“Asian” (late 1300s) means “a native of Asia or a person of Asian descent.” It seems like a clear-cut, straightforward, geographically objective word. But things are not that simple.
In Britain it mainly means South Asian: people from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The government counts “Chinese” separately from “Asian”. Non-Chinese people from South East Asia tend to mark down “Other Ethnic Group”, not “Other Asian”.
In the US, meanwhile, “Asian” mainly means East Asian: China and neighbouring countries, like Japan, Vietnam and Korea.
Immigration seems to be the main reason for the difference: most Asians in Britain are from South Asia, while most Asians in the US are from East Asia.
In the US, two-thirds of Asians come from the east coast, namely:
- Japan
- Korea
- South China
- Taiwan
- Vietnam
- Laos
- Cambodia
- Philippines
On the map these are marked in dark red.
Empire: These are all places where the US fought wars, ruled or had military allies. Some Asians, in fact, fled to the US because of those very wars. Some are Amerasians: the sons and daughters left behind by American soldiers.
Likewise, the main Asian piece of the British Empire was India.
Racial euphemism: In both the US and Britain, “Asian” takes the place older, more racist-sounding words:
- Asiatic
- Oriental
- Mongoloid
or worse.
There are people alive in the US who used to say “Oriental” all the time but now just say “Asian” instead. So “Asian” is racialized. And it is not just some old codgers left over from Jim Crow times either:
Statistical Policy Directive #15: In 1977 the US government, to enforce its civil rights laws, began gathering numbers uniformly based on five “races”: Black, White, Hispanic, Native and Asian American. US scholars, even geneticist Neil Risch, followed suit.
“Asian American” came from the Yellow Power movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s – but it was the government that wound up defining it.
People from India, for example, were counted as “White/Caucasian”, as they were on the 1970 census. But, apparently because Indian Americans objected, they were soon counted as Asian Americans instead. Other Caucasian Asians, though, did not object:
- West Asians (Middle East)
- Central Asians (Afghanistan, Tajikistan, etc)
- North Asians (Siberia)
On the map their region is marked in pink. The US government does not count them as Asian Americans – even though they are from Asia!
Pacific Islanders were counted together with Asian Americans from 1977 to 2000.
Genetically speaking, the five-race model should be applied to Asia and the Pacific something like this:
- Native American: Japanese, Korean, Native Siberian;
- Asian: Chinese, South East Asian, Pacific Islander;
- Caucasian: India, Middle East, White Siberian.
“Asian American” was defined by a government committee. It makes no genetic, cultural or even geographic sense. It is a social construct, nakedly so.
But then.
But then the murder of Vincent Chin in 1982 made “Asian American” more than just words in a government report. It was a wake-up call that made Asian Americans see that they were all in the same boat.
As with “Black” and “Indian” (the Native American sort), “Asian” is made real by White racism.
See also:
- Asian Americans
- Vincent Chin
- Is race biologically real – for more on Neil Risch
- Bhagat Singh Thind – Indian Americans as maybe Caucasian but not “white”
- Morepseudogeography:
My first summer job was at the US Census Bureau in 1979, 1980, and the winter break 1979-1980, when I was busy helping to print and collate census forms. That was the first time “Asian” was used.
In Australia, the use of Asian is more or less similar to the US.
I was really very surprised to see the inner southern Chinese provinces of Hunan and Jiangxi (and also the central coastal province of Jiangsu) shaded in, unless those people came through Taiwan or something – I think many of the KMT who fled to Taiwan in 1949 came from those provinces. Those people rarely left China otherwise.
Also surprised to see North Korea and North Vietnam shaded in.
LikeLike
@ Jefe
Wow! History in the making.
With North Korea, Hunan, etc, I am playing it safe. I do not have numbers to narrow it further than that. The same applies to Mindanao, Hokkaido, etc.
LikeLike
Where does the country of Kazakhstan fit into this narrative of Asians? I only learned about this country from watching a documentary series called VICE. It was about how the Russians detonated bombs in this country and the results were how the people in that part of the world were affected. Birth defects and cancers, and how the environment was poisoned by the radiation from the bombs. That would have been an interesting post.
LikeLike
I had believed that Kazakhs identified themselves as Asians on US census forms, but Abagond shaded them pink. Anyhow, their numbers in the USA are so small.
I did meet someone once from Kazakhistan on the plane flying from HK to SF. So, it seems there are some in the USA.
LikeLike
In UK,south Asians tend to be the largest ethnic minority,followed by the black population,in my opinion the east Asians are a relatively smaller population here..having said that,that number will not last long as the government census form and stats show the mixed raced population being any of 2 racial mixtures,as vastly outnumbering the Asians,with some saying a lot of people of mixed ethnicity may not have accurately marked their true lineage.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Life in Anglo-America.
LikeLike
When the term oriental used to be heavily used around here, I would always confuse it for a rug. It was not until later I realized that they were referring to Asians.
LikeLike
maxine
“with some saying a lot of people of mixed ethnicity may not have accurately marked their true lineage.”—Very true. I believe it has to do with mixed races not really knowing what to put down. In most forms where I have to define the race of my children I really struggle with whether or not to simply put black or mark them as Hispanic or what. I usually end up putting black Hispanic but I started to wonder what do mixed kids with an Asian and white parent put or Asian and black parent.
LikeLike
Excellent observations, Abagond!
LikeLike
@Abagond – Of course Siberians are marked as white – most are the descendants of European Russian Colonists. Race is not about where you came from, it is about where your family originated. Otherwise both you and I would be Native American.
LikeLike
Abagond,
“In the US, two-thirds of Asians come from the east coast, namely:”
Does this include non-citizens? I thought Indians would be in the majority. Most Asians in my area are Indian.
LikeLike
@ Bobby M
It is not just ethnic Russians. Even Native Siberians are counted as Caucasians – while Native Alaskans are not. That is how screwed up it is.
LikeLike
@ Solesearch
It counts anyone in the US, anyone the census would count, not just citizens.
LikeLike
Yeah, ethnic European Russians are concentrated in the towns and cities along Trans-Siberian railroad. “Native Siberians” (whose ancestors predated the European settlers). are genetically and linguistically and culturally more similar to Inuits and Aleuts (in the Northeast) and to Mongolians (in the parts that border Mongolia). In fact, when Alaska was purchased from Russia in the late 19th century, some families got separated on either side of the line drawn through the Bering Strait.
It was interesting – last year I ran into an ethnic Russian taking the train across NE China. Next time I would like to take the train across the border from Manchuria to the Russian far East.
LikeLike
Siberia is not that simple thing at all.
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/n1c1/default.aspx?section=results
LikeLike
@Sharon’s
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046197/British-population-Are-mixed-race-people-Britains-biggest-ethnic-minority.html
Yes I would agree that the less common mixed raced groups are often left out of forms so most would probably tick neither or the other category.
LikeLike
Typo above @Sharina
LikeLike
@sharina
Please read some of the literature prepared by Dr. Maria P.P. Root, a university psychologist specializing in multiracial families and children.
Best option – let them decide themselves. Allow them to change their mind. Allow them to vary it according to what situation they find themselves in. Do not impose a racial identity on them.
http://www.drmariaroot.com/
LikeLike
Jefe
Thanks for the recommendation.
LikeLike
From a german perspective it sounds outragous that a government today has a cencus on racial identity. I’d like to see the reaction if a politician would propose that in Germany.
LikeLike
Kartoffel
It is not just the census. I have had to identify my race on medical records and other forms I fill out.
LikeLike
Every country has a method of dividing up their country into demographic categories for social and political purposes and select some of those parameters to collect statistics on. Germany is no different in that regard. For example, they do keep track of how many citizens are descendants of “foreigners” by ethnic background or national origin of their ancestors. The way that Germany does it might be considered to be a bit *outrageous* by Americans.
Censuses on race or ethnic background are VERY common in many countries. In many countries today, you have to carry your assigned racial label imprinted on your national ID card. There was big discussion a few years ago in Singapore why citizens must carry their racial label on their ID card, and the govt decided it was necessary for certain social purposes. In Malaysia, persons assigned to certain races are subject to various laws that others are not (e.g., whether or not they are allowed to drink alcohol at certain times or whom they may marry). Any policeman or govt official may require for a citizen to show his assigned race. Some people try to change their legal race, but are not allowed to do so.
This DOES NOT occur in the US with a few exceptions. For example, some states require individuals to prove that they are members of a particular Native American Indian tribe to be eligible for certain rights or privileges.
The method developed in the USA has changed over time. Today it is based on self-identification, and persons have the right to change it. This is very different from as recent as 46 years ago before Loving v. Virginia repealed the anti-miscegenation laws.
What people do not have the ability to do is change the categories that the USA collects statistics on. That is why the HAPA movement in the 1990s is considered a success, whereby Americans no longer were require to tick THE box, but change to ticking any and all that apply (per their own self-identification).
LikeLike
Jefe
You’re right , The German goverment does collect information if somebody is an immigrant or if one of his parents has been. Perhaps I should change “outragous” to “random”. A classification along nationality has at least legal objectivity.
Geroge
Homogeneous in which category? We have quite a few immigrants, but most of them would be considered white in the US.
LikeLike
Not really. At least not anymore. Only 80% of Germany is native born ethnic Germans.
https://www.destatis.de/DE/PresseService/Presse/Pressekonferenzen/2013/Zensus2011/bevoelkerung_zensus2011.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
Look at p. 7 under “Personen mit Migrationshintergrund” which could also include native born citizens who are children of immigrants.
Germany is now one of the largest recipients of international migrants. (Sorry, about using wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population
which is exactly why they also divide up their population into ethnic and national origin categories. Offhand I cannot think of any country that does not. France?
Really, I apologize for leading this astray off-topic, but I have to stop some detractors dead in their tracks. Now, let’s get back to how the word ‘Asian’ is used in the US.
LikeLike
Sorry, that reply was for George Ryder.
LikeLike
@Kartoffel
What the USA does is hardly random. It was done with careful calculation. Racial and ethnic categories and definitions are used to fulfill social and political purposes.
The USA does not collect immigrant status of parents of USA citizens in the way that Germany does, at least not for those purposes. Americans might find it a bit outrageous.
LikeLike
@Jefe, regarding Germany:
Nationality and non-nationality IS recorded, but records are not kept on the basis of racial origin — as opposed to “ethnicity” — as such.
We don’t know, for sure, how many Afro-Deutsch there are, for instance, do we? In this sense, Kartoffel definitely has a point, as the Germans are pretty sensitive on the personal information that the government shall hold on its people.
@Kartoffel,
I believe you mean for the German state to determine who has residency and citizenship.
LikeLike
I’d agree about France, though.
LikeLike
But after that conversation with the commenter from Argentina on the “Map of White People” thread, I believe that country of origin is the main indicator over all other considerations…
LikeLike
@Jefe
No argument there. I meant the categories are random, not the motives behind that categorization. Nationality of course is also a social construct, but through citizenship it’s now a legal reality, not just a social one. So you can objectivly know what nationality a person has. With race or ethnicity that’s completly impossible.
I shouldn’t have said “outragous”, it carries moral judgement. Let’s say I think it’s strange. I never understood what value a census has where you can self identify, even for white supremacists.
LikeLike
@Bulanik I probably used the word Nationality in the wrong way.
LikeLike
@ Kartoffel, I was only sought clarification, but I agree with your main point.
It’s nationality the German state wants to know about, rather than the individual’s race or colour or whatever.
I suppose Germany’s difference with the US model is that Germany has a tradition of practicing jus sanguinis (the right of blood), which determines citizenship not by place of birth but by citizenship of one or both parents. Perhaps jus solis has longer been the practice in countries in the Amercas, including the US?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
When I read Abagond’s article, he talks about the US, but not exclusively.
This is considerate and wise of him, as it not only tells us fascinating information about the US, but also invites other national perspectives.
The Germans I used to know of Asian descent (whether they are Turkish or had Sri Lankan fathers, or Pilipina mothers, for instance) had sometimes mentioned that they were described as having “immigrant background” or partly so, on one parent’s side, over a designated “racial” category as such.
Well officially at least.
And, now that I think about it, the Roma of Germany, another Asian group, are neither classified as a race, or ethnicity, and would not be considered “Immigrants” in any way, either in that country…
LikeLike
I meant that the categories are anything BUT random. They have very definite definitions that were arrived at after careful bureaucratic discussion. Now, some of the uses that they apply that information for can be a bit random. So, my point was almost opposite to your understanding.
Also, not really. There are people who are stateless (it happens in many places all the time), and there are those with multiple nationalities whose interpretation of nationality is left up to very big quandary discussion (I can give you many examples). And then there is the definition of nationality in the first place. For example, a US National is different from a US citizen. Hong Kong people hold British National Overseas (BNO) passports that do not give them the right to live in Britain.
It is not nearly as cut and dry as you believe.
As a country that was literally built on notion of racial identity, the US uses race and ethnicity for many social and political purposes. Those purposes change greatly over time.
You have not lived in many different countries then, esp. those that were founded as a multi-racial state.
Let me give you 2 examples: USA and Singapore.
US used to require monoracial identity, and usually applied hypodescent (one-drop rule), but not always. They specified exact quantums of blood allowed to permit them to marry white people. But on the other hand, if they could “pass”, then they could just switch their race. However, with the growing interracial marriage after 1967 (and esp. the 80s), a movement started among multiracial people to resist ticking the monoracial boxes. So ticking any multiple boxes became a political solution to that problem.
Singapore used to assign race according to the race of the father. This created very strange results. Some people were classified as “Indian” as they had a great, great paternal grandfather who was Indian, yet passed as Chinese, spoke Chinese and did not practice Hinduism. They were forced to maintain a racial designation that they felt did not describe them at all. I know of a woman who had a Caucasian father and a multi-ethnic Asian mother (who was classified as a non-muslim Malay, but really only about 1/4 Malay) and the Singapore government refused to let her identify as Eurasian, but required her to mark Caucasian on her ID card. You see, in order to mark Eurasian, your father had to be descendant of a long line of people who had classified themselves as Eurasian since the 19th century and identified with the “Eurasian” cultural group. First generation Eurasians could not qualify. After a while, hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans were up in arms over the racial classification imposed on them. In 2010, it was changed so that people could have 2 racial identities, a primary one and a secondary one, and multi-racial people could now pick “Eurasian” as one of the choices. That was their political solution to their problem.
–> in both cases, people are allowed to choose their racial identities (subject to limitations) to fulfill social and political purposes.
Even China, to a large extent, will let (or in some cases, require) people self-identify their ethnic background, and in some notable examples, their nationality. They forced mixed Portuguese-Chinese Macanese to choose what nationality they can elect when it reverted back to China – it had to be one or the other. Yet, those who identified as Chinese would automatically be classified as Chinese, but not be forced to give up their Portuguese passports. So, it ended up like this – if keep your Portuguese surname, then you have to choose whether you will be Portuguese or Chinese. If you switch to a chinese surname, then you can be Chinese and keep your portuguese passport. I found the whole thing a bit messed up.
But mainland China also requires people to choose their “nationality” (ethnic group in American parlance). I have to go to do factory audits in China all the time and they record the ethnic group of each of their workers.
Malaysia seemed even more messed up to me – race and ethnicity serve religious purposes, and determine what laws you are subject to and whether you are eligible for affirmative action. They have some weird rules. I stayed there for 5 months and their racial classification system gave me the creeps.
LikeLike
@Bulanik
Well, yes and no.
Let me pick someone famous – how about Marcel Nguyen? Since he is born in Germany to a German mother, he is both native born and German by “jus sanguinis”. What nationality meaning would it be to note that he is partially descended from people who immigrated to Germany and put them into a different category? They also have a separate category in Germany for ethnic Germans who were born in other countries. So the fact that they might have a different nationality does not change the fact that they will classify them differently from other immigrants with a different nationality. This would come across as being quite outrageous in the USA.
I am not putting a judgement on it at all. All I am saying that each country has something peculiar about their demographic classification system which might seem outrageous in other places.
The USA census also does collect information on the immigration status of the respondents or their parents, and has a category of persons of “foreign origin” which they track which is somewhat similar to what Germany does for its naturalized and children of naturalized citizens. But they would not collect information on overseas born Americans who acquired foreign nationality and later returned to the USA and keep that information separately from the rest like what Germany does. That would come across as strange.
LikeLike
@ Jefe, but isn’t it often yes and no depending on individual case? lol.
Let’s take someone famous, Arnold Schwarzenegger: he’s an American citizen, but I’ve heard him called Austrian-American. He can’t run for President, but he’s an American all the same. The law governing that could change.
Marcel Nguyen’s German nationality is not moot under German law.
The “background” of his non-German parent has no bearing on his own citzenship.
As for Aussiedler, ethnic Germans born in other countries — it’s a little more complicated than “classifying them differently”, and something that might seem like bad form, outrageous or strange through a US lens.
However, the Aussiedler were an expelled population with political agenda.
They are, or were, a population of refugees whose stateless status is actively maintained for political reasons, perhaps for reasons of formal compensation.
I believe their interests and rights are promoted on the basis of a platform that fights for their special and separate status. Perhaps that outlook could be likened — just a little — to Native Americans and the dual recognition for both tribal sovereignity as well as US citizenship.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/vertriebene-bayern-will-bundesweiten-gedenktag-durchsetzen-a-900675.html
Yet, Afro-Germans and Asian Roma-Germans are not classifed by race or ethnicity. Those populations might like to self-define, but they might not like it if the State did it for them.
LikeLike
Bulanik, Jefe,Kartoffel
I have not read through all of your post but so far you have a provided quite an interesting bit of information.
LikeLike
In finnish passports, official papers etc. there are no racial definitions. They ask only the color of your hair and eyes for passport or ID card. Nothing else. They do, however, keep statistics how many immigrants there are and what country they are from. Same goes with the refugees. But if and when you become a citizen, you are classified as a finn regardless your origins.
From personal experience, US is an exceptional land in that the race definitions are in everything official over there. Not just the ethnicity but the race in particular.
LikeLike
@ sami
I heard that language-use is the key definer in any census in Finland, and one of my sisters said that the Mexican government used a similar system to define its population, too, rather than “race”.
Some countries, particularly ones with bad and bloody history of division reject definition based on race and ethnicity all together.
Apart from Germany of course, South Africa, Rwanda and India comes to mind.
In the latter cases, it was the colonial masters who imposed racial and ethnic categories to enumerate the population in the way that made it easier for them to govern, and that led to all kinds of terrible problems.
For this reason, I feel some nations take up the ethnicity and racial categories, and then later on, drop them. Take the example of Zambia
In general, it seems that ethnicity, as a definition, is fluid and changes depending on country and time, customs, religion, definitions about ancestry, language and so on. Not only is it fluid, it’s controversial.
One size does NOT fit all.
Another thing of course, is the rigidity required for an individual to be “one” thing, one “race”, one ethnicity to fit in with State requirements!
Many people are simply not one thing, and are a mixture of different peoples. There is absolutely nothing special or new about that, but in some places…it’s a difficult concept to embrace! 😀
Take the example of Hungary: apparently it was probably the first of the European countries to implement a “mixed” category into census, allowing a person to tick up to 3 nationalities to describe themselves:
Click to access etniang.pdf
LikeLike
Well , Im down in Brazil , and there are various public service anouncements about making sure to identify your race and ethnicity for census forms or the documents that require them…
I just dug out my usa passaport to double check if there was a racial classification, and there wasnt…the only usa document I specificly remember a demand for race classification , was the birth certificate of my son ,where I was totaly confused and marked black hispanic , which isnt true, I probably should have marked “other”
I dont have a drivers liscence, so , I dont know about that , and, I have forgotten the details of the immigration forms of my wife
I just dont remember too many official usa documents I had to mark white…but, I avoid as much official stuff as I can…they dont ask it on irs forms, do they? Meaning , of course I file my taxes, I just cant remember being asked what race I am
Its just that , whatever anyone thinks the usa does about racial classification, should know, Brazil has their racial classification thing going , too
LikeLike
@sami parkkonen
Hardly. You haven’t been to many different types of countries then. US is actually not as “official” as many other countries. It is just bigger.
LikeLike
@Bulanik,
Yes, agree. But if a German could understand this, why is it a stretch of the imagination that Americans might wish to self-identify in a way other than dictated by their State? Perhaps what might be perceived as strange or outrageous might not totally be a bad thing, even for Germany. If politicians would not even contemplate it, maybe it is a form of oppression? (ie, denying people the right to self-identify).
I suspect that we can trace some of this back to the Holocaust, where ethnic assignment had social and political purposes, and they want to “avoid” making the same mistake. By avoiding that mistake, they create others.
LikeLike
I have not been to Germany. Do they do racial or ethnic profiling there? How do they report the news? I can watch the German news where I am, but I don’t understand much German so I cannot understand exactly how they profile people.
LikeLike
my son has a moreno freind whose mother was german and he was mixed race and he went to live in Germany, and , you bet they racialy profiled him
he had several incidents of being followed and intimidated by police
LikeLike
I remember this.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140506/LIFESTYLE/305060026/Race-integral-part-Vincent-Chin-case
LikeLike
@ Jefe
You made this point:
Yet the people you speak of actively pursue keeping that information separately. An essential feature of how their politics are organised.
It wouldn’t be so that they are marked for strange or outrageous “oppression”.
No.
This part of the population are a necessary piece to Germany’s “difficult” past, and many want to keep it that way.
Their organisations are well-organised, and have enough political representation and numbers to make the German government abide by their wishes.
LikeLike
Officially racial profiling is prohibited. Some non-white Germans reported that their ID is checked every time they meet police officers while travelling on an express train. The author of the article is a lawyer and express tickets are rather expensive, so one can be sure that it wasn’t because they looked poor.
LikeLike
In the US too, although no one would not suggest that it doesn’t go on all the time.
In other countries, however, there is no law against racial profiling. We need not say how often it goes on there. They can even be open and naked about it. In the USA, they are hush-hush and deny it to your face.
LikeLike
@ Jefe
Although racial profiling is explicitly prohibited in Germany, it definitely goes on in the name of migration controls.
Over the last few years German laws have done some somersaults to change this, because racial profiling is an outgrowth of structural features of German police work rather than explicitly racial in intention.
All well and good, but it still comes out as racial profiling.
According to Federal Police Law, a police office could be allowed to check anyone to “prevent and eliminate unlawful entry” into German borders, etc.
Those inspections are made on a VISUAL basis. Therefore, when the German Police Force was accused of racism, they simply didn’t understand the charge: they had merely been following their training and criteria laid down…
According to earlier police law, all checks are based on identifying certain traits. A law was passed in 2011 to expressly stop apprehension on the basis of race, religion or national origin, that is, if someone does not “look” German. But that doesn’t stop German police identifying people for people who might be living in Germany without correct paperwork, which involves checking anyone evenly vaguely “foreign-looking”.
It’s been a while though; I’ll see what the latest is — time allowing — and let you know.
LikeLike
@Bulanik,
Thank you for your all your information. It just goes to show you that Germany has its own historical past that causes it to divide itself up into demographic constituencies that reflect its history and its social and political present.
The US has its own racial and ethnic quandary to deal with. Maybe the best we can do is try at least to understand first of all how and why each country shapes itself demographically.
Which reverts back to the topic of this post. What is the definition of “Asian” in the US, how and why is it used. What does it refer to, etc. We need to do that before we can talk about Asian-Americans. We can also why there was a movement in the USA to allow people to self-identify, and the pros and cons of doing that.
If we were to talk about Germany’s demographic history and past, we also have to understand what they do officially, and what is often the case in daily life. I suspect that there is something strange, creepy, even outrageous about every country’s practice in ethnic and racial identification, what’s official, what people can choose, and what people practice.
LikeLike
@Bulanik,
Ha-ha, I wonder what would happen if I carried my mother’s very German sounding surname.
I also wonder how much Marcel Nguyen got stopped by the police.
LikeLike
@ Jefe, I feel there is another issue that we could look at.
In my first comment on this this thread, I said:
Later, you said this:
LikeLike
@ Kartoffel
Thank you for your perspective, your commentary is always food for thought! 😀
LikeLike
Hi Bulanik,
As always, Thank you for your thoughtful replies.
I think it is already overly intrusive even to keep information whether or not your parents were immigrants. I don’t think it should be necessary to do in the USA or Germany (where it is done in both places and seems equally outrageous to me) and I don’t see why the government needs to keep this information. I also really don’t think it should be necessary to provide personal information about racial and ethnic identity or affiliation either. I find it a bit over the top to require this on national ID cards, yet I have seen so many countries and regions do this.
The only reason why I might provide it is if I knew it would be anonymous, like it is supposed to be in the Census. But on job and school applications? on housing applications? on loan applications? on police reports? on birth and death certificates?
I admit that Americans are a bit less concerned about losing their privacy. They trust their govt more (esp. whites).
Yet, pretending like it doesn’t exist, like France and Germany, also leads to its own forms of problems as you alluded to. Pretending like it doesn’t exist, or that people should not have the freedom to self-identify (as in, why would anyone feel the need to do so in the first place if the govt doesn’t make a legal distinction) creates other problems. It makes places like France and Germany look like they have their own set of outrageous practices and problems of racial profiling which their systems are not quite set up to address or tackle properly.
I found the US race and ethnic classification system to be outright weird, strange and outrageous and downright troublesome – that, and its ramifications even helped to prompt me to leave that place. In no way was I trying to justify it was right or even reasonable. But I do understand why racial identity is important in the USA (unfortunately so or otherwise) and why that means that it is desirable to have the right to self-identify given its history and politics.
You know, I was thinking about moving to Malaysia some time in the past and almost decided to move there (I stayed there for 5 months), but its racial and ethnic identity system was so creepy, I was looking for a place to go to and leave the US. I don’t think I could stand it there either – the only way I survive for a while would be to remove myself from its racial politics, but after a point in time, I would like to get involved in my local civil community and I doubt it could be done there. But I found in other countries where racial and ethnic division was not practiced despite a multiracial history, or divided along other lines (like language or religion), there was still a very distinct practice of colourism (like in Mexico, Brazil and the Philppines).
Is there any place in the world to go? I actually know people who left certain countries and relocated to the USA because of their prior countries’ racial and ethnic identity problems, including places like Germany. And I know people who immigrated to Germany. When I visit places, one of the first things I want to understand is how they demographically organize their population and enable its citizens and other residents to participate in local civil life.
LikeLike
@jefe:
You said:
“@sami parkkonen
US is an exceptional land in that the race definitions are in everything official over there.
Hardly. You haven’t been to many different types of countries then. US is actually not as “official” as many other countries. It is just bigger.”
Well, I have lived twice in USA, have been in few countries in Africa, most of the European countries and some in the Mid East. Not one country has so overwhelming official racial definition system as US has.
I mean, in USA the racial definition is everywhere. It is in every document, every official paper, insurance documents, in every single paper I saw during my stay there. Perhaps things have changed for better in the last two decades? I doubt it, judging from the discussions on this blog.
I have not been in any other country in which where ever you go, what ever you do, you are defined by the “race” as you are in USA. Not in Russia, not in most european countries etc. I know it may hurt your feelings but that is the way it is.
I am not saying that no other country does not do racial profiling but most countries separate people based on the nationality, citizenship. I doubt Lewis Hamilton is profiled as “black” when he enters to any country for Formula One races, BUT he will be defined as brittish because his passport and citizenship.
In USA he will be black in all official documents.
LikeLike
Would love to just put down Human Being and that be that but tis not the way the world. Classification seems to be way too important. That is why we I guess sorting is taught so early in early education. One of them is just not like the other.
LikeLike
@sami parkkonen
“Race” is on government issued ID cards in Singapore, Malaysia and China. I’ve seen them because I have worked or lived in those places.) And I did look into how they assign race or change racial assignment in those countries. In some ways, it is more screwed up than it is in the USA.
It is indirectly on the cards issued on Govt ID cards in Hong Kong (maybe Macau too). I know, because I personally had to deal specifically with this issue.
It is part of information collected in Canada and Australia. One of my close friends works on committees re: Equal Opportunity issues in Canada in the Federal Government there. They definitely have many official govt programs that deal with concepts such as “Visible Minority” and “First Nations”. Countries with a “racial past” usually have to do something “today” about their current race relations, and in those countries, they feel compelled to track it.
It is NOT on the ID cards (e.g., Drivers’ licenses) in the USA. So in some cases, Race is even more officially identified in other countries than it is in the USA.
I am not just talking about racial profiling. And in those countries, different laws apply to people with different racial classifications, which technically, they do not in the USA.
LikeLike
Kiwi, while some of the nationalistic attitudes among different Asian ethnic groups developed someone independently of Western colonialism, some of the attitudes and practices can be traced DIRECTLY to European colonialism, or the mess that they left behind.
LikeLike
Jefe, since you make that point, is Westernization the same thing as Modernization?
LikeLike
Sounds like a trick question, but I would say no. Westernization of non-western peoples started back in the 1500s.
LikeLike
@ Jefe, no, not trick in that question at all.
Kiwi used the words modernization and westernization in a way that most people do — as though they were interchangeable.
But there’s a difference between them, and the difference between the 2 things seems sharpest when applied to “The East”, in other words: different Asian countries and Asian peoples.
Modernization is about the way the practical world works.
Westernization is more like a value system, or how people should live.
LikeLike
@Kiwi,
I found the scope of “Asian” in the USA to be similar to Australia. I could talk to an Australian, use that term, and hit few communication roadblocks.
I think they have a concept of “race”, but it is different from how white people use it, esp. in US, Canada and Australia. In some ways, it is even more strongly associated with nationalism (by blood), a concept that I do not necessarily find very good either. But they do have a unifying concept of “westerner”, which is used as both a culturally based and racially based term.
LikeLike
@Bulanik,
Yeah, I don’t think that Westernization and modernization is the same thing. In some aspects, they are very different.
I think of modernization as stuff like infrastructure development. Westernization is stuff like concept of self, family, society, civic responsibility, etc.
LikeLike
^ I hardly think that Western Culture is the universal standard. I do think that western culture has infiltrated most of Asia, but I would not call it “naturally adopting” by any means. As you know, I travel, move and live around Asia all the time, trying to notice what is “modernizing” and what is “westernizing”, and how each place perceives the other on this parameter. Westernizing is also not just about using western or European images either. And being attracted to the West is not the same as worshiping the West.
It’s actually complicated.
LikeLike
Kiwi,
I think you do sometimes use many terms *almost* interchangeably. Maybe we can try to define how we use terms to make sure we do not misunderstand the messages, e.g.,
1. Modernization
2. Westernization
3. Colonization
4. Whitewashing
There is some overlap in each, but they refer to different things. I might propose a definition, but each probably deserves its full discussion and debate.
To me,
Modernization is more about infrastructure – transportation, communication, energy, etc.as well as the use of machines – how the different pieces work and fit together. I would say that in some aspects, China is even more modern than the US.
Westernization is about values, and how the individual, family and society relate to each other. It touches on politics, government, education, human rights and to some extent, religion. It also has to do with interpretation of history, and how the past is related to the present.
Colonization is a broad term. It can be of a place, of an economy or political system, of a people, of a culture, or of a mentality. In any case, we have to define the colonizer and of the colonized, and the process of exerting the influence of the colonizer on the colonized.
Whitewashing has two related meanings. In its broad sense it means the glossing over or covering up of facts, data, history, etc. to serve the political or economic objectives of the perpetrator, e.g., Japan whitewashing its history by omitting mention of the Nanking massacre, or China not mentioning the atrocities of under the Great Leap Forward or at TianAnmen in 1989. The USA does it when it says that native Americans died off primarily from natural diseases and that is why they are no longer here. In a more narrow sense, it comes from painting something over with white to cover up what is underneath and replacing it with a white coat. If by “white”, we mean white people, white history, white culture, etc., then we mean that the person has covered up his own history and culture with a white one on top.
So, I would not really understand what you meant when the concept of Westernization and whitewashing to used to refer to the same thing. I think you might be trying to suggest that I have been colonized.
I am sure Abagond would seem himself as Westernized. But it is not the same as being whitewashed. In fact, we are trying to de-whitewash here, and I see myself as someone trying to pull the white paint off.
I was born, raised and educated in the USA under a Western culture and education system. I will never be able to shake that influence completely. However, I have also received some education in Asia – even in Japanese, Mandarin and Cantonese medium of instruction under local cultural institutional bodies and government – and also spent some 20 years in Asia. So, while I would say I am from a western educational background, I think I have been exposed to non-western ideas as well. I never in my wildest dreams thought of the West as the universal standard and it is one reason why I did not like spending extensive time in the USA (which is still promoting Western ideas as universal standards.)
When you talk about Asian countries “westernizing”, it is not always clear if you are referring to modernization, actual westernization, colonization or whitewashing. Maybe we mean different things by the word “cosmopolitan” also.
that could be one explanation, and would apply more to those women raised in Asia, but who go after white men. They might also be attracted more to Western culture also, and associate “western” features with western culture.
But, there are plenty of Asian-American women who are so westernized & colonized by white mentality and whose daily lifestyle does not enable them to interact with many Asians regularly so that it might not just be white features that they are attracted to, but “whiteness” as a social, cultural and historical identity (one they possess, more than one they seek).
LikeLike
@ Kiwi
It is not my intention to put words into your mouth — do excuse me for doing so.
I must have misunderstood you. My apologies.
Perhaps I have to read more closely to demarcate the differences in meaning, because the words/meanings often seem to overlap, and are complex.
I think it’s the multi-layered meanings that cause the usage and interpretation to make modernization and Westernisation practically synymous at times.
In an Asian country like Turkey, I always observe the traditional meaning of modernisation has been to adopt and adapt to, all that is Western.
The dominant civilisation is presently Western, so Western standards define what is modern. In its prime, every dominant civilization imposes its own modernity, doesn’t it?
When Anatolia was Hellenized, the “Greek” way was modernity, as was the Roman, Christendom and Islamic ways after that; they constituted what were “modern” reforms before there was a “Turkish Republic”, as it is known now.
And there was probably great ambivalence that must have come with all that; it exists even now.
In some (all?) Islamic Asian cultures, the question usually rests on the “emancipation” of women to determine the difference between modernization and Westernization. The argument goes that the methods and artifacts of modern technology and propaganda is useful — that’s modernization, even men wearing modern suits — but the “emancipation” of women, wearing modern dress, is all Westernization.
Dress, headgear especially, is key in this difference (and symbolism).
I suppose cultural change is Westernization, and PART of modernisation — but not an essential part of it.
I don’t mean to say cultural innovation has never been the monopoly of any one region or population. The same is true of resistance to it. Bernard Lewis said that, and he made the point that there’s been a lot of borrowing both ways, and disciplines have not always been faithful to their original models.
Thinking about it, Medieval religion took its religion from the Middle East, as the modern Middle East seems to take its politics from Europe…much like the way some Europeans manage to forge Christianity without compassion, it seems some Middle Eastern countries are capable of creating democracies without Freedom.
LikeLike
*synonymous
LikeLike
@Kiwi,
Who designed your educational system and the content of your curriculum?
Who controlled the images of what you see in the media?
You see the trend:
– Mexican-American studies removed from Arizona state board curriculum. When they learn the history of Arizona, they learn how our great American ancestors first spread from the East Coast out to them and “won” the battle against the prior inhabitants of the Southwest.
– Blacks are not taught about life as a slave, lynching, voter disenfrancisement, as well as attributing all manner of suffering, abuse and lack of achievement on black pathologies.
– Asian-American history and culture completely removed even from majority Asian-American classrooms, even in the very areas whose infrastructure and economy was largely built by Asian-Americans and also were a hotbed of civil rights activities for *ALL- Americans. There was no such thing as ethnic cleansing and Aliens ineligible for citizenship. And if you don’t like it, just go back to where you came from.
– Native Americans learn “the only good Indian is a dead Indian”. All they did was wage war against the United States. Anyhow, they all died off anyhow because they had no immunity to European diseases. Just as well as they were so backward and savage, and never developed a great world country like the USA. .
LikeLike
Hmm. From my experience, the term Asian mostly refers to East and Southeast Asians, but South Asians are included as well. Where I come from, we specifically say what kind of Asian we are. White people here always ask me where I come from despite the fact I was born in Canada. I always say I’m Canadian first, but they notice I’m not a typical Canadian read: white. And then I break it down for them and I say I’m Filipino…Filipino-Canadian.
LikeLike
[…] The term “Asian” […]
LikeLike
Wow. I just realized that “Central Asia” is not in the centre of Asia. It is in the centre of Eurasia.
LikeLike