsluitingsvoorwaardes te staan ​​gekom wat die begin van 'n gemeenskaplike, gedeelde Asiatiese ervaring in Amerika gesmee het.

Daar is belangrike parallelle tussen die Europese en Asiatiese immigrasiegeskiedenis, veral in terme van hoe individue gereageer het op die 'stoot' en 'trek' in hul tuislande en dan teenstrydige ervarings van diskriminasie en geleenthede ondervind het, maar die 'push-pull' model wat algemeen gebruik word om Europese immigrasie te verduidelik, soos die smeltkropparadigma van immigrante -assimilasie, verduidelik nie die fundamentele verskille in patrone van Asiatiese immigrasie en uitsluiting nie.

Hierdie verskille kan slegs verstaan ​​word deur die erkenning van kritieke kenmerke van die historiese tydperk, insluitend:

  • die werklikheid van die Westerse kolonialisme en ongelyke magsverhoudinge in Asië
  • die onversadigbare behoefte aan goedkoop arbeid wat gepaardgegaan het met die uitgestrekte westelike uitbreiding en ekonomiese ontwikkeling in die Verenigde State en
  • die invloed op sosiale beleid en openbare houdings wat die gevolg was van 'n gebrek aan kennis oor Asiatiese mense, en rassistiese opvattings oor blanke superioriteit.

Alhoewel baie mense bekend is met Ellis Island as 'n simbool van Amerika se immigrasiegeskiedenis, besef min dat Angel Island - 'n vergelykbare immigrasie -aanhoudingsentrum vir die Weskus - die plek was waar immigrasiebeleid gedurende die Asiatiese uitsluitingsjare toegepas is. Angel Island verteenwoordig 'n belangrike kontrapunt vir Ellis Island en die verhaal van die Amerikaanse immigrasiegeskiedenis.

Tussen 1910 en 1940 is hoopvolle Chinese immigrante op Angel Island aangehou waar hulle vernederende mediese ondersoeke en gedetailleerde ondervragings moes ondergaan. Vrae het gewissel van "Wat is die geboortedatums van elke lid van u gesin?" na "Wie het in die derde huis van die tweede ry van u dorp gewoon?" Mislukte antwoorde was rede vir voortgesette aanhouding en uiteindelike deportasie terug na China.

In 1970 ontdek 'n parkwagter stelle Chinese karakters wat in die houtmure van die kaserne gesny is. Die Angel Island -aanhoudingsentrum, nou erken as 'n historiese Iandmark, getuig van die bitterheid en frustrasie van uitgeslote Chinese immigrante wat meer as honderd gedigte in die mure ingekerf het.

Alhoewel geringe hervormings in die immigrasiereg, weens veranderende internasionale betrekkinge, 'n beperkte aantal Asiërs toegelaat het om na die Tweede Wêreldoorlog die Verenigde State binne te gaan, bly die immigrasiewette van die Verenigde State diskriminerend teenoor Asiërs tot 1965 toe, in reaksie op die burgerregtebeweging. , is daar nie-beperkende jaarlikse kwotas van 20 000 immigrante per land vasgestel. Vir die eerste keer in die geskiedenis van die Verenigde State kon 'n groot aantal Asiërs as gesinne na die Verenigde State kom. As gevolg van die gretigheid van die Verenigde State vir tegnologie tydens die Koue Oorlog, is buitelandse ingenieurs en wetenskaplikes ook aangemoedig om na die Verenigde State te emigreer. Die dramatiese veranderinge in die Asiatiese Stille Oseaan -Amerikaanse landskap gedurende die afgelope twintig jaar, veral met die plofbare groei van die nuwe Filippynse, Koreaanse, Suid -Asiatiese Indiese en Chinese bevolkings, het gelei tot die liberalisering van immigrasiewette in 1965.

Vanaf 1975 het Suidoos -Asiatiese vlugtelinge uit Viëtnam, Kambodja en Laos die Verenigde State binnegekom nadat hulle uit oorlog, sosiale chaos, diskriminasie en ekonomiese ontbering ontsnap het. Ongeveer een miljoen Suidoos -Asiërs, waaronder ongeveer 30 000 kinders van Amerikaanse soldate en hul gesinne in Amerika, het sedertdien die Verenigde State binnegekom deur middel van 'n verskeidenheid hervestigings- en immigrasieprogramme vir vlugtelinge.

Vlugtelinge uit Viëtnam, Kambodja en Laos het elkeen verskillende kulture, tale en kontekste van historiese ontwikkeling. Alhoewel elke land byna 'n eeu tot 1954 sekere invloede uit hul gemeenskaplike geskiedenis as 'n Franse koloniale gebied deel, word Viëtnam baie meer kultureel beïnvloed deur China, terwyl Kambodja en Laos meer deur Indië beïnvloed is. Binne elke land is daar Chinese en ander etniese minderhede, soos die Hmong, Mien en Khmer uit Laos.

Baie gevalle koppel ook die hede aan die verlede. Die ervarings van persoonlike stryd, ekonomiese bydrae, rasse -teistering en diskriminerende wetgewing wat Viëtnamese vissers in die 1980's byvoorbeeld in Kalifornië se Montereybaai gemik het, is byna identies aan dié van vorige generasies Japannese en Chinese vissers wat agtereenvolgens in Montereybaai tydens die laat 1800's en vroeë 1900's.


Verwante

Elke Mei vir die Asiatiese Stille Oseaan -Amerikaanse Erfenismaand, voer Asia Society onderhoude met prominente Asiatiese Amerikaners oor hul lewens en werk. Sien die volledige argief. Kom meer te wete

U het gesê dat Asiatiese Amerikaners in die loop van die 20ste eeu van "onassimileerbaar" na "buitengewoon" beskou word. Hoe het daardie evolusie ontstaan?

Die beeld in die gedagtes van baie Amerikaners is dat daar iets unieks aan die Asiatiese kultuur is wat uitsonderlike uitkomste, soos hoë opvoedkundige prestasie en 'n hoë mediane inkomste uit huishoudings, dryf. Een van die maniere waarop ek toon dat dit 'n dwaling is, is om histories na die beeld van die Asiatiese Amerikaners te kyk. In die laat 1800's tot vroeë 1900's word Asiatiese Amerikaners as vuil en onopgevoed beskou; Trouens, gedurende die grootste deel van die Amerikaanse geskiedenis is Asiërs as onaantasbaar beskou.

Maar die Wet op Immigrasie en Naturalisasie van 1965 [wat kwotas beëindig het wat immigrasie uit Asiatiese lande beperk het] het die sosio -ekonomiese profiel van Asiatiese Amerikaners verander. Vandag is 49 persent van die Asiatiese Amerikaners op universiteit, in vergelyking met 28 persent van die Amerikaanse bevolking. Die Asiatiese immigrante in die Verenigde State is dus baie hoog opgelei, en dit dryf die manier waarop ons meer oor Asiatiese Amerikaners dink.

As ons byvoorbeeld na Chinese immigrante kyk, het 51 persent 'n universiteitsgraad of hoër. Maar slegs 4 persent van die Chinese bevolking doen dit. Die Chinese immigrante wat kom, verteenwoordig dus nie die Chinese bevolking in die algemeen nie. Ons noem dit hiper-selektiwiteit.

Ek gee klasse in immigrasie en ras, en as ek studente vra om te raai watter persentasie van die bevolking van China kollegeopgeleide is, raai hulle tussen 70 en 90 persent. Hulle is absoluut verbaas as ek vir hulle sê dat dit slegs 4 persent is. Wie ons in die Verenigde State sien, word 'n teken van hoe ons dink die mense in 'n gegewe land van herkoms is. Die hiper-selektiwiteit van Asiatiese immigrante dryf ons persepsie aan dat alle Asiatiese Amerikaners slim, hoogs geleerd en sosio-ekonomies suksesvol is.

Maar jy voer aan dat hierdie soort stereotipes sekere voordele inhou.

Die persepsie onder baie Amerikaners dat Asiatiese Amerikaners slim, hardwerkend en ywerig is, beïnvloed hoe onderwysers, voorligtingsberaders en eweknieë Asiatiese Amerikaanse studente sien en behandel. In ons navorsing was een van die dinge wat ons gevind het dat Asiatiese Amerikaanse studente die twyfel trek - hulle word dikwels opgespoor in gevorderde plasing (AP) of honneurskursusse, soms sonder dat hulle 'n toets afgelê het.

As u eers verdienstelik en hoogs presteer, kan positiewe stereotipes help om gedrag by studente te verander. Skielik werk hulle harder omdat hulle aan die verwagtinge wil voldoen. Dit is belangrik om in gedagte te hou dat hulle van die begin af nie 'n hoë prestasie behaal het nie, maar stereotipe belofte werk as 'n prestasieverhoger, wat hulle in staat stel om met 'n hoë GPA's te studeer en aan topuniversiteite te kom.

Ons het ook onderhoude gevoer met Mexikaanse studente in ons studie en nie een van hulle het sulke boodskappe ontvang nie. Dikwels roep hulle om die aandag van hul beraders en word hulle ernstig opgeneem. Hulle wou moontlik na 'n vierjarige universiteit gaan, maar nie een van hulle is opgespoor in AP- of honneurskursusse nie, tensy hulle 'n toets geslaag het.

Watter nadele is daar in hierdie soort stereotipes vir Asiatiese Amerikaners?

Daar is 'n persepsie dat Asiatiese Amerikaanse studente hardwerkend en slim is, maar hulle is nie vokaal of kreatief nie - hulle is moontlik nie bereid om in die klas te praat nie. Hulle is miskien goeie studente, maar mag nie sterk leiers wees nie. Die stereotipes wat studente as jongmense kan baat, belemmer hulle nadat hulle afgestudeer het en meer senior geword het. Hierdie stereotipes kan hulle help om 'n intreevlak te kry, maar een van die dinge wat ons in ons navorsing en in ander mense se navorsing gevind het, is dat die stereotipes oor stil, hardwerkend en vlytig eintlik seer is as Asiatiese Amerikaners om bestuurs- of leiersposisies wedywer. .

Daar is blykbaar bewyse van 'n 'bamboesplafon' - soortgelyk aan die glasplafon vir vroue. Die stereotipes kan dus nie seermaak dat Asiatiese Amerikaners 'n intreevlak -werk kry nie, maar dit kan hulle seermaak as hulle probeer opstaan ​​en bevorder word na 'n werk wat nie net meer verdien nie, maar ook geleenthede vir leierskap bied. Navorsing het getoon dat as jy die opvoedingsvlak, tipe universiteit en selfs hoofvakke beheer, Asiatiese Amerikaanse mans 8 persent minder verdien as vergelykbare wit mans. Asiatiese Amerikaanse vroue verdien dieselfde as wit vroue, maar hulle is baie minder geneig om toesig te hou oor ander mense.


'N Spesiale stadsaalgeleentheid wat deur Asia Society Noord -Kalifornië aangebied word, bespreek die talle kwessies wat die Asiatiese Stille Oseaan -Amerikaners van regoor die politieke spektrum raak. (1 uur, 9 min.)

Daar was onlangs baie aandag rondom Asiatiese Amerikaners wat regstellende aksie teenstaan ​​- veral in universiteite. Hoe groot is hierdie groep volgens u navorsing?

In die 2012 National Asian American Survey (NAAS) beweer 75 persent van die geregistreerde kiesers in Asië dat hulle regstellende aksie in die onderwys sowel as op die werkplek ondersteun. Dit lyk dalk hoog in vergelyking met sommige mediaportrette wat daarop dui dat Asiatiese Amerikaners teen regstellende aksie is, maar dit strook met ander bewyse. In die NAAS van 2016 het ons ook gevra of hulle steun dat die regering meer doen om swartes gelyke regte met blankes te gee, en 72 persent van die Asiërs-Amerikaners ondersteun dit ook.

Daar is 'n minderheid wat regstellende aksie baie teenstaan. Hulle glo dat dit hul kinders se kans om by die elite -universiteite te kom, benadeel. Hulle was dus baie hard en sommige werk saam met baie konserwatiewe organisasies om hierdie siening te bevorder, maar hulle verteenwoordig wel 'n minderheid Asiatiese Amerikaners in hierdie opsig.

In 'n soortgelyke trant was daar 'n redelike aantal baie uitgesproke ondersteuners van die Asiatiese Amerikaanse Donald Trump. Dink u dat hulle ook oorverteenwoordig is in mediaberigte?

Hulle gaan teen die graan in op dieselfde manier as die minderheid wat regstellende aksie teenstaan. Dit is regtig verstommend hoe progressief die meerderheid Asiatiese Amerikaners oor 'n aantal kwessies is. Op grond van die NAAS van 2016 ondersteun 60 persent die Wet op bekostigbare sorg, 62 persent is gekant teen 'n Moslemverbod, en 76 persent ondersteun strenger emissielimiete op kragsentrales om klimaatsverandering aan te spreek. Al die probleme wat Trump ondersteun, ondersteun Asiatiese Amerikaners oor die algemeen nie. Dit is nie om die minderheid te verwerp nie, maar om daarop te fokus, gee regtig 'n onakkurate portret van wie Asiatiese Amerikaners is.

Asiatiese Amerikaners het histories 'n baie lae stempersentasie gehad. Dink u dat Trump meer burgerlike deelname onder Asiatiese Amerikaners sal toeneem?

Asiatiese Amerikaners het histories 'n lae stempersentasie, en 'n groot deel daarvan het te doen met die feit dat die meerderheid Asiatiese Amerikaners uit die buiteland gebore is. Twee derdes van die Asiërs in die Verenigde State is immigrante, en onder Asiatiese Amerikaanse volwassenes is dit vier-uit-vyf. Navorsing toon deurgaans dat immigrante baie minder geneig is om te stem as diegene wat in die Verenigde State gebore is. Dit kan dus verander net soos die in Amerika gebore Asiatiese Amerikaners ouer word.

Dit gesê, ek dink een van die dinge wat ons vind, is dat selfs Asiatiese Amerikaanse duisendjariges wat in die VSA gebore is, ook nie 'n besonder hoë stempersentasie het nie. Maar wat ons sien, is dat hulle op ander maniere baie aktief is - op sosiale media en op maniere wat moontlik nie soos tradisionele politieke betrokkenheid lyk nie. Hulle reageer aktief op kwessies wat hulle dink hul gemeenskappe sal benadeel en kwessies wat hul gemeenskappe kan bevorder. Ek dink dat daar verskillende vorme van burgerlike betrokkenheid is wat nie aangegryp word deur slegs na stemregistrasie en kieserregistrasie te kyk nie. En ek dink wel dat Trump help om dit te versterk.

Hoe nuttig dink u is die etiket "Asiatiese Amerikaans"?

Ek dink dit is 'n uitstekende vraag en mense debatteer dit baie. Asiatiese Amerikaner as 'n etiket is 'n politieke konstruksie en ek dink dit is baie nuttig om baie uiteenlopende groepe te mobiliseer. Maar die gevaar in die etiket is dat dit gereeld gebruik word op maniere wat die geweldige diversiteit van die Asiatiese Amerikaanse bevolking werklik bedek.

Asiatiese Amerikaners is die mees uiteenlopende Amerikaanse rassegroep. As u byvoorbeeld kyk na opvoedkundige uitkomste, het u 'n paar groepe met buitengewone hoë universiteitsopleiding, soos Indiërs, Chinese en Koreane. Maar dan is daar ander groepe soos Kambodjaans, Laotiaans en Hmong wat hoër skoolverlaters het as Afro -Amerikaners en Latino's. Asiatiese Amerikaners verteenwoordig albei uiterstes van die spektrum. Hulle het 'n buitengewoon hoë mediaaninkomste en ook 'n uiters hoë armoedesyfer.

Ek dink die ander ding wat belangrik is, is dat sommige van die grootste groepe - Chinese en Indiërs - die verhaal van Asiatiese Amerikaanse uitkomste dryf. Omdat hulle die grootste is en gewoonlik baie goed presteer, masker hulle die probleme en uitdagings wat ander Asiatiese etniese groepe ondervind.


'N Asiatiese Amerikaner reageer op' Waarom kan swartes nie meer soos 'The Asians' lyk nie '

Die internet is aan die brand gesteek nadat professor Jerry Hough van Duke University verskeie opruiende opmerkings oor ras gemaak het. In die kommentaargedeelte van 'n redaksionele artikel in NYT, "How Racism Doomed Baltimore", vra hy basies waarom swart mense dit nie kan suig nie en meer soos 'The Asians' kan wees soos hy ons genoem het. Hier is 'n skakel na die oorspronklike verhaal en kommentaar. Dus, noudat hy Asiatiese Amerikaners betrek het, het ek geen ander keuse as om af te breek waarom sy opinies absoluut asblik is nie.

“The point I was raising was why the Asians who were oppressed did so well and are integrating so well, and the blacks are not doing as well,”

Let me answer that for you Professor. It’s because Asians didn’t have the same complex and elaborate system of racism that was built to oppress Blacks. Asians came onto the scene in the mid 1800s long after the system of slavery had been established to oppress Blacks. We Asians definitely were (and are) discriminated against. Lynch mobs, housing discrimination, internment camps, immigration quotas, but the system that oppressed Blacks had been here longer, was enforced more brutally, and has remained to this day. Slavery, black codes, segregation, redlining, ghettos, police brutality, prison systems. And let’s remember that stereotypes cast Asians as smart and workaholics, while Blacks are portrayed as lazy, dangerous, and dumb. These stereotypes can cost jobs, opportunities, and even lives.
The struggles that Asians and Blacks went through were completely different. One group came over mostly as willing economic migrants or as refugees fleeing war. The other group was forcefully taken from their homelands to work as slaves.
This statement also assumes that Asian Americans don’t have serious issues to deal with either. Americans of South Asian descent are often victims of hate crimes that stem from islamophobia. Southeast Asian Americans have some of the highest poverty and high school drop-out rates in the country, but because of the ‘model minority’ stereotype that all Asian Americans are thriving in America, these issues often are ignored.

“Every Asian student has a very simple old American first name that symbolizes their desire for integration,” his online comment said. “Virtually every black has a strange new name that symbolizes their lack of desire for integration.”

First off, if you think name are part of the problem of racial tension, then I seriously wonder how you ever got a degree in anything.
Secondly, Hiep. Sanjay. Nhan. Khoi. Jasmeet. Hien. Min. Muhammad. Fatima. An. Tong. Mao. Many American-born Asians have names from their culture. And nothing is wrong with that. Many Blacks are descendants of slaves who literally had their cultures ripped away from them. Few American Blacks know where they’re from because that’s not something that slave owners would tell their slaves, or even know themselves. The first slaves were sold off into the New World, their native languages, traditions, and religions completely purged. Names are used by many as a small piece of cultural identity to hold onto.

“The amount of Asian-White dating is enormous and so surely will be the intermarriage. Black-White dating is almost non-existent because of the ostracism by blacks of anyone who dates a White.”

Let’s look at a study by the Pew Research Center. In 2007, they found that 97% of Blacks were okay with interracial dating while only 81% of Whites found interracial dating acceptable.

While stigma of interracial in the Black community exists, let’s flip it and also remember huge the stigma attached to those who date Blacks. There are many people who ‘are not racist’ but have said they would never marry a Black person. To those who is in a relationship with a Black person, society basically says that the only way a person of African descent can be desirable to a non-Black is if the non-Black has an odd sexual fetish known as ‘jungle fever’. Hoekom? Because Black is commonly considered the most ‘undesirable’ race to date because society has portrayed Blacks as being undesirable, ugly, dangerous, and/or a bad romantic partner.

And since we’re on the topic of interracial relationships, relationships between Asians and Whites aren’t as cookie-cutter as Hough would like you to believe. Asian-White couples more often comprise of a White male and an Asian female than an Asian male and a White female. In the media, Asian females often portrayed to be the ‘exotic’ love interest of a strong White male protagonist. Asian males are portrayed to be weak, foreign, nerdy, and often used to be comedic relief. Studies from dating sites “OkCupid” and “Are You Interested” found that East and South Asian males are among the three least desirable demographic groups in dating, with Black females being the most undesirable.

Honestly, I don’t want to hear this crap about how Blacks have resisted integration. American society itself has been the one that has hindered integration the most. I’m profoundly disappointed that this man is even a professor. His ideas could be refuted by any college student with an internet connection. Before making more ignorant comments, I highly suggest that he take a couple courses in Asian American studies and African American studies. His entire tirade seems to just be an attempt at denying the reality of racism by driving different ethnic groups against one another. What we need instead is unity and solidarity against bigotry. We are all Americans and if some of our people are the victims of oppression, it’s our duty to acknowledge it and then take steps to fight against it.


Probing School Success Of Asian-Americans

Part of that success, the new research suggests, is explained by the fact that Asian-American students, far more than members of other minorities, see earning advanced degrees as the only sure-fire way to overcome discrimination. That perception operates hand in hand with strong family bonds to make Asian-American students work harder at their studies, doing almost 50 percent more homework than their peers from grammar school on.

Beyond that intense effort, Asian-American students come from families and communities that have been less devastated by racism than those of other minority students, and so have more economic and emotional resources to draw on for their education. There is also a hidden advantage for some Asian-American students who have performed the best: in many cases their immigrant parents were professionals in their native countries and instill in their children a striving for the status they lost on leaving their homeland.

Of course, no single answer applies to every student. There are many Asian groups in America, ranging from impoverished Vietnamese boat people to prosperous fifth-generation Chinese-Americans. Even so, the overwhelming success of Asian-Americans has intrigued researchers who hope to find clues that can help other minorities do better in school.

Although researchers differ on other points, there is a strong consensus that protecting themselves from discrimination is a compelling motive for many Asian-Americans in seeking academic success.

While there have been no studies showing a causal link between fear of prejudice and academic success, reseachers report that in interviews Asian-Americans repeatedly cite the fear as a reason for increased academic effort. In some cases, researchers who are themselves Asian-American testify to the link from their own experience.

For example, Stanley Sue, a psychologist at the University of California at Los Angeles, recalls that his father was denied membership in the union at a shipyard where he worked because he was Chinese.

Dr. Sue said that experience led him to conclude that he would have to do well in school to overcome such discrimination. Although neither his mother nor his father had more than a high school education, he and his three brothers all went on to earn Ph.D.'s.

Dr. Sue argues that the impressive academic success of Asian-Americans is largely a result of their strong belief in education as an escape route from the social and economic limits imposed by prejudice - a belief they hold more strongly than do other minorities.

In a study of more than 10,000 high school students, Sanford Dornbusch, a sociologist at Stanford, found that Asian-American students far more than any other group believed that ''if you do not do well in school, you are doomed to a poor job.''

Many social scientists point to centuries of a mandarin tradition, in which Asian cultures, particularly China, had an intellectual elite that rose to power through passing stringent tests. They suggest that this model of a meritocracy of the intellect has left its mark in the high value Asians place on education.

One sign that Asian-American academic effort is propelled in large part by the need to overcome discrimination is that their academic achievement tends to drop over the generations, Dr. Sue said. Dr. Dornbusch, with Phillip Ritter, found that first-generation Asian-Americans had grade point averages of 3.2 on a scale of 4.0, while for the third generation it had slipped to 3.0. The more Americanized Asian-Americans have become, Dr. Sue said, the less they worry about being denied access to good jobs because of their ethnicity.

Several theories seek to explain why other minorities, unlike Asian-Americans, fail to gravitate to higher education. Leonard Gordon a sociologist at Arizona State University, looks to history to explain the difference he found between Asian-Americans and other minorities in studies of close to 600 students. While black and Hispanic students had the same life goals as did Asian-Americans, there was a great difference in their expectations. ''They didn't have the same hope of success as did Asian-American students,'' Dr. Gordon said. ''Their history leads them to be pessimistic about reaching their goals.''

That attitude marks one of the strongest differences in outlook between Asian-American students as compared with blacks, Hispanic Americans and native Americans, said John Ogbu, an anthropologist at the University of California at Berkeley, who is leading a study of school achievement by minority students in San Francisco.

Most Asian-Americans are voluntary immigrants, drawn here in part by the dream of success, he said in an article in the current issue of Daedalus. Such immigrants see cultural differences as something to overcome, while involuntary groups tend to cherish differences. That leaves many members of those groups unwilling to fit into patterns that undermine their group identity, he said.

Some education researchers see a secret of Asian-American academic success in how parents coax children to work harder at school.

For example, Shinying Lee, a psychologist at the University of Michigan who came to America as a graduate student, said she gave her 6-year-old extra work after school. ''I have him practice Chinese by writing two sentences every day, and then I have him do a few math problems,'' Dr. Lee said. ''Most other Chinese parents I know do the same.''

In studies of grammar school children in Chicago schools, Dr. Lee, working with a colleague, Harold Stevenson, found that there was virtually no difference between Asian-Americans and other students in intelligence or achievement.

A Rise in Anti-Asian Attacks

A torrent of hate and violence against people of Asian descent around the United States began last spring, in the early days of the coronavirus pandemic.

    • Background: Community leaders say the bigotry was fueled by President Donald J. Trump, who frequently used racist language like “Chinese virus” to refer to the coronavirus.
    • Data: The New York Times, using media reports from across the country to capture a sense of the rising tide of anti-Asian bias, found more than 110 episodes since March 2020 in which there was clear evidence of race-based hate.
    • UnderreportedHate Crimes: The tally may be only a sliver of the violence and harassment given the general undercounting of hate crimes, but the broad survey captures the episodes of violence across the country that grew in number amid Mr. Trump's comments.
    • In New York: A wave of xenophobia and violence has been compounded by the economic fallout of the pandemic, which has dealt a severe blow to New York’s Asian-American communities. Many community leaders say racist assaults are being overlooked by the authorities.
    • What Happened inAtlanta: Eight people, including six women of Asian descent, were killed in shootings at massage parlors in Atlanta on March 16. A Georgia prosecutor said that the Atlanta-area spa shootings were hate crimes, and that she would pursue the death penalty against the suspect, who has been charged with murder.

    ''We studied first-graders in Chicago schools,'' Dr. Lee said. ''There is virtually no difference between Asian-Americans and other groups on achievement tests in first grade.''

    ''That rules out a difference in I.Q.,'' Dr. Lee said. 'ɻut by fifth grade, Asian-Americans had much higher math achievement scores.'' The most obvious reason for that difference, which emerges in grade school and grows steadily, is that like Dr. Lee's 6-year-old, they work harder than other students.

    In studies of 7,836 high school students in the San Francisco area, Asian-Americans spent about 40 percent more time doing homework than did other students - about seven hours a week versus five. ''That is the first and most important reason for the differences: Asian-Americans work harder,'' said Dr. Dornbusch, who did the studies.

    There is also a fundamental difference between most Asian American parents and other parents in how they react to a child's poor performance. ''Most American parents are willing to accept a child's weak areas and emphasize the strengths,'' said Dr. Dornbusch, who has done dozens of studies on academic achievement among Asian and other minority groups. 'ɻut for Asians, the attitude is that if you're not doing well, the answer is to study later at night, and if you still don't do well, to get up and study earlier in the morning. They believe that anyone can do well in school with the right effort.''

    Behind the harder work, said Dr. Dornbusch, lies another basic difference between Asian-American and other students. ''They are oriented toward their families, not just their friends,'' he said. Interviews he conducted in his studies lead him to conclude, he said, that 'ɺsian kids tend to think of themselves as representing their family and see their task as doing well in school, not just for themselves, but for their families as a whole.''

    A hidden factor in the academic success of Asian-American students is that a large number are themselves children of professionals, said Ronald Takaki, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of California at Berkeley. ''There is an important class difference between Asian and black or Hispanic students,'' he said. ''Those Asian-Americans who seem to be super whiz kids are mostly from professional families.''

    While many black and Hispanic parents feel that education would help their children evade the pain of racism, they often do not have the same family resources available. ''Over 50 percent of black kids are from impoverished single-parent families,'' Dr. Takaki said. ''They don't have an intact family with highly educated parents, like many Asian-American students.'' Black students who come from such families perform above average academically, Dr. Gordon has found.

    In many cases the parents of Asian-American students are immigrants who were not able to find jobs in America in the professions for which they trained in Asia. Such parents feel 'ɺ tremendous psychological need to recover their lost class status,'' said Dr. Takaki. ''The way for them to do that is to be sure their children get high-status degrees.''


    When and went why did Asian Americans go from "yellow peril" to "model minority" in the minds of white Americans?

    This is actually a more fragmented shift than the question presupposes. There wasn't a point where you could say they all fit in either of these two categories according to most Americans. In other words, there's a slight problem with the premise.

    In the late 1800s after the Opium Wars and the lead-up to the Chinese Exculsion Acts, the Yellow Peril was in full swing, exemplified in things like Sax Rohmer's writings and the sort of rhetoric that was developing against Chinese on the West Coast. This was coming right after the quickly-modified 1868 Burlingame Treaty which had, albeit briefly, encouraged Chinese immigration to the US, and things like the Boxer Indemnity funds which also resulted in Chinese students coming to the US. However, as mentioned it was quickly reversed, in part, as the Angell Treaty signed in 1880, which we can say is the formal start of anti-Chinese legislation on a national level.

    But this did not generally apply to Japanese. At the same time that Chinese were being marginalised with attitudes toward them becoming negative, Japan was still fetishised in a popular light, and just after the turn of the century it wouldn't have been at all uncommon for the average white American of means to engage in things like sushi parties. The Page Act (1875) het gedoen include Japanese by name, but this was more intended (as written) to prevent unwilling migration, and at any rate the number of Japanese migrating at the time was nearly infinitesimal. The Page Act was fairly limited in scope, and it would be a mistake to take it as the most indicative thing reflecting how white America felt toward the relevant cultures at the time.

    I digress. While the situation for Japanese wasn't the same everywhere, most notably in Hawai'i where there was a stronger resistance in the late 19th century, it wasn't regtig until well after the Chinese Exclusion Acts were at their height that the tables turned on Japanese immigrants, having been somewhere between tolerated and accepted up until then. It wasn't really until the Immigration Act of 1924 that Japanese were explicitly banned, though due to economic competition there was plenty of hostility growing in the two decades before then. While in the end they ended up caught up in the Yellow Peril, they really were separate from the whole thing for the first good many decades.

    So that's one end, the Yellow Peril end, of the spectrum you've proposed.

    For the other end we can look at the 1980s and 1990s where Chinese immigrants, now quite well established, were seen in terms of the "model minority", but again this did not apply to all East Asians. Koreans and Vietnamese still had significant difficulties, though where they fell on the scale fluctuated with time and place. During the LA riots, Koreans were very much not seen as the "model minority". (edit: I need to clarify that this wasn't a causal relationship so much as, during that time, views on Koreans were mixed among the average white American. That the riots happened and brought people's attention to them is coincident, but not necessarily a determiner of negative attitudes. It's in part omdat they were seen as heroically defending shops, as one commenter brought up, their image fluctuated into the positive.) Likewise Vietnamese immigrants/refugees in the 1980s and 90s were accused of all the same claims that they were unassimilable with America's culture that the Chinese had faced a century before. Regardless, at this time, Vietnamese immigrants included into the category of "model minority" for most white Americans, where Korean Americans fells in that scale was also not clear, and still when the riots were happening, Vietnamese immigrants who had little or nothing to do with the LA Korean communities were also targeted.

    The divisions between East Asian groups, as viewed by White America, were always more salient in the public eye than their shared Asian-ness. You can see this most strikingly comparing characters of Chinese (and Japanese) near the beginning of the 20th century with the sorts of WWII-era illustrations, for example "How to tell a Chinese from a Jap" where now the Chinese are described as more "normal" in comparison.

    Attitudes toward different East Asian groups have been constantly shifting for as long as there have been Asians in North America, and chances are that will continue to happen.

    It's late so I've not included a lot of specific details and listed references here but if you want to know more about any of the above points, please let me know and I'll be happy to fill in more detail as requested. It might take a couple days though because I'll be travelling internationally and I'm pretty sure my planes won't have wifi.

    Korean Americans in the 1990s:

    Elaine Kim's Home is Where the Han Is: A Korean-American Perspective on the Los Angeles Upheavals, as mentioned by /u/The_Alaskan, is a great place to start for those interested in that period.

    Abelmann & Lie (1995) Blue Dreams: Korean Americans and the Los Angeles Riots — same period

    Vietnamese refugees and immigrants

    Barkan, Elliott R, (2012) Immigrants in American History:Arrival, Adaptation, and Integration — (among other groups)

    Schulzinger, Robert D (2006) A Time for Peace: The Legacy of the Vietnam War

    Chinese Exclusion Period:

    Gyory, Andrew (1998) Closing the Gate: Race, Politics, and the Chinese Exclusion Act

    Lee, Erika (2003) At America's Gates: The Exclusion Era, 1882-1943

    Mar, Lisa Rose (2010) Brokering Belonging Chinese in Canada’s Exclusion Era, 1885–1945. Oxford University Press.

    Japanese Americans: (mostly Hawai'i but also addresses mainland issues)

    Okihiro, Gary Y (1991) Cane Fires: The Anti-Japanese Movement in Hawaii, 1865-1945

    Odo, Franklin (2004) No sword to bury: Japanese Americans in Hawai'i during World War II

    Related Reddit comments (further reading) – I've written a dozen or so answers about topics related to Asian immigration to the Americas. The following are the one I dug up which may be most relevant, to which I would have ended up saying similar things in this comment, but it's probably better to just link in the interest of parsimony.

    Anti-Japanese sentiment as related to the period of fetishisation (actually about the history of sushi in America but touches on these issues)

    A note regarding sourcing answers on AskHistorians: (speaking as a mod)

    Speaking as a mod for a second: Sources are not a requirement at r/AskHistorians for top-level comments, unless they are requested . I only just now saw that two people have reported this comment for lacking sources, but no one had actually asked for a source, so none were included. I did say, just one paragraph above this, that I would happily provide sources / more info. I didn't actually see the comment reports until just now, because – again since sources aren't required – other moderators approved the comment thus marking those reports as "read", so to speak.

    However since I've now seen the reports, I'll take that as a request and have provided some above. For future reference, if you see a comment that youɽ like sourced but isn't sourced, don't report it because the commenter never sees that. Instead, leave a reply asking for sources.


    The real secret to Asian American success was not education

    For those who doubt that racial resentment lingers in this nation, Asian Americans are a favorite talking point. The argument goes something like this: If “white privilege” is so oppressive — if the United States is so hostile toward its minorities — why do census figures show that Asian Americans out-earn everyone?

    In a 2014 editorial, conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly pointed out that Asian household incomes were 20 percent higher than white household incomes on average. “So, do we have Asian privilege in America?” vra hy. Of course not, he said. The real reason that Asians are “succeeding far more than African-Americans and even more than white Americans” is that “their families are intact and education is paramount,” he said.

    This claim has been with us since at least the 1960s, when it served as a popular rejoinder to the challenges issued by the civil rights movement. Many newspapers printed flattering portraits of Asian Americans to cast skepticism on the people marching for economic and social justice.

    “At a time when it is being proposed that hundreds of billions be spent to uplift the Negroes and other minorities, the nation’s 300,000 Chinese-Americans are moving ahead on their own,” claimed a 1966 story in the U.S. News and World Report, which noted their “strict discipline” and “traditional virtues.”

    To the extent that all myths are rooted in truth, this model minority stereotype recognizes a real pattern of Asian upward mobility. A century ago, Asian Americans were known as laborers of the lowest wage. They were ditch diggers, launderers, miners. Yet over the decades, despite poverty, racial violence and widespread discrimination, many Asians managed to clamber up the socioeconomic ladder.

    Until now, the story of how that happened has been poorly understood.

    “The widespread assumption is that Asian Americans came to the United States very disadvantaged, and they wound up advantaged through extraordinary investments in their children’s education,” says Brown University economist Nathaniel Hilger.

    But that's not what really happened, he says.

    Hilger recently used old census records to trace the fortunes of whites, blacks and Asians who were born in California during the early- to mid-20th century. He found that educational gains had little to do with how Asian Americans managed to close the wage gap with whites by the 1970s.

    Instead, his research suggests that society simply became less racist toward Asians.

    Asian Americans have been part of the United States for most of its history. The first major wave of immigrants came in the 1800s, when Chinese laborers flocked to California to help build railroads. Their presence soon stirred up resentments among white Americans. The Chinese Massacre of 1871, which took place in the streets of Los Angeles, counts among the largest lynchings in U.S. history.

    In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which shut the door on the influx of low-skilled Chinese labor. By 1924, nearly all immigration from Asian nations was banned. Despite widespread discrimination, many families remained, settling mostly in California. Opinion surveys from that era show that whites expressed extreme prejudice against both Asian and African Americans. Asians also lived in segregated neighborhoods and often sent their children to segregated schools. To survive, many opened their own businesses because no one would employ them.

    Hilger’s research focuses on native-born whites, blacks and Asians to rule out the effects of subsequent immigration. In 1965, changing laws ushered in a surge of high-skilled, high-earning Asian workers, who now account for most of the Asians living in the United States today.

    But even before the arrival of those highly educated immigrants, the Asians already living in the United States had more or less closed the wage gap with whites.

    At the time of the 1940 census, Hilger found, California-born Asian men earned less than California-born black men. By the 1970 census, they were earning about the same as white men, and by the 1980 census, the native-born Asian men were out-earning white men.

    Throughout this time, many Asian American families did invest, increasingly, in their children's education. But Hilger discovered that the improvements in educational attainment were too modest to explain how Asians' earnings grew so fast.

    The picture became much clearer when he compared people with similar levels of education. Hilger found that in the 1940s, Asian men were paid less than white men with the same amount of schooling. But by the 1980s, that gap had mostly disappeared.

    “Asians used to be paid like blacks,” Hilger said. “But between 1940 and 1970, they started to get paid like whites.” The charts below shows average earnings for native-born black, white and Asian depending on how much education they had.

    In 1980, for instance, even Asian high school dropouts were earning about as much as white high school dropouts, and vastly more than black high school dropouts. This dramatic shift had nothing to do with Asians accruing more education. Instead, Hilger points to the slow dismantling of discriminatory institutions after World War II, and the softening of racist prejudices. That’s the same the explanation advanced by economists Harriet Orcutt Duleep and Seth Sanders, who found that in the second half of the 20th century, Asian Americans not only started to work in more lucrative industries, but also started to get paid more for the same kind of work.

    In other words, the remarkable upward mobility of California-born Asians wasn’t about superior schooling (not yet, anyway). It was the result of Asians finally receiving better opportunities — finally earning equal pay for equal skills and equal work.

    Why couldn’t African Americans close the wage gap? Dit is moeilik om te sê. Hilger found some evidence that there were underlying differences in skill. Between Asians and African Americans with the same amount of schooling, African Americans tended to achieve lower scores on military enlistment tests during the 1940s.

    But it’s also likely that postwar racial attitudes shifted differently for Asians than for African Americans. In the 1850s, newspapers in California complained that Chinese immigrants were the dregs of the laboring class, having “most of the vices and few of the virtues of the African.” Yet by the 1960s, attitudes had completely flipped. Journalists praised Asians for being hard workers who cherished education, kept their heads down and rarely complained.

    “Still being taught in Chinatown is the old idea that people should depend on their own efforts — not a welfare check — in order to reach America’s ‘promised land,’” the 1966 U.S. News and World Report article said.

    Since then, waves of high-skill immigration have further cemented the stereotype of Asians as a studious, well-off demographic. Highly educated parents encourage their children to become highly educated, compounding the advantage. About half of Asian Americans over the age of 25 now hold college degrees, compared with only 28 percent of Americans overall.

    Hilger's research found that 50 years ago, Asians were held back primarily by lack of opportunities. Now that discrimination against Asians has lessened somewhat, the Asian edge in education is apparent: Average incomes among Asians Americans are higher because Asian Americans have higher rates of college attainment. (To be clear, we are talking about averages only. As a group, Asian Americans have considerable socioeconomic diversity.)

    But if we take a page from Hilger and focus on people with similar educational backgrounds, the residual disadvantages become clear. Asians actually earn 5 percent less compared with whites who also have advanced degrees — while blacks and Hispanics earn 20 percent less.

    This is one of several problems with the model minority myth. (Here’s another.) Many people hold up Asian Americans as proof that hard work and education leads to success no matter your skin color. On the contrary, these statistics show that being a minority in the United States often means working harder to earn less.

    More education will help close racial wage gaps somewhat, but it will not resolve problems of denied opportunity. In fact, recent studies suggest that income disparities are growing at the very top between blacks and whites. According to an Economic Policy Institute report from September, the difference between what a white college graduate earns and what a black college graduate earns has widened since the 1980s.

    Emphasizing the power of educational attainment also obscures the barriers that remain. Despite the complaints of Stephen K. Bannon, President-elect Donald Trump’s alt-right adviser who’s a darling of white supremacy groups, it is simply false that “two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia.” Even among technology companies, which hire a disproportionate number of Asian workers, Asians are vastly underrepresented in upper management. Yet, the model minority myth makes a statement like Bannon's feel true to many.

    Asian Americans — some of them at least — have made tremendous progress in the United States. But the greatest thing that ever happened to them wasn't that they studied hard, or that they benefited from tiger moms or Confucian values. It's that other Americans started treating them with a little more respect.


    Confronting Asian-American Stereotypes

    In this week’s Race/Related newsletter: a conversation with experts, plus a personal essay about discrimination.

    Beeld

    This is the web version of our Race/Related newsletter. Please sign up here to have it delivered weekly to your inbox.

    We explored discrimination against Asian-Americans with Jennifer Lee, a professor of sociology at Columbia University and the author of “The Asian-American Achievement Paradox” and Karthick Ramakrishnan, a professor of public policy and political science at University of California, Riverside, and director of the National Asian-American Survey.

    Harvard has been accused of giving lower personality ratings to Asian-American applicants. The news reminded many Asian-Americans of some painful stereotypes, that they’re industrious but don’t have interpersonal skills and charm. Where did these stereotypes come from?

    JL: While the current stereotype of Asian-Americans is that they are smart, competent and hard-working, a century ago, Asian-Americans were perceived as illiterate, undesirable, full of “filth and disease” and unassimilable. They were perceived as “marginal members of the human race,” were denied the right to become naturalized U.S. citizens, and segregated to ethnic enclaves.

    But the change in U.S. immigration law in 1965 — which gave preference to highly educated and highly skilled applicants — ushered in a new wave of Asian immigrants. Not only are they more likely to have graduated than those who did not immigrate from their countries of origin, but they are more likely to have graduated from college than the U.S. mean — what we refer to as “hyper-selectivity”.

    For example, Chinese immigrants in the United States are 12 times as likely to have graduated from college than Chinese who did not immigrate. They are also almost twice as likely to have a college degree than the average American. The hyper-selectivity has resulted in the stereotype that Chinese-Americans (and Asian-Americans more broadly) are smart, competent and hard-working. But they are also vilified for being too smart, too focused on academics, one-dimensional and lacking personal skills.

    KR: It is also important to acknowledge that stereotypes of Asians can also vary by national origin. The 2016 Post-Election National Asian-American Survey shows that South Asians and Southeast Asians are less likely to be perceived as intelligent when compared with East Asians, and we know from reports of hate crimes and qualitative studies of the Asian-American population that South Asians are more likely to fall victim to stereotypes about terrorism. These stereotypes about South Asians stem from news coverage and entertainment depictions. Now these stereotypes might have no bearing on college admissions, but they certainly play a role in how different Asian-American groups experience discrimination in society.

    How do those stereotypes come into play after college? (A new study concluded that Asian-Americans are the least likely to be promoted to management.)

    KR: Part of why Asian-Americans seem to have a disproportionately high level of interest in getting into an elite college is that they believe that the prestige of the institution will shield them from discrimination in the workplace. But stereotypes of Asians as technically competent, diligent and quiet continue to hold sway after college, and this makes Asians less likely to be promoted into management and leadership positions.

    JL: A recent report on leadership diversity at top technology companies found that Asian-Americans are the racial group least likely to be promoted into managerial and executive ranks. White men and women are twice as likely as Asians to hold executive positions. And while white women are breaking through the glass ceiling, Asian women are not. Asian-Americans are the forgotten minority in the conversation about the glass ceiling.

    Asian-Americans also fall behind in earnings. College-educated, U.S.-born Asian men earn 8 percent less than white men. Although Asian-American women are likely to earn as much as white women, they are less likely to be in a management role.

    What perpetuates these stereotypes? What can be done to change the thinking?

    KR: Part of the solution is to give Asian-Americans more opportunities to prove themselves as leaders. So, instead of just seeing an employee as someone who is technically competent, managers can give them more chances to lead projects and be comfortable taking small risks in providing them with those initial opportunities.

    At the same time, Asian-American employees can also do more to signal that they are “leadership material.” They can build up a portfolio of leadership opportunities outside of work through charitable and philanthropic activities, and they can also do more to start challenging the stereotype of Asians as quiet by questioning decisions more, and offering constructive criticism on managerial and executive decisions.

    JL: Karthick and I think a little differently on this issue. I agree that managers should give more opportunities to Asian-Americans to exhibit their leadership skills, but I also believe that we need to think more broadly and critically about the qualities that make a good leader. We tend to assume that leaders should be bold, brash and vocal, but this assumption privileges men, and, in particular, white men, who are more likely to cultivate and exhibit these characteristics.

    But a look at some of the country’s top chief executives, we find that they are described as listeners first. They are also described as team players who are empathetic, thoughtful, steady and measured rather than bold and brash.

    Thinking more broadly about the qualities that make a good leader and recognizing that different leadership models may be just as effective (if not more so) than traditional ones will broaden leadership opportunities for not only Asian-Americans, but also women, and other minorities. It would also benefit the members of the organization, who may respond more positively and work more effectively by seeing more diverse leaders at the helm.

    And how do these stereotypes affect Asian-American candidates in politics? It seems like it would be a high hurdle for any candidate to overcome.

    KR: Well, some kinds of stereotypes can actually help Asian-American candidates. So, for example, the model-minority stereotype of being technically competent or being quiet listeners can help candidates where those traits are valued. It’s remarkable, for example, how well Asian-American candidates have done in California’s elections for state treasurer and controller. John Chiang kicked off the trend in 2006, and today Betty Yee is the state controller and Fiona Ma will very likely be the next state treasurer.

    Even so, there are important limitations. First, it’s problematic if these model-minority stereotypes are used to contrast Asian-American candidates with negative stereotypes of opponents from other racial groups. In fact, many would argue that, even in isolation, model-minority stereotypes give an unfair advantage to candidates who should be judged on their records and not on stereotypes about them. Finally, the stereotype of being calm and technically competent can hurt candidates when they run for other types of offices, as John Chiang found out when he failed to make a name for himself and capture the excitement of primary voters in the California governor’s race.

    Democrats’ preference for affirmative action is well established. Will this support affect Asian-American voting patterns?

    KR: The Republican Party has been trying to see if affirmative action can be an effective wedge issue for Asian-Americans for a few years now. And results from different opinion surveys indicate that it might be working among the Chinese-American population, where support for affirmative action has plummeted in just four years. But the affirmative action wedge doesn’t seem to have worked as well among other Asian-American groups and, even among Chinese Americans, support for issues like education spending and health care access has meant that the Democratic Party still has an advantage among Chinese-Americans.

    Here in New York, the mayor recently recommended changing the admissions criteria for elite public schools, where Asian-Americans are vastly overrepresented. The number of spots for Asian-Americans would most likely be cut. Your thoughts?

    KR: Underlying the debate about changing the admissions criteria for New York City’s elite public schools and the debate about Harvard’s admissions process is the issue of how we define merit.

    For New York’s elite public schools, merit is defined solely by a student’s performance on a single test called the Specialized High Schools Admissions Test. Our colleagues have written extensively about this. They show a more complicated story about why black and Latino enrollment in these elite public schools have declined so much, including doing away with tracking in racially segregated middle schools and the rise of test prep programs. And they suggest that overhauling and investing in selective schools that are more racially diverse might be more effective in improving racial diversity.

    JL: The mayor’s proposal is not as radical as it may seem to New Yorkers. The University of Texas adopted a “Top 10 Percent rule” two decades ago, which gives those who graduated from the top 10 percent of any Texas high school a spot at any public university in the state, with the exception of University of Texas at Austin, where students must now graduate in the top six percent. But even that flagship campus has witnessed dramatic changes in the student population, with the largest increase in the Hispanic population, which reflects the state’s changing demographics. The white student population has declined, while the black and Asian populations have remained stable. Given the sharp decline in the white student population, it comes as little surprise that Texas senators are mulling the elimination of the Top 10 Percent rule.

    There are many ways to define merit, but we need to admit to ourselves that not every student has the same chance to show how meritorious she is because some metrics favor some groups over others.


    Kyk die video: Думаете, над нами никто не смеется? Американцы о столкновении с русскими Анна Сочина