While we do experience segregation and racism and hostility, we are also more likely to live in integrated neighborhoods than Black or Indigenous people. To the extent that we experience advantage because of our race, we are also complicit in holding up a system that disadvantages Black, brown and Indigenous people because of their race.
The elite multiculturalism of colored faces in high places is a genteel politics of representation that focuses on assimilation. So long excluded from American life, marked as inassimilable aliens and perpetual foreigners, asked where we come from and complimented on our English, Asian immigrants and their descendants have sought passionately to make this country our own.
But from the perspective of many Black, brown and Indigenous people, this country was built on their enslavement, their dispossession, their erasure, their forced migration, their imprisonment, their segregation, their abuse, their exploited labor and their colonization.
For many if not all Black, brown and Indigenous people, the American Dream is a farce as much as a tragedy. Multiculturalism may make us feel good, but it will not save the American Dream; reparations, economic redistribution, and defunding or abolishing the police might. If Hmong experiences fit more closely with the failure of the American Dream, what does it mean for some Asian Americans to still want their piece of it?
If we claim America, then we must claim all of America, its hope and its hypocrisy, its profit and its pain, its liberty and its losses, its imperfect union and its ongoing segregation. To be Asian American is therefore paradoxical, for being Asian American is both necessary and insufficient.
I had a face, a voice, a name, a movement, a history, a consciousness, a rage. That rage is a major feeling, compelling me to refuse a submissive politics of apology, which an uncritical acceptance of the American Dream demands. But the rage that is at the heart of the Asian-American movement—a righteous rage, a wrath for justice, acknowledgment, redemption—has not been able to overcome the transformation of the movement into a diluted if empowering identity.
My presence here in this country, and that of my parents, and a majority of Vietnamese and Hmong, is due to the so-called Vietnam War in Southeast Asia that the U.
In Laos, the Hmong were a stateless minority without a country to call their own, and CIA advisers promised the Hmong that if they fought along with them, the U. About 58, Hmong who fought with the Americans lost their lives, fighting communists and rescuing downed American pilots flying secret bombing missions over Laos. When the war ended, the CIA abandoned most of its Hmong allies, taking only a small number out of the country to Thailand. The ones who remained behind suffered persecution at the hands of their communist enemies.
Not just because we may look alike in some superficial way as Asian Americans, but because he and I are here because of this American history of war. Little has changed. The U. It is the face of someone who shares some of my history and has done the thing I fear to do when faced with injustice—nothing. Solidarity or complicity. Rise against abusive power or stand with our back turned to the abuse of power.
If we as Asian Americans choose the latter, we are indeed the model minority, and we deserve both its privileges and its perils. This is not a problem of assimilation or multiculturalism. This is a contradiction, inherited from the fundamental contradiction that ties the American body politic together, its aspiration toward equality for all, bound with its need to exploit the land and racially marked people, beginning from the very origins of American society and its conquest of Indigenous nations and importation of African slaves.
The end of Asian Americans only happens with the end of racism and capitalism. Faced with this problem, Asian Americans can be a model of apology, trying to prove an Americanness that cannot be proved. Or we can be a model of justice and demand greater economic and social equality for us and for all Americans.
If you think America is in trouble, blame shareholders, not immigrants; look at CEOs, not foreigners; resent corporations, not minorities; yell at politicians of both parties, not the weak, who have little in the way of power or wealth to share. Many Americans of all backgrounds understand this better now than they did in Then, angry protesters burned down Koreatown.
Now, they peacefully surround the White House. Demanding that the powerful and the wealthy share their power and their wealth is what will make America great. Until then, race will continue to divide us. To locate Tou Thao in the middle of a Black-Hmong divide, or a Black-Asian divide, as if race were the only problem and the only answer, obscures a fatal statistic: the national poverty rate was The problem is race, and class, and war—a country almost always at war overseas that then pits its poor of all races and its exploited minorities against each other in a domestic war over scarce resources.
So long as this crossbred system of white supremacy and capitalist exploitation remains in place, there will always be someone who will write that sign: Another American Driven Out of Business by [fill in the blank], because racism always offers the temptation to blame the weak rather than the powerful.
The people who write these signs are engaging in the most dangerous kind of identity politics, the nationalist American kind, which, from the origins of this country, has been white and propertied. The police were created to defend the white, the propertied and their allies, and continue to do so. Black people know this all too well, many descended from people who were property. My parents, as newcomers to America, learned this lesson most intimately. When they opened the New Saigon, they told me not to call the police if there was trouble.
In Vietnam, the police were not to be trusted. The police were corrupt. But a few years later, when an armed white gunman burst into our house and pointed a gun in all our faces, and after my mother dashed by him and into the street and saved our lives, I called the police.
The police officers who came were white and Latino. They were gentle and respectful with us. We owned property. We were the victims. And yet our status as people with property, as refugees fulfilling the American Dream, as good neighbors for white people, is always fragile, so long as that sign can always be hung. But the people who would hang that sign misunderstand a basic fact of American life: America is built on the business of driving other businesses out of business.
This is the life cycle of capitalism, one in which an Asian American Dream that is multicultural, transpacific and corporate fits perfectly well. My parents, natural capitalists, succeeded at this life cycle until they, in turn, were driven out of business. The city of San Jose, which had neglected downtown when my parents arrived, changed its approach with the rise of Silicon Valley. Realizing that downtown should reflect the image of a modern tech metropolis, the city used eminent domain to force my parents to sell their store.
Across from where the New Saigon once stood now looms the brand-new city hall, which was supposed to face a brand-new symphony hall. I love the idea that a symphony could have sprung from the refugee roots of the New Saigon, where my parents shed not only sweat but blood, having once been shot there on Christmas Eve.
The symphony was never heard. This, too, is America. She spoke in Hmong, but her feelings could be understood without translation. The original version of this story misstated the spelling of the last name of the police officer who killed Fong Lee. As someone has worked in an organisation for mixed parentage families, and as the parent of two children of multiple ethnic origins I found this really useful. I would add that the 'mixed' have a very hard time labelling themselves my daughter has at least 4 different 'origins' , and more trouble dealing with the labels of others.
Could you please talk to the ONS? Comment by Anthony posted on on 19 July The Labour Force Survey which feeds into the APS has different ethnicity questions in the four UK countries, reflecting the different makeup of their respective populations. So some categories have to be merged to produce consistent UK-level figures. Comment by Terry posted on on 10 July Afro English? Black or White? Who knows? Why should I have to be labelled?
I prefer to use a label that is appropriate at the time for example if I am driving a taxi I don't mind being called a taxi driver. When I was in the RAF, every month I was sent a reminder that I had not completed a diversity form, apparently it was an important document because it gave them information about me to ensure I was not being discriminated against.
If no one knows who or what I am how can they discriminate? Comment by Samantha posted on on 10 July An interesting comment to think that anyone needs to know who or what you are in order to discriminate.
If you are 'dark skinned' and feel that can't happen then I am glad if that may have been your experience but inclusion is about more than just ourselves and others clearly have not all enjoyed that same experience. Comment by Hash posted on on 10 July Interesting article and insightful comments. To help bring about change I assume there are updates planned to the related mandatory learning products for the subject matter within Civil Service Learning note how I haven't used an acronym.
Comment by Marva Rollins posted on on 10 July In our drive to define differences, there is a regular shift in terminology used by both Black and White people. If we are to collect data highlighting disparity then clearly terms are needed. I am Black with a capital B and very confident in my skin colour.
However, I am not sure how using this term would enable detailed analysis and inform subsequent actions.
I sometimes wonder who creates these titles, and what the day to day work of such personnel involves that impacts on the peope the roles serve. Back to the 'Ethnic minority' debate.
The important factor is not to be distracted from the task in hand - equity and fairness! Comment by Naureen Khalid posted on on 10 July Good discussion and thank you for starting it. Comment by Rachel Silveira posted on on 10 July Thank you for sharing these thoughts, it's all really helpful and insightful.
I am looking at ways organisations who run large events can assess the diversity of audiences when it's not possible to ask individuals to self identify. Are there people who have done this in an authentic way whose methods we can learn from? Thank you. I agree with both Dawn and Marva - "The obvious nature of my difference that is used to discriminate against me is being Black".
So please - can we have more focus on 'deeds not words'. When we are prevented from using the terminology of 'Black, BAME or Race' especially in the naming of departmental race networks, then we have got very caught up in the semantics and should remind ourselves to instead stay focussed on finding solutions to the issues and real barriers of what amounts to racism that are still facing many ethnic minorities in the Civil Service.
We focus on words and instead forget to follow and act on what the data is telling us and the redress that is required as a result. We are also very good at marking our own homework and putting 'race efforts' up for awards therefore, arguably, self seeking for some and progress lacks broad 'customer insight', innovation and is very slow. Decades of Civil Service data around performance management, bullying, grievance, TDA, promotion, in year awards and SCS recruitment has been telling us loudly where we need to act in terms of 'BAME' disparities at all grades and particularly in relation to accessing TDA opportunities to step up into the SCS and succeed in SCS recruitments - all of our grade recruitment is never blind - so please can we focus more on points like those above as they are all within the gift of Civil Service policy and process to change things for the better if there is a will to.
Zamilla, you were brilliant at the recent Race Conference in London and Richard Heaton punctuated the reality that, for the first time in a long time, we now have a Permanent Secretary cadre that has not a stitch of BAME representation amongst it. Many of us always wondered why the Race Disparity Audit did not audit the Civil Service and related Government structures first the makeup of our elected officials. Ministers and the culture in which they operate and recruit before then looking at other sectors and how public services are delivered and received.
There must be actual and potential causal links between Civil Service 'culture and attitude' and how policy is designed, delivered and policed which, if surfaced through evidence, could ideally lead to many new practical policy solutions that could then be implemented. The pace of change makes it feel that addressing inequalities in some areas such as race is 'a nice thing to have but okay if we never get there' - the CS race agenda needs to be much better thought through, have more diversity of thought leading it, be faster in execution and, arguably, driven and overseen by a new organisation from outside of the Civil Service.
As a Black British person of Jamaican heritage I still feel deeply embarrassed to be part of a sector where almost every race champion is White, may empathise but is hardly likely to have personally shared the black experience of racism or race related disadvantage and will never be affected by it; where we purport to "talk about race" but says nothing of much note; where we 'celebrate' every October as Black History Month but speaks little to real Black History and exclude it from the national curriculum; where the Windrush scandal happened and where there is always a perennial glut of possibly its greatest ethnic diversity amongst its ancillary staff who secure and clean its buildings.
Comment by Estelle Neuman posted on on 22 July Firstly I would like to thank Samantha for her contribution which I whole heartedly endorse. I am very new to the Civil Service having joined in October I am however not new to the on-going debate regarding race, ethnicity, identity etc.
I speak from a point of knowledge as my father was Nigerian and my mother English. I identify as black as is my choice and it is a political one. I only have one further point to add to Samantha's excellent dissection of Zamila Bunglawala's piece and that is the extremely small number used in the research which was carried out.
Which immediately raises the question of who where the ? Were they a self nominating group? Were they representative of the Civil Service or the general population? If this is representative of colleagues within the Civil Service I am appalled. Irrespective of Zamila Bunglawala's comments I will continue to claim MY black identity as this is my heritage and I would urge others to claim theirs.
Comment by Mark Moore posted on on 11 July Comment by White person posted on on 12 July Personally I dislike the term 'People of colour', as it implies that as a 'white' person I am lacking in colour which in skin colour terms is not even true as I am not white like a sheet of paper , but also implies my personality is somehow bland and colourless.
However, I don't expect my view will change the debate, so I don't want to get too upset with the label attached to me. Comment by Ray posted on on 20 July I also have to tick the white box, but it doesn't say anything about me so in that sense I am not bothered. But it annoys me that because of prejudice we have to have these boxes. There are no white or black people only different shades of flesh colour and everyone has a unique colour so it makes no sense to group people by colour.
Everyone is unique so it makes little sense to group by ethnicity. But we still have prejudice so we have to try and tackle it and grouping people by 'colour' may or may not help in reducing prejudice.
It may be better to help people to be resilient to prejudice though education. And of course use education to reduce prejudice. Comment by Samantha posted on on 22 July Whilst I am keen that we have open debates about race, I do not really understand the notion behind statements like this. I am unsure why anyone should be expected to be resilient to something that is illegal - racism - and we are speaking here of incidents where it also exists within Civil Service walls which is even more unacceptable given what we all do in our sector.
In terms of semantics, it is called racism and not prejudice and there is no education that exists that many, including myself, would want to be a part of that aims to teach me to tolerate what is unacceptable and illegal. As is often said and never implemented "Fix the problems not those affected by them". Comment by Paula posted on on 23 July I agree with the points you make. However, I wonder if what was meant by becoming 'resilient' to prejudice was that, through education, one would recognise prejudice and be less likely to be prejudiced or be accepting of prejudice in others.
Becoming resilient to our own internal prejudices and instead thinking inclusively. Comment by From Canada posted on on 12 July Interesting article. Being a person of Turkish origin, I am often told I am not a visible minority which I find quite ignorant.
Comment by Sophie posted on on 13 July Completely agree with this. Organisations keep using these terms when trying to build an inclusive workforce. I also think inclusive means just that. Inclusivity has got to mean equality and treating everyone the same on the merits of skills and experience. I have a name! Comment by Samantha posted on on 03 August FACT - there is and always has been universal special treatment and favour based on all statistics - Civil Service; UK wide and International of white people based on colour and priviledge.
Should we also assume it only becomes an unacceptable argument when we talk of favour being given to those of ethnic minority which is, in fact, only about a levelling of the playing field to counter those issues where discrimination is still rife.
Comment by Sophie posted on on 06 August Comment by Chiara posted on on 13 July Its great to keep this ever evolving discussion open. I also question the boxes as they are based on countries and not ethnicity.
For example Bangladeshi is a nationality. Bengali is the ethnicity. The term I use and found inclusive is ethnic heritage. Comment by samantha posted on on 03 August Glad to see that we are almost universally more concerned about the language than the racial discrimination.
Comment by Camilla posted on on 17 July Comment by Cee posted on on 18 July Like Samantha, I agree with Dawn and Marva that by focusing on terminology, we risk being distracted from the task in hand - taking effective and sustained action to foster equity and fairness. Comment by Clare posted on on 19 July It's only on reading this blog that I've made the connection that just as I don't want to be referred to as "an LGBT person" I'm only one of those! Comment by Ferzana Shan posted on on 19 July I am so glad this is being discussed.
I also don't like the term 'ethnic minorities. I prefere how they operate in Pakistan. Either you are Pakistani or Not. This way everyone is included. This is far more inclusive and it works. From the time of the Indian Raj, my great great granddad worked and settled in the UK so pre-partition, yet I am still labelled British Pakistani and get taunted with the 'go back home.
Comment by Emma posted on on 19 July Thank you for this article Zamila, it is very insightful and conversations on race are vital if we are to have any chance of making progress on racial disparities. I always found the term "BAME" a slightly alienating way to describe a person. The term ethnic minority makes much more sense as it is materially accurate; even better is to reference the actual ethnicity. We are all descended from Africa shout out to Mitochondrial Eve!
Comment by Sara posted on on 19 July Thanks - a really helpful article and I'll use it as a prompt to talk to my staff about how they feel about this, and to build our collective confidence in talking about ethnicity. Comment by Mark J posted on on 19 July Identity politics is by its nature divisive and the only things you should personally be proud of are you own positive contributions, such as hard work, real achievements, wise and intelligent decisions, kindness and the decency of your character.
Comment by Minion posted on on 19 July While capitals should always be used for nationalities because they are proper nouns I don't see why you would do it for simple adjectives such as white and black. They are discriptions in the same manner as tall, short, brunette, blond and are generic terms. If someone wants to use their nationality as their identifier all well and good I always identify as English - I'm as entitled to my identity as anyone else but while I appear white, my colour does not define me or identify me as a person.
Cuilture is a far more defining thing than colour anyway. Personally though, I think it's about time we joined the discussion going on in the 'outside' world on what we all have in common rather than what drives us apart. Comment by David posted on on 19 July I was going to say this too.
Nationalities are capitalised because they're proper nouns, whereas black and white are common nouns. By capitalising them in this context, you could be said to be giving prominence to differences in skin colour which you don't give to other physical characteristics. Also, what about other skin colours? Comment by Ann posted on on 19 July This article is so timely and appropriate.
I'm very pleased to see such an article written. Thank you Zamilla. Comment by Julia Buckley posted on on 19 July Comment by Mark posted on on 19 July Chiara is absolutely right - there is only one race of people: the human race. The idea of there being different races of people is an essential concept in racist ideologies, dividing and subjugating on a false premise. By continuing to use the term particularly in the naming of Civil Service units and public awards, despite acknowledging it is an inappropriate term, as Samantha highlights it lends credibility to the concept.
It's not to make 'racism' or 'racist' dirty words, or to deny the experience of people who have been victim of racism, but we should be more savvy about use of the term race.
Comment by Carl posted on on 19 July Thank you for writing this. I first came across this acronym in a derogatory article produced by a newspaper that I would rather not associate my self with. In it they outlined the ridiculous notion that "to get a job in this country you now have to be B.
Comment by Ben posted on on 19 July Comment by Cherelle posted on on 23 July I absolutely agree. The very use of the word 'minority' is what offends me. But many Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders argued this grouping erased their specific and current struggles. Although some Pacific Islanders are immigrants, many identify as Indigenous. The AAPI category also painted over inequities that existed, making it seem as though Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders were overrepresented at higher education institutions like other Asian Americans when the opposite was the case.
In , the Office of Management and Budget — which helps determine the categories used by the census — officially disaggregated the group in its data collection practices, though the label is still used by the media, academics, advocacy organizations, and some government institutions.
Sela Panapasa, a researcher at the University of Michigan who identifies as a Pacific Islander of Rotuman, Tongan, and Tuvalu descent, says that Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders have long been invisible — something that lumping them into a larger category only exacerbated.
There are also enormous generational, religious, class, and ideological differences among these groups, as well as huge economic disparities. According to a report from the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, the income gaps among different Asian American ethnic groups are the widest of any racial group, and they are still growing.
Similarly, there are significant disparities among Asian Americans in educational attainment and health care outcomes: 94 percent of Japanese and Taiwanese Americans have graduated high school, compared to less than 66 percent of Laotian and Hmong Americans. When people of Asian descent have been targeted in America — both in recent attacks related to the coronavirus and historically — such racism is often directed at people of many Asian ethnicities.
By doing so, policymakers would be able to better measure many of these disparities and appropriately target their responses. People of these backgrounds are still able to write in how they identify, which the census will report out as well.
The push for more disaggregation has extended to states, too. Disaggregated health data has played a role in revealing how diabetes disproportionately affects Filipino Americans and South Asian Americans, for instance. For Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, data disaggregation has been critical during the coronavirus pandemic as well. The feeling of not being counted or seen hurts; it makes me feel my identity does not matter. Currently, the StopAsianHate movement has also been an inflection point for some Asian Americans to talk about their identity more openly and weigh such questions.
That effort is integral to attempts to strengthen Asian American solidarity, experts tell Vox. There are a lot of experiences that Asian Americans have in common — including a fight to be visible in American society and a focus on combating the systems reinforced by white supremacy. But achieving true unity may only be possible if people within it are willing to acknowledge not only similarities but differences in need. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower through understanding.
Financial contributions from our readers are a critical part of supporting our resource-intensive work and help us keep our journalism free for all. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today to help us keep our work free for all. Cookie banner We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from.
By choosing I Accept , you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies. Hanifa Abdul Hameed for Vox.
0コメント