The main thesis is that racism in the US is organized around a rejection of blackness rather than the elevation of white supremacy. With the premise that race is a social construct, Yancey discusses the growing latino and asian populations in the US and their position in the racial hierarchy. He examines their willingness to identify with a 'white' world view while rejecting any kind of solidarity or alignment with the black community. He predicts that as the southern europeans before them, these two groups will be soon be viewed as white.

Some very interesting points raised. I do have questions about how he defines asians- are south asians included in this category and after 9-11 and with america's current 'war on terror', I wonder if arabs and south asians will be so easily granted membership to whiteness.

Also the review does not mention the native communities and how they fit into his analysis. It's hard to know what he misses in the actual book as this is a just a review.

read review here

[ 12 May 2005: Message edited by: periyar ]

I am presently going to graduate school in the United States, and there are many South Asians in the same program. However, there are not many blacks, and fewer still black males, even though blacks form a far more significant component of the local population. That some of my colleagues are black women is itself a topic of comment. Asians of all kinds (West, South, East, and if you count Russians and Turkic peoples, North) are abundant in most of the graduate programs here, blacks not.

An interesting effect though, is that when there ARE black males, they tend to be first or second-generation Africans or Carribeans. So the blackness in question is AMERICAN blackness.

quote:

---

I do have questions about how he defines asians- are south asians included in this category and after 9-11 and with america's current 'war on terror',

---

I do know that in the 2000 election Bush and the GOP actually pursued a strategy of wooing arab-American voters, and ended up with roughly half of that voting bloc. This all changed after the attack on Iraq, of course.

I think the main idea behind Bush's "arab strategy" was to get Michigan(which apparently has a high percentage of arab voters)into the GOP coulmn.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6056602

[ 12 May 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
I am South Asian like you, and Muslim to boot, and I do sort of agree with the premise posited there. Prior to Sept 11, and even after Sept 11, I very rarely encountered racism, and my desiness (nor the desiness of anyone else I know) has NEVER impeded my ambitions, and possibly even helped me. (South Asians as highly productive geeks.) After Sept 11 2001, my brownness and Muslimness has made me more cautious, but so far I cannot attribute any actual problems to it.

---

I agree that the black community is far more marginalzied in the US than south asians. I am also aware of the intense racism directed toward this community by south asians. My point is about gaining that dominant social acceptance described as whiteness. I think that americans are fearful and suspicious of the people they think look like terrorists. This is a stumbling block to full integration even if you are not going to be hauled off to guantamo bay tomorrow.

I do know that in the 2000 election Bush and the GOP actually pursued a strategy of wooing arab-American voters, and ended up with roughly half of that voting bloc. This all changed after the attack on Iraq, of course.

the concept of whiteness has always been an historically flexible term, and rarely are we able to see it in flux as we live it happening in the present.

i will say, though, that if skin colour trumps class (which it often does) then this type of assimilation is conditional at best.

in the u.s. context, there is a fairly long history of a large, and growing, black middle/professional/upper-middle class, and very quickly the seeming "buffer" that class creates as a protection against more virulent racism (eg. being shot in the street by police) can disappear. there are numerous examples of this.

I believe one could make a case that the real dividing line between blacks on one hand, and latinos, asians, and whites, on the other, is that blacks were not volunteer migrants.

They were brought to America as slaves, and thus it had to be shown they were less 'human' than whites. It is that legacy which creates the huge divide between blacks and whites in the US.

Not unnaturally, 'white' USA does not look at hispanics and asians in the same way. At the same time, because of being shut out of 'white' America, blacks have developed their own culture in parallel with white society.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:

i will say, though, that if skin colour trumps class (which it often does) then this type of assimilation is conditional at best.

in the u.s. context, there is a fairly long history of a large, and growing, black middle/professional/upper-middle class, and very quickly the seeming "buffer" that class creates as a protection against more virulent racism (eg. being shot in the street by police) can disappear. there are numerous examples of this.

the parallel to this with respect to asians is the phenomenon of post 9-11 overt racism. a similar example more close to home is the sars situation of 2 summers ago and what happened to asian people in toronto and other cities in canada.

---

That is a good point. I was thinking of sars and the chineese community too and how some of the racist reactions showed how tenuous their status is.
You could say the same of the south asian community in the US- which is considered the model minority and it's my impression from talking to family and friends who have lived there for many years that the racism is not quite as intense. But after 9-11, you saw south asians targeted and of course it had nothing to do with carrying out vengence on muslims as south asians of hindu, sikh and chrisitian backgrounds were equally targeted.

There was the story of the Sikh man who was murdered for 9-11 payback. There was the story of the south indian nair man who went to the theatre in new york and wanted tickets that were in the middle of the theatre and the ticket seller alerted the police because she thought it was suspicious. The cops showed up and escorted him and his fiance out of the theatre. Finally, the one that felt close to home for me was the report about the canadian woman of goan origin who was coming back from india via chicago to toronto. Her passport was taken away from her and destroyed because the customs officer thought the portuguese catholic sounding name couldn't possibly belong to her. She was detained and questioned and then stranded.

And here in Canada, a hindu temple was burned down and i think there was significant evidence that it was motivated by 9-11 payback syndrome.

quote:

---

Maestro- good point about slavery. I think the same analysis applies to native communities too.

---

I just wanted to add that according to a PBS documentary on slavery that I watched back in February, at the time of the American (U.S.) Revolution approximately 25% of the population of the colonies were apparently people of African descent, i.e. generally either slaves or freed former slaves.

I recommend this documentary very highly:

Slavery and the Making of America

The USA as a country was largely built on the stolen land of Native peoples and the stolen labour of Black slaves. I think the legacy of these injustices is a major reason for the continuing divides. I think the experience of "nonwhite" immigrant USians is somewhat different, because at one historical moment, those immigrants may be dehumanized in order to justify their economic exploitation under capitalism, but at another moment, those immigrants may be assimilated into the dominant "white" class, to shore up the white capitalist power structure against Black or Native claims.

[ 13 May 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

(1) As scapegoats, to justify a national security state that revokes civil liberties from everyone. The national security state and culture of fear allows the neocon clique to hold onto their particular position of power within the broader capitalist system, and also allows them to channel state resources into the military/industrial security apparatus where they have their base of support.

(2) To directly legitimize aggressive US/UK military intervention in the Middle East (where people who "look Arab" or "look Muslim" are purported to come from). This military intervention is primarily motivated to acquire oil on terms as favorable as possible to the US and its allies.

[ 13 May 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
I would further add that I think we are in a historical moment where Americans of Southeast Asian descent are being dehumanized again, reversing a substantial period of assimilation. ([ 13 May 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

---

[ 13 May 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GJJ:
Just to touch on one point in the original post, it seems natives are seldom included in discussions about racism. I wonder if the books author couldn't find material on natives, or if he or she just never thought of them at all?

---

I don't think there is a shortage of material on native communities and their struggles. I guess I'd have to read the book to see if he includes them. I know bell hooks writes about white supremacy and black communities and does include analysis of native communities.

For me, it is kind of the cornerstone of antiracist politics because I'm aware I'm living on and benefitting from the appropriation/theft of native lands. The issues around this are still vital because of the continuing marginalization of native communities.

quote:

---

The main thesis is that racism in the US is organized around a rejection of blackness rather than the elevation of white supremacy.

---

There is some truth in that, but I do think the point about natives probes and undercuts its truth.

Racism concerning native people is critically important in Canada, and has been in the US also.
Lots of "pioneers" treated native people like crap, and it had little to do with rejecting blackness.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

There is some truth in that, but I do think the point about natives probes and undercuts its truth.

Racism concerning native people is critically important in Canada, and has been in the US also.
Lots of "pioneers" treated native people like crap, and it had little to do with rejecting blackness.

Does the author discuss that point in the book?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
There is some truth in that, but I do think the point about natives probes and undercuts its truth.

Racism concerning native people is critically important in Canada, and has been in the US also.
Lots of "pioneers" treated native people like crap, and it had little to do with rejecting blackness.

---

Well, yes I agree and I agree with periyar- I also believe that racism affecing native people is a cornerstone of antiracist politics, but the rejection of blackness makes reference to the Jim Crow era, so I think it is important to consider here the way colour lines are being referenced to written and unwritten laws governing the interactions between blacks and whites and the conditions that make that rejection unique (this is also in note of robbie_dee's point about legacy of these injustices as a major reason for the continuing divides).

If the book is following DuBois' argument about racial divisions between blacks and whites and the benifits of racism as a result of those divisons, then I think it would be important to consider how a rejection of blackness by non-black (USian) groups allows those groups to benefit from whiteness in various ways.

I'd love to read it, of course I'd actually have to go and get the book and having time to read it would be nice…

[ 13 May 2005: Message edited by: Insurrection ]

I will never replicate that type of bullshit in my family and i made sure i married someone who hadn't internalized those views. I've already taken steps to educate my kids about it. It's pretty basic stuff since they are 2 and 4- through children's books and black/brown dolls and telling them things about africa like how human life started there. They love fela kuti- we play the cd and they sing along- and they know it's from africa.

I don't want to sound like I'm romantizing or exoticizing black/african culture and people. They also interact with people from these communities so they get the complexity of real live people- as much as they can process for their age. I also think with all the negative stereotypes and ideas about black culture and people out there, my positive approach is a good counterpoint.

[ 13 May 2005: Message edited by: periyar ]

In my research on mixed-race identity and mixed race status in Canada and the U.S. I have found that historically, the presense of a black grandparent, or great (great) grandparent, invoked some ridiculous labels as "quadroon" meaning 1/4 black, "octroon" meaning being 1/8 black. etc.

The complete reverse is the case with native peoples, in Canada anyways. Until recently (1985) if an aboriginal woman married a non-aboriginal man she lost her "status" as "indian" ("Indian" is a legal term in Canada, via the "Indian Act"), which would make all her children and every generation afterwards of non-status as well. Oddly, and sexistly, if an aboriginal man married a non-aboriginal woman, she was conferred with "Indian" status, as would their children be.

Nonetheless, this form of "terminology genocide" (I just made that term up, but it's from Ward Churchill's 5 kinds of genocide) was and is a way to reduce the legal numbers of aboriginal people in Canada, without actually having to go and actually killing them. Disgusting.

quote:

---

I have south asian family and friends who live in the states and seem obsessed with insuring they don't live in black communities, have stupid stereotypes about black people and crime- seem to need to express negative opinions about the black community in at least one conversation- they have totally dehumanized black people. It's not that different in canada- little less intense. These ideas are rarely challenged.

---

Anyway, I picked up the book (took it out at the library) I have no time to read it but I will pretend like I do and (try to) read it anyway I'll probably post something about it when/if I get though it all…

bigcitygal: that topic is of interest for me as well (I'd comment on it more if I had time) I think an interesting thing for me is that despite the distictiveness of the methods there are some odd (odd) similarites...

welcome to babble, Saffire

[ 18 May 2005: Message edited by: Insurrection ]

There is a lot of marrying out in my specific Indian community but it is generally to white persons and mostly to people of a wasp background. When this happens, people in the community trip all over themselves to greet and welcome the white spouses. I will never forget an incident at a family gathering where my white brother-in-law was explaining to my aunt how there's something about indian food he just doesn't like- some spice- so she runs to her cupboard and starts taking out all her spices and has him smell it to locate the offending culprit.

As it turns out, the first one she chooses is cardamom which has such a sweet fragrant smell. He smells it and she responds by saying- it smells like shit-doesn't it? I lost a lot of respect for her then- It was so pathetic to see her debase her culture to gain the acceptance of this white guy who, from my conversations with him, would never see Indian culture on equal footing with his own European background.

I see such a double standard among how white people who marry into our community are treated when compared to people of colour or even South Asians from a different religious or regional background as was the case with me. I got a lot of flak from my family and community for marrying a hindu punjabi but ultimately, my parents, extended family and community members are not the ones who will impact my daily life- and I just endured the time before, during and even some time after the wedding because I knew that I had made the right choice for myself- also minimizing my interaction with the community helped.

Insurrection- with regard to the anti-racist parenting, our strategy with our kids is to challenge the 'white as the norm' mindset which really gets reinforced at an alarmingly early age. I really avoid the we're all the same narrative and emphasize diversity and frame it as positive. I guess in terms of anti-racism it's a very elementary analysis- a multicultural approach- just making them aware of different cultures and communities including native communities. Living in Toronto- they see these cultures as alive which is a bonus. As for the whole power dynamics analysis-well that will have to wait until they're older or when they're first called paki.

[ 18 May 2005: Message edited by: periyar ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by maestro:

I believe one could make a case that the real dividing line between blacks on one hand, and latinos, asians, and whites, on the other, is that blacks were not volunteer migrants... It is that legacy which creates the huge divide between blacks and whites in the US.

Not unnaturally, 'white' USA does not look at hispanics and asians in the same way. At the same time, because of being shut out of 'white' America, blacks have developed their own culture in parallel with white society.

Thus, whites feel less distant from hispanics and asians than they do from blacks, despite the fact blacks have been in USA for a much longer time.

---

Hello,

Thank you for your post. I am a black American and I completely agree with what you said here. This is exactly why we are still viewed the way we are today. It is a very sad thing because now even the other cultures who come here to America look at us the same way. It is nice to see that someone else sees it for what it is. Thanks again for your post.

[ 18 May 2005: Message edited by: Becca ]