Chapter Ten Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders: A Model Minority? © Pine Forge Press, an imprint...

Chapter Ten

Asian Americans and

Pacific Islanders:

A Model Minority?

© Pine Forge Press, an imprint of Sage Publications, 2003

A Model Minority? Asian American and Pacific Islander groups differ from each other in

language, customs and culture, physical appearance and, most importantly, in the ways in which they have entered American society.

– Some groups have experienced discrimination and rejection much like colonized groups.

– Others have developed strong enclave economies.

– Still others more closely immigrant minority group.

– Some have followed all three modes of incorporation.

One of our major concerns will be to explore the perception that Asian Americans are “model minorities.”



Origins and Cultures

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders speak many different languages and practice a diversity of religions.

Asian cultures predate the founding of the United States by centuries or even millennia.

Although no two of these cultures are the same, some general similarities can be identified.


Origins and Cultures

Asian cultures tend to stress group membership over individual self-interest.

Asian cultures stress sensitivity to the opinions and judgments of others and to the importance of avoiding public embarrassment and not giving offense—saving face.

Traditional Asian cultures were male dominated, and women were consigned to subordinate roles.

The experiences of Asian Americans in the United States modified these patriarchal values and traditional traits.


Contact Situation and the Development of the Chinese American Community

Chinese immigrants were “pushed” by the disruption of traditional social relations, caused by the colonization of much of China by more industrialized European nations, and by rapid population growth (Chan, 1990, pp. 37-75; Lyman, 1974; Tsai, 1986).

At the same time, immigrants were “pulled” to the West Coast of the United States by the Gold Rush of 1849 and by other opportunities created by the development of the West.



Ethnocentrism based on racial, cultural, and language differences was present from the beginning.

At first, competition for jobs between Chinese immigrants and native-born workers was muted by an abundance of jobs, but as the West Coast economy changed and eastern Anglo migration continued, the Chinese came to be seen as a threat, and elements of the dominant group tried to limit competition.

The Chinese controlled few power resources with which to withstand these attacks as they were a small group, and by law, were not permitted to become citizens.



In 1882, the anti-Chinese campaign experienced its ultimate triumph when the U.S. Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act banning virtually all immigration from China.

Consistent with the predictions of split labor market theory, native-born workers, organized labor, and white owners of small businesses felt threatened by the Chinese and supported the Chinese Exclusion Act (Boswell, 1986).

Conflicts such as the anti-Chinese campaign can be especially intense because they confound racial and ethnic antagonisms with disputes between different social classes.



Following the Chinese Exclusion Act, the number of Chinese in the United States actually declined as many Chinese male sojourners were not replaced by newcomers (Chan, 1990, p. 66).

At the end of the 19th century males outnumbered females by more than 25 to 1, and the sex ratio did not approach parity for decades.

The scarcity of Chinese women in the United States delayed the second generation and it wasn’t until the 1920s, that as many as one third of all Chinese in the United States were native born.

The decades-long absence of a more Americanized, English-speaking generation increased the isolation of Chinese Americans.



The Chinese became increasingly urbanized as the anti-Chinese campaign and rising racism took their toll.

The earliest urban Chinese included merchants and skilled artisans who were experienced in commerce, and who established businesses and retail stores that were typically small in scope and modest in profits.

As the number of urban Chinese increased, new services were required, the size of the cheap labor pool available to Chinese merchants and entrepreneurs increased, and the Chinatowns became the economic, cultural, and social centers of the community.



The social structure was based on a variety of types of organizations, including families, clans, and huiguans.

Life was not always peaceful, and there were numerous disputes over control of resources and the organizational infrastructure—“Tong Wars.”

Despite internal conflicts, American Chinatowns evolved into highly organized, largely self-contained communities complete with their own leadership and decision-making structures—CCBA.



Despite the widespread poverty, discrimination, and pressures created by the unbalanced sex ratio, Chinatowns appeared and grew in New York, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, and many other cities.

Chinese Americans responded to their exclusion by finding economic opportunity in areas where dominant group competition for jobs was weak, continuing their tendency to be an “invisible” minority group—restaurants and laundries.

Relatively hidden from general view, Chinatown became the world in which the second generation grew to adulthood.



The second generation tended to look beyond the enclave to fill their needs.

They founded organizations their own that were more compatible with their American lifestyles (Lai, 1980, p. 225).

WWII brought more opportunities—jobs, military service, GI Bill, socioeconomic mobility.

Women of the second generation also pursued education, and as early as 1960, their median years of schooling were slightly higher than for Chinese American men (Kitano & Daniels, 1995, p. 48).



Although well-educated Chinese Americans could find good jobs in the mainstream economy, the highest, most lucrative positions—and those that required direct supervision of whites—were still closed to them.

Many Chinese Americans who stayed in the Chinatowns and the immigrants who began arriving after 1965, rely for survival on low-wage jobs in the garment industry, the service sector, and the small businesses of the enclave economy.

Thus, Chinese Americans are often said to be “bipolar” in their occupational structure (see Barringer, Takeuchi, & Levin, 1995; Takaki, 1993, pp. 415–416; Wong, 1995, pp. 77–78; Zhou & Logan, 1989).



Contact Situation and the Development of the Japanese American Community

The contact situation for Japanese immigrants resembled that of the Chinese.

Although Japanese immigration was partly curtailed in 1907 when a “gentlemen’s agreement” was signed, a loophole allowed females to continue to immigrate until the 1920s.

Japanese Americans were thus able to develop a second generation without much delay that numbered about half of the group by 1930, and were a majority of 63% on the eve of World War II (Kitano & Daniels, 1995, p. 59).



In 1910, between 30% and 40% of all Japanese in California were engaged in agriculture, owninh small plots of land and comprising only a minuscule percentage of West Coast farmers (Jibou, 1988, pp. 357–358).

Their presence and relative success stimulated discriminatory legislation in the Alien Land Act, which declared aliens who were ineligible for citizenship to be also ineligible to own land (Kitano, 1980, p. 563).

Japanese Americans were able to dodge the discriminatory legislation, mostly by putting titles of land in the names of their American-born children, who were citizens by law (Jibou, 1988, p. 359).



By World War II, the Issei (first generation) had come to dominate a narrow but important segment of agriculture on the West Coast.

Other Issei in urban areas, were concentrated in a narrow range of businesses and services, such as domestic service and gardening (Jibou, 1988, pp. 362).

Japanese Americans maximized their economic clout by doing business with other Japanese-owned firms as often as possible.

In the years before World War II, the Japanese American community was largely dependent for survival on their networks of cooperation and mutual assistance, not on Americanization and integration.



Unable to find acceptance in Anglo society, the Nisei (second generation) established organizations that reflected their high levels of Americanization—Japanese American Citizens League (Kitano & Daniels, 1995, p. 64).

Although the Nisei enjoyed high levels of success in school, the intense discrimination and racism of the 1930s prevented most of them from translating their educational achievements into better jobs and higher salaries.

Many Nisei were forced to remain within the enclave, and in many cases, their demoralization and anger over their exclusion were eventually swamped by the larger events of World War II.



Two months after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which led to the relocation of Japanese Americans living on the West Coast.

By the late summer of 1942, more than 110,000 Japanese Americans, young and old, male and female—virtually the entire West Coast population—had been transported to relocation camps where they were imprisoned behind barbed-wire fences patrolled by armed guards.

Many of these people were American citizens, and no one was given the opportunity to refute the implicit charge of disloyalty.



The government gave families little notice to prepare for evacuation and secure their homes, businesses, and belongings.

Eventually more than 25,000 escaped the camps by volunteering for military service, many with distinction.

The camps did reduce the extent to which women were relegated to a subordinate role.

Some Japanese Americans brought lawsuits to end the program, and in 1944, the Supreme Court ruled that detention was unconstitutional.



In 1948, Congress passed legislation to authorize compensation to Japanese Americans, but these claims were eventually settled for less than one tenth the amount of the actual economic losses.

Demand for meaningful redress and compensation continued, and in 1988, Congress passed a bill granting reparations of about $20,000 in cash to each of the 60,000 remaining survivors of the camps.

The law also acknowledged that the relocation program had been a grave injustice to Japanese Americans (Biskupic, 1989, p. 2879).



For the Nisei, when the war ended they were unwilling to rebuild the Japanese community as it had been before.

When anti-Asian prejudice declined in the 1950s and the job market began to open, the Nisei were educationally prepared to take advantage of resultant opportunities (Kitano, 1980, p. 567).

By 1960, Japanese Americans had an occupational profile very similar to that of whites except that they were actually overrepresented among professionals, and there was a tendency to choose “safe” careers that did not require extensive contact with the public or supervision of whites (Kitano & Daniels, 1988, p. 70).



An additional factor contributing to the perception of “model minority” status for Japanese Americans is the small number of immigrants from Japan that the community has not had to devote resources to.

Furthermore, recent immigrants from Japan tend to be highly educated professional people whose socioeconomic characteristics add to the perception of success and affluence.

In any case, the Sansei and Yonsei are highly integrated into the occupational structure of the larger society.


Contact Situations and the Development of the Chinese and Japanese American Communities

Unlike the situation of African Americans in the 1600s and Mexican Americans in the 1800s, the dominant group had no desire to control the labor of these groups.

Unlike Native Americans, Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans in the early 20th century presented no military danger to the larger society so there was little concern with their activities once the economic threat had been eliminated.

Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans had the ingredients and experiences necessary to form enclaves.


Contemporary Immigration from Asia and and the Pacific Islands





Joblessness and lack of opportunity in the sending countries are almost always a primary cause of the decision to move.

Spouses of military personnel and war refugees.

California received many more immigrants than any other state, with New York a distant second.

The members of most Asian American groups are newcomers.

Recent immigrants from Asia and Latin America have very different occupational and educational backgrounds.





The immigrants entering the primary labor market are highly educated, skilled professionals and businesspeople.

The Asian groups with the highest percentages of educated and skilled immigrants include those from Japan, the Philippines, China, and India.

Because they tend to be affluent and enter a growing sector of the labor force, Asian immigrants with professional backgrounds tend to attract less notice and fewer racist reactions than their more unskilled counterparts.



Sizable groups of undocumented, uneducated, unskilled laborers, and refugees compete for jobs in the secondary and service economy of the larger society.

The experiences of these less skilled immigrants are strongly affected by gender, with female immigrants often being more vulnerable and more exploited.

Differing income returns between the genders might be explained by the subordinate position of Asian women as they gravitate toward jobs that give them the flexibility they need to fill their domestic roles and support other family members.



Some Asian immigrants have established ethnic enclaves.

Some members of these groups enter U.S. society as entrepreneurs, owners of small retail shops, and other businesses, while their less skilled and educated co-ethnics serve as a source of cheap labor to staff the ethnic enterprises.

The enclave provides contacts, financial and other services, and social support for the new immigrants of all social classes.

Koreans and Asian Indians have been particularly likely to follow this path.



Filipinos, the second largest Asian American group, entered as agricultural workers, but the most recent are diversified and “bipolar” in their educational and occupational profiles.

Many have entered under the family preference provisions, and more than half since 1965 have been professionals in health and medical fields.

Many female immigrants from the Philippines were nurses actively recruited by U.S. hospitals to fill gaps in the labor force.

Language differences, anti-Asian prejudice and discrimination limit the educational and occupational choices for the group as a whole.



Koreans extremely small until the 1950s, when the rate of immigration rose because of refugees and “war brides” after the Korean War.

Recent immigrants from Korea consist mostly of families and include many highly educated people.

The high percentage of Christians among them may help them appear more “acceptable” to the dominant group.

Korean Americans are heavily involved in small businesses and retail stores often in deteriorated neighborhoods populated largely by other minority groups, which has produced a great deal of animosity towards the group—1992 L.A. riots.



In 1975 when U.S. military withdrew, many Southeast Asians who had collaborated with the United States fled in fear for their lives.

This group included high-ranking officials and members of the region’s educational and occupation elite, and later less well educated and more impoverished refugees.

The Vietnamese are the largest of the Asian refugee groups, and contrary to notions of model minorities, they have incomes, educational levels, and segregation levels comparable to colonized minority groups.



Indians are the third-largest Asian American group today and tend to be a select highly educated and skilled group.

In 1980, 11% of male Asian Indians were physicians as were 8% of the females, compared with less than 1% of the total U.S. population.

Others from India are more oriented to commerce and small business, and there is a sizable Indian ethnic enclave in many cities.

In 1990, the median income of immigrants from India was $18,000 above the national norm of $30,320.

These skilled immigrants from India are part of a worldwide movement of educated peoples from less developed countries to more developed countries.


Contemporary Relations

Although prejudice against Asian and Pacific Island groups may have weakened overall, the continuing force of anti-Asian prejudice is marked most dramatically by hate crimes against members of the group.

Asian Americans have also been the victims of “positive” stereotypes—“model minority.”

This label has been applied to these groups by others who have a variety of hidden moral and political agendas.

The extent of acculturation of Asian Americans is highly variable from group to group.























The ability of Asian Americans to pursue their group interests has been sharply limited by a number of factors, including their relatively small size, institutionalized discrimination, and the same kinds of racist practices that have limited the power resources of other minority groups of color.

Contrary to the perception that Asian Americans are a “quiet” minority, the group has a long history of political action, including a civil rights movement in the 1960s and 1970s (Fong, 2002, pp. 273-281).

Asian Americans have been prominent in Hawaiian politics for decades, but they are increasingly involved in West Coast political life as well—Governor Gary Locke.



Comparing Minority Groups: Explaining Asian American Success

A cultural explanation accepts the evidence of Asian American success at face value and attributes it to the “good values” of traditional Asian cultures, which are highly compatible with U.S. middle-class Protestant value systems and presumably helped Asian Americans gain acceptance and opportunities.

A structural explanation emphasizes contact situations, modes of incorporation, enclave economies, group cohesion, position in the labor market, and institutionalized discrimination.

Although this approach questions the whole notion that Asian Americans are successful and stresses the facts of Asian American poverty and the continuing patterns of racism and exclusion, this is not to suggest that the cultural approach is wrong or irrelevant.



Chinese and Japanese immigrants arrived in America at about the same time as immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, yet the barriers to upward mobility for European immigrants (or, at least for their descendants) fell away more rapidly than the barriers for immigrants from Asia.

– Whereas the cultural and linguistic markers that identified eastern- and southern Europeans faded with each passing generation, the racial characteristics of the Asian groups continued to separate them from the larger society.

– Immigrants from southern and eastern Europe entered the industrializing East Coast economy, where they took industrial and manufacturing jobs that gave European immigrants and their descendants the potential for upward mobility in the mainstream economy.



Some Asian groups rank far above other racial minority groups on all the commonly used measures of secondary structural integration and equality.

However, if we also observe the full range of differences within each group (e.g., the “bipolar” nature of occupations among Chinese Americans), we see that the images of success have been exaggerated and need to be placed in a proper context.

The relative success of Chinese American and Japanese Americans has become a device for scolding other minority groups.

The social class differences between these groups today flow from their respective situations in the past.



Many of the occupational and financial advances made by Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans have been due to the high levels of education achieved by the second generations.

At the time that native-born Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans reached educational parity with whites, the vast majority of African Americans, Native Americans, and Mexican Americans were still victimized by Jim Crow laws and legalized segregation and excluded from opportunities for anything but rudimentary education.



The structural explanation is not consistent with traditional views of the assimilation process.

The immigrant generation of Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans responded to the massive discrimination they faced by withdrawing, developing ethnic enclaves, and becoming “invisible” to the larger society.

Like Cuban Americans, Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans used their traditional cultures and patterns of social life to create and build their own subcommunities from which they launched the next generation.


Date post:	19-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Chapter Ten Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders: A Model Minority? © Pine Forge Press, an imprint...

Documents