Week 3Lecture #3, Part I The Primacy of the Assimilation Paradi.docx

Week 3
Lecture #3, Part I: The Primacy of the Assimilation Paradigm in
Understanding Incorporation
In order to understand the complex history of Asian Americans
and Pacific Islanders, I will introduce in this lecture
two "incorporation paradigms" that should be read along with
your readings. Consider how your readings are connected to
these two ways of understanding how groups (APIs) get
incorporated (or didn't get incorporated) into American society.
How did "laws" play a role in allowing APIs to become a part
of U.S. society? How did "laws" play a role in preventing,
excluding APIs from becoming an integral part of U.S. society?
Assimilation Paradigm.
I will be discussing the first of the two major and somewhat
oppositional paradigms that explain incorporation paradigms.
These “incorporation” paradigms explain how groups become
(or not become) part of the United States (or any other host
society where there is movements of populations en masse).
These paradigms explain the process of how groups “become
American” or “become part of a host society” (dominant
group). These two paradigms are: 1) “assimilation” and
2) “internal colonialism.”
First, let me begin with “Assimilation.”Assimilation is not only
the paradigm that holds primacy in explaining incorporation
experiences of groups into American society but it has become
the dominant narrative in explaining what it means to be an
American. International Colonialism (a little later on this) was
popularized in the 1950’s and 1960’s as a challenge to
assimilationist thinking.
Have you heard the following kinds of statements? Have you

or people you know made statements like these?“We are a
nation of immigrants.” “We are a melting pot.”“Americans, we
are all mutts! We are all mixed up!”“We are a mosaic!”“We are
a salad bowl!”“That family is so Americanized!”“This is
America! Speak English!” “My ancestors came here legally
and the right way. I don’t agree with those who come here
illegally! They should come the right way!”“My grandfather
came here with nothing but the shirt on his back and 100-rubles
in his pocket, took any job that he could get here in America,
worked hard, long hours, and put my father through college.
We now live a comfortable life!” “We all came here to live and
fulfill the American dream!”“My cousin is so white-washed.
He’s beige on the outside, white on the inside!”“President
Obama doesn’t ‘sound Black.’ He’s pretty white-
acting!”“Margaret Cho doesn’t act Asian at all! What’s up with
that? She’s a banana --yellow on the outside and white on the
inside!”People need to stop clinging to their cultures. We are
all Americans now!
These statements reflect a theoretical framework of
“assimilation.” Remember: a paradigm is a theoretical
framework within which interrelated ideas and concepts guide
our thinking. Through socialization, lived experiences,
education, ideological indoctrination (or influences), hegemony,
etc. we all have come to develop (and always in the process of
constantly developing, forming, reforming, etc.) our set of
beliefs and understanding of the world --the framing of our
thinking.
ROBERT E. PARK originated the assimilationist thinking when
he introduced the model of the “race relations’ cycle.” This
would eventually become the foundation of Milton
Gordon’s elaboration of assimilation. Park became known as
one of the pioneers of the “Chicago School of
Sociology” between 1915-ish and into the 1930s. I want to put
forth the concept of “context.” If you recall in the film,

“Race: Power of an Illusion” Dr. Evelyn Hammond (Historian
of Science) stated that scientists are also products of their
environment and we must understand their theories and their
research within the context of their historical period.
Therefore, many “scientists” based their scientific research on
racism. Many of their perspectives have now been completely
refuted and even dismissed altogether (i.e. such as the physical,
intellectual, genetic “inferiority” and “superiority” of certain
“races.” using “biology” as an explanation.) Surely, there are
people who are able to step outside of their context and envision
ideas & realities that are outside of their immediate experiential
box, but not completely & fully. These people (like Jefferson,
Einstein, etc.) are often referred to as people who are “ahead of
their time.” They help to shift paradigms. Even those who are
ahead of their time still have one foot in their immediate
generational context (and all of the contexts cumulatively that
preceded them).
So the work and research of people (be they scholars,
politicians, historians, sociologists, geneticists, micro-
biologists, neuro-surgeons, psychiatrists, etc.) must be
examined from within “context”--social, political, economic,
etc. (This is when “the sociological imagination” --see your
syllabus-- comes in handy.) From yesterday’s lecture, there was
all of this talk about “President Obama being a global
president.” He was born as the Civil Rights’ Movement was
underway to international/interracial parents and grew up
transnationally as the world was increasingly become globalized
with more travel, technological advancements, etc. In fact, I
think it was Dr. Dinesh Sharma who described President Obama
as a “president of these global times.” This is neither a
compliment nor an insult. This is neither an accomplishment
nor a failure for the U.S. (perhaps?), but rather an interesting
“sign of the times” (i.e. context!) from a historical and
institutional perspective. (Obviously, individually & societally,
we could argue strongly that this is an accomplishment both for

President Barack Obama individually and the U.S. societally.)
Now Back to contextualizing Robert E. Park’s development of
the “race relations’ cycle” and “assimilation:” During the time
Robert E. Park was working at the University of Chicago (and
what led up to that) from about 1915 to 1930s, the U.S. was
undergoing structural changes racially/ethnically. We had just
gone from the 19th to the 20th century. Technological
advances were being made. Industrial and economic changes
were taking place. The U.S. was well on its way of becoming
an “empire” or a “player in the world” --however, you want to
describe it--(having acquired Hawaii, Guam, Philippines, Puerto
Rico, & other territories, etc.). Though WWI was devastating
and also serve (in part) to lead up to the Great Depression
domestically, we ended up on the “winning side” as part of the
“Allied Forces.” The Civil War had ended slavery and we were
on our way to re-instituting a form of enforced racial inequality
through Jim Crow Segregation in the South. Blacks were
moving to the Northern, Midwestern, and Western states in
large numbers. Immigrants from Southeastern Europe (no
longer Northwestern Europe) who were perceived as “not
Anglo/Anglicized” and “not Protestant-Christian” were arriving
in the U.S. Massive changes were taking place socially and
economically. Urban centers were becoming
multiracial/multiethnic with European immigrant and Black
enclaves (these enclaves were also called, “ghettos” for
Europeans as well. There were conflicts, tensions, and riots.
Some of the debates we hear today about “the browning of
America” and “America just isn’t the same anymore” and
“Immigrants are taking over.” or “Immigrants --legal/illegal--
are taking our jobs!” were all said at the last turn of the century
as well (1899-1900). The discourse has changed a little but as
we’ve entered the 21st century, we still hear the same kind of
debates. (The more things have changed, the more they seemed
not have changed much!) :-) or :-( . . .

It was under this historical context that those like Robert E.
Park and the sociologists at the CHICAGO SCHOOL were
seeing urban centers such as Chicago as a
“multiracial/multiethnic social laboratory” (it’s kind of like
how Los Angeles is seen today)! There was growing
interethnic tension, heightening racialized violence, nativism,
scapegoating of immigrants, economic rivalry, etc. that seemed
to be intensifying --a goldmine of “race relations” research
grounds for social scientists, as you can imagine. (As a
sociologist and lay-historian, I have come to wonder, was there
*ever* a time in U.S. history that there wasn’t a “goldmine” of
interethnic tension, heightening racialized violence, nativism,
scapegoating of immigrants, economic rivalry, multiethnic
growth, and on and on and on. We seem to be in a constant
state of these dynamic forces struggling --for good or for ill!)
In fact, the term “melting pot” was coined by a playwright by
the name of “Israel Zangwill” who was trying to convey that
this “diversity” of America’s people (those new immigrants
coming from new lands, mainly Southeastern Europe) was a
strength and an asset!
During this period, Robert E. Park developed what he termed,
“The Race Relations’ Cycle.” He argued that there were four
stages of race relations: 1) contact; 2) conflict; 3)
accommodation; and then 4) eventual assimilation. Prior to his
tenure at the University of Chicago, he had worked closely with
Booker T. Washington at the Tuskegee Institute. It is here that
he developed an interest in “race,” specifically black-white
racial relations.
Let me apply Park’s Race Relations’ Cycle to Native
Americans as a simple example (you can apply it to any groups
of people trying to incorporate into an established society but
using their specific experiences & struggles). Native
Americans (or American Indians) live in what Europeans
termed, “The New World.” Europeans arrive in “the New

World” and come into *contact* with the indigenous
population. (Either shortly before or shortly after the “first
Thanksgiving”, there is *conflict* --mostly around land &
resource acquisition for Europeans. There are
misunderstandings, struggles for resources, slaughters, and wars
for generations which signifies the *conflict* stage. Then,
eventually there is a form of *accommodation* (an example of
this might be “forced assimilation” of Native Americans by
sending their children to Christian boarding schools, forbidding
them to speak or practice their native languages & cultures OR
by placing them into “reservations” and calling this their
“nation status.” Native Americans have therefore become
“accommodated.”) Finally, after a while, Native Americans (or
American Indians) have left their reservations, come to identify
as “American,” carry a U.S. passport, and “Voila!” (Wah-La!)
Native Americans/American Indians have become assimilated
Americans (according to this paradigm)!
MILTON GORDON took Robert E. Park’s work in the 1960’s
and developed it. He argued that there seven key stages of
assimilation: 1) cultural (this stage is sometimes called,
“acculturation” is when the incoming group [B] adopts the
culture (go back to the definition of culture) of the host society
or dominant group [A];
2) structural (this stage is usually when the incoming group [B]
is allowed in , makes its way in, or integrates into the social
organizations, churches, cliques, clubs, and institutions of the
host society/dominant group [A];
3) marital (this stage is when groups marry each other (in large
numbers with propensity) without being seen as an “inter-
marriage” but just a marriage.
4) identificational (this stage is when [B] the incoming group or
the subordinated status group feels a bond and identifies with
the host society/dominant group, “I am American, not German
or German-American!” not just in declaration but also in
practice. [A]).

5) attitudinal (reception); (this stage occurs when [B] the
incoming/minority-status group no longer experiences large-
scale prejudice from the host society [A])
6) behavioral (reception)(this stage occurs when [B] the
incoming/minority-status group no longer experiences large-
scale discrimination from the host society [A]) &
7) civic (this stage occurs when [B] the incoming/minority-
status group [B] no longer has a different “status” (power,
access to resources/institutions, struggles) with the host
society/dominant group [A]. When civic assimilation is
achieved, it means that the hyphen in one’s American-ness
ceases to exist: I am not British-American; I am “just
American” without any qualifier (not “Something-American”)!
Did you notice in the last presidential election in 2016 (Bernie
Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump) how the term,
“American” was being used? How does President Trump
utilize the term, “American?” What does “making America
great again” mean to President Donald Trump and his
supporters? Do you see or hear any layers of racialized
meanings, innuendos, and contexts?
Much of the research suggests that most Northwestern
Europeans have achieved all 7 stages of assimilation and
therefore, we don’t hyphenate their “American-ness” anymore.
We don’t assume British-Americans or Irish-Americans or
German-Americans to be “illegally” here or even assume they
speak English with an accent by just eye-balling their
phenotype, for example. Several years ago, a woman (UCLA
student) named, “Kendra Wallace,” also known as “UCLA
Girl,” made a video titled, “Asians in the Library,” which
created a huge discussion on the media images and perceptions
of Asians and Asian Americans on college campuses. She
characterized “Asians” as cliquish, loud, un-American. She
received a huge backlash, but even as people slammed her, the
images and representations continued to portray “Asians” as

“perpetually foreign” and “taking over our college campuses,
libraries and dorms.”
http://iamkoream.com/december-issue-angry-asian-mans-
angriest-stories-of-
2011/http://blog.angryasianman.com/2011/12/chik-fil-cashier-
names-customers-
ching.htmlhttp://blog.angryasianman.com/2011/12/this-years-
angriest-posts.html
We still consider some “whites” to be “ethnic whites”
(Southeastern Europeans or non-Christian-Protestant
Europeans), such as Italian-Americans, Jewish-Americans,
Greek-Americans still not fully achieve Park’s and Gordon’s
“full & complete one-ness” (or assimilation) with originally
"White Anglo Saxon Protestants" and moreover "Northwestern
European" (who have come to be racialized as “white” and
identified as simply “American.”) If you watch “Jersey Shore”
or “Godfather” or “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” and so on,
there’s a sense of “ethnic identity” separate from the dominant
culture (formerly WASP, but now “AMERICAN”) being
portrayed & identified with.
Gordon also introduced the three types of assimilation:
* Anglo-Conformity: A+B = A (forced, coerced, pressured to
adopt dominant Anglo culture, change one’s name to be more
“Anglicized,” etc. In order to assimilate, one must erase their
culture, shed away their ethnicity and become “American.”)
* Amalgamation (Melting Pot): A+B = C (the dominant group
and the incoming group both transform each other. “Being
American” is no longer like being British/Anglo/Protestant.
Incoming groups have also changed, influenced and transformed
what it means to be “an American.” Just listen to the way
Americans speak English, as a very simple example. It’s not

what was brought over by the Pilgrims any longer.
“Thanksgiving” as we practice it is specific to the U.S. but it
incorporates many ethnicities/cultures or the example of New
Year’s we all shared!).
* Cultural Pluralism (Salad Bowl): A+B = AB (this is when
incoming groups form their own communities and maintain their
own institutions theoretically *alongside* the dominant group.
In reality, they become ethnic enclaves & ghettos confined to
their communities such as Chinatowns, Little Saigons, Pico-
Union Area, urban Black centers, Thai Towns, Mexican
American communities, and other communities with varying
degrees of confinement, coerced segregation, & self-
segregation. Notice how middle class, suburban communities
are not seen as “ethnic enclaves” or “ghettos.” Why not?).
The “A” is represented by the “host society” “the dominant
group” or the “core group” which was originally “White Anglo
Saxon Protestants.” The “A” has expanded to include mostly
Northwestern Europeans and even many/most Southeastern
groups are in the process of “becoming white” and “being
accepted as white.” (There is a socioeconomic status/class
dimension to the assimilation paradigm. The assumption is “as
we become American, we move up in social class status --
usually to “middle class.”) The “B” represents the
“immigrating or in-coming group.” (When “B” enters the
host society of the dominant group “A,” there is contact.
Then, there is conflict. Afterward, accommodation is made and
finally, assimilation is or will be achieved.).
http://www.reference.com/browse/Milton+Gordon+%28sociolog
ist%29
Some random person’s little explanation on Gordon’s
assimilation (nice summary):
http://amomenttoolate.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/1-on-milton-

m-gordon’s-assimilation-in-american-life/The
Source:http://www.biblio.com/milton-m-gordon/assimilation-in-
american~36488670~title
Gordon argued that in order to become fully “one” with the
dominant group, all 7 stages needed to be eventually be
achieved. Let’s take “marital assimilation” for example. In
order for marital assimilation to take place, the two groups’
marrying must cease to be understood and referred to as “inter-”
married. When a British American and a French American
marry, they are a married couple. However, when black
Kenyan marries an Irish American (from Kansas), it is an
“inter-marriage.” (See President Obama’s “race” speech from
March, 2008 & yesterday’s lecture/December 30th’s Discussion
Post). Obama puts forth an assimilationist view by arguing that
only in America is a story like his possible. He actually states
that we are people from all over the world. “Out of many,
One!” which of course, Bonilla-Silva is highly critical of, see
chapter 8) Although Obama’s union is viewed as “interracial”
or a form of “inter-marriage,” in his speech overall as well as
when he talks about his parents’ union, he is trying to argue an
assimilationist viewpoint (marital assimilation). American
society (--though seemingly moving in that direction--), seems
yet to embrace the marital assimilation of black-white marriages
(and most/some --that’s up for debate-- the marital assimilation
of nonwhite-white marriages.
The following are some interesting work on the social
construction of “whiteness.”
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/How-Jews-Became-White-
Folks/Karen-
Brodkin/e/9780813525907http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01r
ace/white13.htmhttp://www.powells.com/biblio/1-0415934516-1
Gordon argues that eventually people of color “those defined as

non-whites” socially, legally, economically, identificationally,
etc. (mainly, those who were racialized as “black,” “Asian,”
“Native American” and to some extent, “Latinos/Hispanics”)
too will become “one” (assimilate) with WASPs and become
“American.” One note: Mexicans were racially/legallyl
classified as “white” until the mid-1970s but were not always
treated as “whites” socially. South Asian Indians were
anthropologically (pseudo-scientifically) classified as
“Caucasian” but legally treated in the U.S. as “nonwhite.”
There are several legal cases (one being the Thind case), in
which a South Asian man took his case to the Supreme Court to
become a U.S.
citizen.http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5076 (Links to an
external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external
site.)Links to an external site.
Asians were legally classified and were not eligible to become
naturalized citizens until 1954 (McCarren-Walters’ Act). The
two well-known challenges were the Ozawa Case and the Thind
Case in the 1920s. Both were denied citizenship on the basis of
“race.” The 1790 Naturalization Act only allowed “whites” and
then “blacks” to become naturalized
citizens. http://www.scribd.com/doc/60126272/Takao-Ozawa-
1922-and-Bhagat-Singh-Thind-1923
Of course, many race relations’ scholars disagree, citing the
laws that defined, excluded, included, etc. “citizenship” based
on “racial classifications.” --very inconsistent racial definitions
(the point being that these classifications were inconsistent
because “race” really doesn’t exist.)
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/White05.htm
Here are some underlying assumptions of the Assimilation
paradigm:We all come from somewhere else.We all came here
voluntarily.We all started out at the bottom.As we shed our

cultural ways (our ethnicity) and adopt the ways of dominant
American culture (language, clothes, values, ideas, behaviors,
ideology, etc.), we become “American.”
052716-podcast.jpg
Lecture #3, Part II: Internal Colonialism as a Challenge to the
Assimilation Paradigm
Lecture, Part II: Internal Colonialism
In the 1960s & 1970s the theoretical paradigm “internal
colonialism” gained a following. It was also a response to the
dominance of the “assimilation” paradigm developed by Robert
E. Park and advanced, developed by Milton Gordon. Those
like Historian Ronald Takaki, Sociologist Mario Barrera,
Sociologist Robert Blauner, etc. all challenged assimilationist
perspectives and provided an alternative incorporation analysis.
It borrows from “classical colonialism” in which there is a core
country (i.e. the mother country or the imperialist/colonial
power) and its periphery (i.e. colonies).
Ronald Takaki pointed out that while “assimilationists” referred
to “incoming groups” [B] as “immigrants, it’s important to
distinguished between “immigrants” who are “voluntary
migrants” and “colonial subjects” who are moving from the
periphery (i.e. the colony) to the “core society” [A] usually
under force, coercion or subjugation. So while most Europeans
left (even under pressure or persecution) their countries to come
to the U.S., those like Takaki, Blauner, and Barrera would
argue, with some “choice.” They voluntarilyentered the U.S.
Whereas, Native Americans/American Indians and Native
Hawaiians, were “arrived upon.” For Mexicans/Chicanos the
border crossed them. They did not initially cross the border to
come to the U.S. For African Americans, they were brought
forcibly to the colonies with chains against their will. Asians
are in a peculiar situation, Takaki would argue. They aren’t
quite “forced” but they aren’t voluntary immigrants in the way

most (not all) Europeans were, except for Southeast Asians such
as Pilipinos, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, and the Hmong
People. Just as Irish escaping British colonialism or Koreans
fleeing Japanese colonialism put them in a slightly different
position because of their “subjugated status.” Pilipinos are an
example of a people who also went from being externally to
internally colonized because the Philippines was U.S. territory
from 1898 to 1934 (Tydings-McDuffy Act) or 1945 (after
WWII) [or even into the 1980s], depending upon how you want
to argue the colonization process (legally, militarily, politically,
economically, etc.)
Ideology plays a role because “colonial subjects” experience
oppression (often “racialized oppression”) in which their
language, culture religious practices, and access to resources
are stripped and denied and thus their humanity questioned
(subjected to the dehumanization process). See Bonilla-Silva's
definition of "ideology" from the textbook.
The socio-political relationship the colonizer and the colonized
is one of tremendous inequality. Internal colonial theorists
would argue that this makes the migration, entry, incorporation
(or lack thereof), exclusion and subjugation qualitatively
distinguish “colonial subjects” (i.e. those who came to be
defined as “nonwhite” in the world) and “immigrants” (i.e.
mostly Europeans groups) to the United States (or what would
become the United States). No European immigrant group, --
though they undeniably faced tremendous hardships and
discrimination--, was ever denied naturalization rights and land
ownership rights in the way Asians were or subjected to anti-
miscegenation laws (prevented them from marrying other
“whites” even when the Irish were defined as “not white.”) in
the way Blacks, Asians, Native Americans and mixed-race
people of African, Asian & Native American ancestries (who
were defined as “non-white”) were, etc. These are examples of
how “racial oppression” and “racial exclusion” become part of

the ideological justification for colonization “people” who were
viewed and racialized as “sub-” or “non-” human and therefore
their cultural/religious practices banned. (Below, there is a clip
from Haunani-Kay Trask discussing the role of Christianity in
destroying Native Hawaiian way of life, regarding "Father
Lehua.")
Why “internal” colonialism, not just colonialism?
“Classic colonialism” or “colonialism” is when the resources
and colonial subjects are exploited between “the core”
(colonizers in the core country) and the periphery (the colonies
and the colonized people). Examples of this would be Spain
and its territories that included what would eventually become
the nation-states of Mexico, Cuba, El Salvador Guatemala,
Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Peru,Chile, Ecuador, etc. or Britain and
its colonies that included parts of what would become nation-
states of Canada, U.S., Belize, Jamaica, etc. The core or mother
countries exploited the resources (human, social, cultural
capital) of the colonies or “the periphery” for the wealth,
development, profit, etc. of the colonizer.
Internal colonialism is when the exploitation and subjugation
take place within the borders of the colonizers’ national,
territorial borders. An internal colonialism theorist would
argue, for example that, Hawai’i (and even the continental U.S.
from a Native perspective) went from being an external colony
to communities of internalized colonies (i.e. Native Hawaiians
and Native Americans are “internally colonized peoples). The
example of the reservations is referred to by sociologist
Matthew Snipp as “captive nations.” He argues that Native
Americans are a “ward of the state” (like a prisoner of the
U.S.) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1536-
7150.1986.tb01915.x/abstract. Haunani-Kay Trask, a Native
Hawaiian nationalist and supporter of the Sovereignty
Movement, and her sister, attorney/activist, Mililani Trask,

actually argues that Native Hawaiians, even as a “ward of the
state” is better off than Native Hawaiians who don’t have their
own “nation.”
Professor Haunani-Kay Trask (on the role of missionaries in the
colonization of Native Hawaiians):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtrdmkXsY9g
Hawai’i: Multiethnic Paradise (the “best of Obama”) versus An
Internal Colony? (Different Perspectives on Hawaiian History):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nqDkCzwXeY&feature=rela
ted
Historian David Stannard on the "American Holocaust:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qra6pcn4AOEhttp://www.yo
utube.com/watch?v=aPKH_94jix4&feature=related
The CSUN library has a video called, “bell hooks: cultural
criticism and transformation.” In her analysis, hooks (she
doesn’t capitalize her name) argues that hip hop/rap/black
culture is like an internal colony. She explains:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtoanes_L_g&feature=relate
d
The Chicano concept of “Aztlan” (a mythical homeland of the
indigenous peoples --the Nahua people-- of the areas of what is
now U.S./Mexico) acknowledges the “occupation of Mexico”
(or even the occupation of the indigenous peoples of this region
before “Mexico--former Spanish colony” became a nation-state.

CSUN Professor Rudy Acuña describes California and the
southwest as “Occupied America.”
QUESTIONS FOR THE CLASS TO CONSIDER: The use of the
terms “Chicano” versus “Mexican-American” imply different
perspectives. Which term evokes assimilationist perspectives?
Which one evoke internal colonial perspectives? How about
“colored,” “negro,” “black” versus “African American?” What
about “Oriental” versus “Asian American” versus “Asian
Pacific Islander?” “Native” versus “Hawaiian?” How about
“LA Riots” versus “LA Rebellion?” Can you tell? (What do
you mean when you select specfic terms? Have you thought
about what your choice of words conveys?)
Words and terms have layers of social meaning, historical
contexts, and political orientation. It’s not a matter of just
being “politically correct” or “politically incorrect.” It’s about
conveying a worldview and theoretical framework, whether you
were aware of it or not. . .
Professor Acuña on his “banned book” and Chicano/Mexican
American contributions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJKOzA3TAvs
The following article by Peter Bohmer is a great summary of the
paradigm “Internal Colonialism” and applies this framework to
Latinos and African Americans:
http://academic.evergreen.edu/b/bohmerp/internalcolony.htm
MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE CLASS TO
PONDER: Comparing the two paradigms, "assimilation," and

“internal colonialsm” can you use the arguments of “internal
colonialism” to challenge the underlying assumptions of
assimiliation? What is the “internal colonalism” paradigm
rebuttal to these underlying assumptions of assimiliation?
Which model "assimilation" or "internal colonialism" best
describe Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders? Would you,
for example, apply the paradigms differently for Pilipinos?
Native Hawaiians? Samoans? Taiwanese-Americans? Korean
Americans? Chinese Americans Pakistani-Americans? South
Asian Indian-Americans?
Other References for further readings/viewing:
http://science.jrank.org/pages/7790/Internal-
Colonialism.htmlhttp://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/1566_re
g_print.htmlhttp://www.justanswer.com/homework/027n0-
blauner-s-hypothesis-need-college-
assignment.htmlhttp://usslave.blogspot.com/2011/06/ron-
takaki.htmlhttp://www.garyokihiro.com/uploads/okihiro_1988.p
dfhttp://gwtoledo.blogspot.com/2007/11/race-and-class-in-
southwest-
mario.htmlhttp://forums.islamicawakening.com/f18/how-
america-became-christian-genocide-
7076/http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp
?indid=2246http://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/12631.ht
mlhttp://philcsc.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/asian-american-
studies-a-critique/ (Links to an external site.) (Links to an
external site.)Links to an external site.
Week 2
Please treat the lectures as complements to your required
reading assignments. How has the history of racialization in the

U.S. informed and impacted immigration laws on Asian
Americans & Pacific Islander Americans? We will piece
together how these concepts and perspective helped to frame
and shape APA legal experiences in the U.S.
Required Reading:
*Nakanishi & Lai, “Part II: The Impact of Immigration Laws
on Asian America” pp. 47-88
*Ancheta, Angelo, “Chapter 1: Legacies of Discrimination,”
pp. 19-41
Resources:
*Use California State Constitution – contemporary version – as
a resource:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html (Links to an
site.)Links to an external site. and 1880 version
http://www.sos.ca.gov/archives/collections/1879/ (Links to
an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external
site.)Links to an external site..
*Use the Declaration of Independence & The Constitution, as a
resource:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html (Lin
ks to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an
external site.)Links to an external
site.http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
(Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an
external site.)Links to an external site.
*Read & Know Asian American Historical Timeline:
https://www.us-immigration.com/asian-american-history-
timeline/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external
site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
http://www.asian-nation.org/first.shtml (Links to an external
site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links
to an external site.

http://www.asian-nation.org/internment.shtml (Links to an
http://www.ecaasu.org/site/important-dates-in-asian-american-
history/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external
Extra Credit Reading:
*Aoki and Takeda, Chapter 3, pp. 53-76
In this class, we will be talking and using terms such as "race,"
"ethnicity," "racism," etc. with great complexity and
analytical depth. Let's define and operationalize some of these
terms and concepts and offering a variety of ways to think about
and apply these terms. Today's focus will be on "race" (that
four-letter word in our society)!
With the outcome of cases like the Trayvon Martin Case, many
Asian Americanists are drawing parallels to the Vincent Chin
Case (1986). http://www.rafu.com/2012/03/from-vincent-chin-
to-trayvon-martin/
http://www.rafu.com/2012/03/from-vincent-chin-to-trayvon-
martin/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external
http://owning-my-truth.com/post/56527740934/trayvon-martin-
vincent-chin (Links to an external site.)Links to an external
http://www.startribune.com/vincent-chin-30-years-
later/159414685/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external
Perhaps this history of racialization and racial formation
provides the historical context of the application of these
concepts.

WHAT IS RACE?
In the social sciences the notion of "race" has long been defined
and their applications have been brought to life in everyday life.
We use this four-letter word ("race") with all of its complexity,
epistemology, history, politics, economics, and layers of
connotative socio-political meanings to argue and assume, even
if we may actually be referring to something very to slightly
different. The same can be said with the notion of "racism," --
at times "race" and "racism" could be defined and/or interpreted
as one in the same (as perhaps some of you have expressed in
some of the discussion boards, such as in "Is it progress to not
identify an alleged suspect of a crime as 'Asian'?"
TWO BROAD SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT
There are two primary schools of thought to explain various
social realities that may help us examine concepts such as race,
ethnicity, class, gender, sexual orientation, and many others:
1) primordialism/essentialism and 2) social
construction/instrumentalism.
ESSENTIALISM/PRIMORDIALISM:
The first school of thought or paradigm,
"primordialism/essentialism," looks at social realities as
objective, innate, essential, deeply primordial. In the case of
"race," race from a primordialist or essentialist view is seen as
biologically innate. Eugenics and "scientific racism" are both
products of extreme essentialist thinking: that races existed,
that races are biologically determined and distinct from one
another. The crux of primordialism is to argue that our
differences racially (human physical/physiological variations)

are rooted in biology.
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION/INSTRUMENTALISM:
The second school of thought or paradigm, "social
construction/instrumentalism," examines race as a man-made,
human created reality. It is an instrument that was constructed
sociohistorically in order to allocate resources. Any difference
human beings may have is "biologically insignificant." In fact,
Anthropologist Richard Lewontin found (by examining blood
proteins, DNA, etc.) across clustered populations around the
world and found that there are as many differences within a
socially defined so-called, "race" as there are across so-called
"racial groups." In other words, 80% of human variations were
found within a group and that we would find as many (if not
more) variation within a group than across groups. Put simply,
probability of two so-called "whites" whose ancestors both
originate from Northern Ireland are more likely to be different
from one another (80%) than a "white person whose ancestors
come from Northern Ireland" with an "Asian/Pacific" person
whose ancestors come from the Philippines or Indonesia.
The bottom line for instrumentalism/social construction: there
is no basis in biology in looking at race. It's all made up. Any
differences we see visually are superficial without any
concordance with our abilities in athletics, intelligences, etc.
Human variation is not race. Human variations are result of
geographic clusterings and do not go "skin deep" (or beyond
phenotype).
paradigm = a theoretical framework within which interrelated
ideas and concepts guide our thinking.
With these two paradigms in mind, let's look at the concept of

"race" today. (We will also look at "ethnicity" and "pan-
ethnicity" )
Please note that we are not using "dictionary definitions" of
these terms. Dictionary definitions are fine in terms of
demonstrating simple meanings and common sense meanings
but they are often uncritical and not analytical. In this class, we
are critically and analytically examining these concepts and
offering paradigmatic ways to delve into their meanings and
their applications.
RACE:
Biology has been historically used to explain human variation.
Scientists, geneticists, social scientists have all used "pseudo-
science," eugenics, scientific racism simple Mendelian genetics
(which are all part of biological essentialism) were used to
explain some of human differences (using phenotype as the
main marker). Phenotype is physical appearances (eye color,
eye shape, skin tone & complexion, height, weight, amount of
hair on the body, genitalia size, cranial capacity, length of arms
& legs, etc.)
And these physical characteristics were used to explain physical
abilities, intelligence, artistic qualities, etc. In biological
essentialism, physical characteristics were seen as being in
concordance with biology. (e.g. Asian brains better in math;
African American physical constitution makes better
biologically equipped at running short distance and jumping but
not swimming, Whites have a different biological sense of
rhythm than Blacks, etc. etc. etc.) These so-called differences
were explained by "biology."
For most of the application of the concept of "race," for the
past 500+ years, the notion of "race" being "biologically rooted"
Within the last 50 years or so, social constructionist or

instrumentalist views have become more widely accepted. In
this view, race has come to be seen as even a "racist invention"
to divide and allocate resources. The elaborate use of biology
ideologically in explaining human differences became
widespread is treated as "biologically essentialistic" and even
"scientifically racist" (i.e. pseudo-scientific). However, it is
still popularly applied. (e.g. African Americans in the NBA,
Asian American honor students & high rates of university
attendance, etc.)
Sociologists Michael Omi and Howard Winant have defined
race as "a sociohistorical concept." They explain,
"Racial categories and the meaning of race are given concrete
expression by the specific social relations and historical context
in which they are embedded. Racial meanings have varied
tremendously over time and between different societies." (Omi
& Winant, 1994)
They urge us to understand "race" as "an unstable and
decentered complex of social meanings constantly being
transformed by political struggle. " Then, they go on to define
race as a concept or an idea that symbolizes and signifies social
conflict and social interests by referencing different human
body types. (from Omi & Winant, Racial Formation in the
United States, 1994).
Omi and Winant also employ the term, "racialization," to
signify "the extension of racial meanings to a previously
racially unclassified relationship, social practice or group."
Racialization is an ideological process with a particular
history. (Omi & Winant, 1994). Many of you have already
discussed in some of discussion boards how Asian Americans
have been "racialized."

Omi and Winant tell us that "race" is used as a compass to
navigate social relations in which preconceived notions of what
each specific racial group looks like, acts like, sounds like, etc.
here in the U.S. They write,
"One of the first things we notice about people when we meet
them (along with their sex) is their race. We utilize race to
provide clues about who a person is. This fact is made
painfully obvious when we encounter someone whom we cannot
conveniently racially categorize --someone who is, for example,
racially 'mixed' or of an ethnic/racial group with which we are
not familiar. Such an encounter becomes a source of discomfort
and momentarily a crisis of racial meaning. Without a racial
identity, one is in danger of having no identity." (Omi &
Winant, 1994)
When we say things like, "Wow, you don't seem very Asian!"
or "Why don't you speak English with an accent?" or "President
Obama sounds more white than black." etc. , these are all
expressions of this "racial compass" Omi & Winant discuss.
There is a kind of "racial etiquette" Omi & Winant explain "a
set of interpretative codes and racial meanings which operate in
the interactions of daily life." (The other way to talk about the
"racial etiquette" is how some people feel like they are "walking
on racial egg shells" all the time!)
Perhaps, that is why when a "crime suspect" is racially-
identified or not racially-identified (as in our discussion around
Catherine Becker), some of you felt, it was "unnecessary" or
"irrelevant." What does "race" have to do with this crime? A
crime is a crime, regardless! For those of you who say, "Race
is a non-issue." Then, if it's a non-issue, it shouldn't matter
*if* race *is* brought up as much as *if* race isn't brought up

because it would be a non-issue. It apparently *does* matter --
either way.
Understanding the history, the social scientific & so-called
scientific origins the paradigmatic perspectives, the cumulative
understanding of the history of race and their application/impact
on everyday life might help to explain why "race" is sometimes
such a "touchy" subject.
Here's are ways our language reflects the two paradigms:
Racial "is" as a biological concept = essentialism
Racialized "has made to become" as a socially constructed
construct = instrumentalism
From Essentialist Perspectives to Social Constructionist
Perspectives:
Black people are slaves. -> Black people were enslaved.
Asian Americans were "surrogate slaves. ->
Asian peoples in the U.S. have gone from being "surrogate
slaves" to "American dreamers."
What's in a name? Oriental versus Asian American/Asian
Pacific American
Let's consider the term, "Oriental." As a "racialized" term,
how is this term problematic? Why does it evoke controversy?
When is it okay to use? What is the sociohistorical
implications, its political implementation, its social use, its use
as "compass," etc.) ? What does this term tell us about
American society's views of Asian Pacific Americans and the

social location of Asian Pacific peoples here in the U.S. and
abroad?
The transformation of "racialized categories" from Oriental,
Asiatics, Mongolian, Malay, Asian-Americans, Asian
Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, Asian Pacific Islander
Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, Americans
of Asian and Pacific Islander ancestries, etc. etc. is really the
process of "racial formation" and "racialization" taking
place. Welcome to the (sociohistorical) process!
Sources:
The "Illogic of American Racial Categories,"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed
/spickard.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external
"The Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans,"
http://www.ifatunji.com/references/kim%201999%20the%20raci
al%20triangulation%20of%20asian%20americans.pdf (Links to
an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external
Lewontin Debunks Biologically Essentialist view of "Race,
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~biology/eeb/Cramer/RCL/bigbiblio.
htm (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links
to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Racial Formation in the U.S.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Racial_formation_in_the_
United_States.html?id=j9v6DMjjY44C (Links to an external

Week #2 Lecture, Part 2: Ethnicity & Pan-Ethnicity
In continuation with examining “race” from
essentialist/primordialist and social
constructionist/instrumentalist perspectives from the previous
lectures, let’s also look at “ethnicity.”
The terms “race” and “ethnicity” are often interchangeably used
(along with terms like “nationality,” “national origin,”
“background,” “heritage,” “ancestry,” etc. Some of the
intentional and unintentional interchangeable uses of many of
these terms is perhaps to diffuse some of the conflicts,
controversies often associate with the term “race,” and its close
ties to “racism.” For example, “race” being a “racist term.”
(Note: we have not operationalized, defined or examined this
very loaded term, "racism" yet). Of course, “race,” is perhaps
the term that evokes most complicated responses because of the
U.S.’s difficult history when it comes to “race relations” and
what Omi & Winant described in their “racial formation”
analysis and see below:
(Re-cap): Racial Formation, according to Michael Omi &
Winant,is ”the sociohistorical process by which racial
categories are created, inhabited, transformed, and destroyed"
(1994, p. 55). They argue that this process of racialization is
situated between structure and representation, whereby, at
certain points in history, racial meaning is extended to a racial
relationship, social practice, or group. Racial ideology is
constructed and reconstructed from preexisting conceptual
elements and emerges from the struggles of competing political
projects and ideas seeking to articulate similar elements
differently. Additionally, Omi and Winant argue that race is an
organizing principle not just at the societal (macro) level, but
also at the individual (micro) level, shaping the identities of
individuals and affecting all areas of social life. However, they
do give substantial emphasis in their analysis to the macro
level, arguing that racial conflict occurs primarily at the level

of the state. In their estimation, the process of racial formation
takes place in two steps: through racial projects and the
evolution of hegemony.
ETHNICITY
The essentialist paradigm (a.k.a. primordialist paradigm) and
social contruction (a.k.a. instrumentalist paradigm) also explain
how “ethnicity” plays itself out in the lives of groups and
individuals. While “race” is grouping people together based on
“some sort of genetics” or “gene frequencies,” ethnicity is
group people together base on common and overlapping culture,
shared history, a sense of peoplehood and a consciousness of
kind. (see Teresa Williams-Leon and Cynthia L. Nakashima,
The Sum of Our Part: Mixed Heritage Asian Americans, 2001,
p. 9). Social scientists have explained that “race” has been a
category imposed from social structures in which groups have
had to respond, whereas “ethnicity” is often an identification
that arises from the internal experiences of a group in
relationship to the outside. This explanation makes sense when
considering the roles that “physical appearance,” “phenotype,”
“some sort of genetics” (even though based in pseudo-science),
and social status figure into conceptualizations, articulations,
and applications of the term, “race,” whereas “culture,”
“history,” and “a sense of peoplehood,” are the underlying
definitional markers for “ethnicity. Some have simplistically
described “ethnicity” as “race + culture). Indeed, many
members of ethnic groups share phenotypical characteristics.
Perhaps, this is more an explanation of geographical proximity
and “moving of genes” than the socially constructed notion of
“race.” How can it be that Indonesians, Pilipinos, Koreans, and
Pakistanis, according to U.S. “legal definitions,” are of the
same “race?” Do they share “genetics” (genotype, phenotype,
DNA, mitrochondrial DNA, blood proteins, etc.)? As human
beings (same species), absolutely! Do they share similar
phenotypes? It would depend “who is doing the viewing” of
their phenotypes, how they are being “marked” and what

context the viewing and the marking are taking place.
CULTURE
“Culture” is a key component to marking people “ethnically.”
What is “culture?” It is a complex system of beliefs and
behaviors (both material and non-material). Material culture
would be objects and artifacts. Non-material culture would be
ideas, values and norms. Culture includes languages, beliefs,
ideas, customs, values, norms, mores, organizations,
institutions, and so on. From taking off shoes in the house to
respecting elders to showing affection in public to looking
people straight in the eye, taking off hats in buildings, etc. are
aspects of “culture.” It is also “a way of being.” We tend to
look at “culture” as solely being “ethno-culture” (or associated
with ethnic groups and their beliefs, behaviors, etc.). However,
we also apply it to a variety of “groups” (both formal and
informal “groups”). For example, there is somewhat of a
“loosely defined yet distinct” southern California culture. We
are a driving culture, a freeway culture. This past July (summer,
2011), there was so much made of a few exits and short distance
on the 405 closed off. “Beware of Carmageddon!” People were
throwing Carmegeddon parties, airlines were having special
$4.00 flights from Long Beach to Burbank Airports, etc.
Northern California or Manhattan (New York City) has a
different kind of “culture.” Cultures develop, emerge, adapt,
change and transform according to their environments. Peoples
and cultures who live by the ocean, in the mountains, in the
plains, warm climates, cold climates, etc. adapt to their physical
environment, create tools and objects, and develop ideas,
values, norms that make sense (or seem to make sense) in
adapting to those environments.
PAN-ETHNICITY
Asian Pacific Americans are made up of many ethnic groups, as

are all groups in the U.S. (that have also been “racialized” in
specific ways). Latinos, Native Americans, African Americans,
European Americans, Arab Americans, Jewish Americans, one
could argue, are all multiple ethnic groups under one umbrella
name, representing a variety of experiences, histories,
incorporation processes into the U.S., identities, realities,
political orientations, religious experiences/sects, etc. This
“umbrella” entity of multiple ethnic groups into one has been
called, “pan-ethnicity” by those like sociologist David Lopez of
UCLA and Asian American studies scholar, Yen Le Espiritu of
UC San Diego. Asian Pacific Americans are truly a “pan-ethnic”
group of peoples. They are, like most racialized groups'
experiences/social statuses in the U.S., forcing square pegs into
round holes. More accurately, “racialized groups” in the U.S.
are indeed “pan-ethnic” groups. The aggregate group we call,
“Asian Pacific American” consists of many ethnicities,
religions, languages, national origins, histories, incorporation
processes, phenotypes, genomic structures, etc. The same can be
said with African Americans, Latinos, Arab Americans, Jewish
Americans, European Americans. Native Americans, etc.
Ethnicity through the Essentialist (Primordialist) Lens:
So how would an essentialist (or primordialist) articulate
“ethnicity?” (Look back at how an essentialist examined “race.”
That is, biology explained the constitution of races and
differentiation among races. The existence of races and their
differences were explained through so-called biology and
“science.”) Here’s a little throwback to the SATs (don’t we all
want to forget!): Biology is to an essentialist defining “race” as
_______________ is to an essentialist defining “ethnicity.” If
you guessed “culture,” you are correct! So, the essentialist
“essentializes” everything down to “culture” when it comes to
ethnicity as he/she “essentializes” everything down to “biology”
when it comes to race. So, for example, essentialists would say
that what fundamentally explains, defines, and differentiates
groups of people is “culture.” (i.e. values, norms, mores,

customs, behaviors, languages, religions, ways of life, etc.) For
example, the reason why Asian Americans are so successfully
because “It’s in their ‘culture’ to value education.” So, a “racial
essentialist” would have said, “It’s in their biology (i.e.
physical make-up, cranial capacity, brain size, left/right brain
chemistry, shape of their eyes, etc.) to value culture.”
Essentialist explanations are put forth as “objective, innate,
primordial” qualities. Culture becomes the explanation for what
an Asian American is, how they are, why they do what they do,
etc. The difference of course between “biological” and
“cultural” explanations is that biology is perceived as fixed
(nature), whereas culture can change (nurture). However, in the
racial formation process and racialization experiences of Asian
Pacific Americans (and other groups) these explanations come
to serve as elaborate “ideological justifications” and part of
“racial hegemony.” People essentialize all the time.
Ethnicity through the Social Constructionist (Instrumentalist)
View:
Again, comparatively look at how social constructionists view
explain “race.” Social constructionists explain that “race” is
used as a tool, an instrument that is used, manipulated, and
defined contextually to serve dominant groups’ power interests.
Subordinated groups can also use this tool to challenge their
subordinate positions and to vie for inclusion. Thus, from a
social constructionist perspective, “race” is not essential (that
is, biologically-based). It is political. Meanings of race are
different in different societies. People who are classified as
“Black” in the U.S. may be classified as “White” in another
society. In 1790, Congress restricted citizenship by
naturalization to “free whites only.” (Naturalization Act of
1790) Although this law did include women, it did not extend
citizenship to people whose father had never resided in the U.S.
(This makes me think of all of the “birthers” who had
questioned President Obama’s citizenship and his Kenyan

father, although this does not apply in the President’s case.
There is a socio-historical context from which to understand the
“birther movement.” ) The 14th Amendment in 1868 granted
citizenship to those born in the U.S. “Race” was explicitly a
requirement for naturalization. This law stayed into effect from
1790 until 1954.
Take South Asian Indians, for example. South Asian Indians
had been racially deemed “Caucasians” by 19th century & 20th
century anthropologists and geneticists. Yet when they were
denied citizenship due to their “not being white,” some of them
took to the courts to challenge this contradiction. In 1909,
Balsara wanted to be classified as “white” but was ruled,
“probably not white,” but in 1910, in U.S. v. Balsara, upon
“scientific evidence,” he was indeed judged to be “white.” In
1910, Dolla was legally deemed “white” upon visual inspection
of his skin. The famous case of Bhagat Singh Thind (1923) was
that he wanted to become a U.S. Citizen (p. 33 in Zia). Asian
Indians were part of the Oriental racialized category who were
“aliens ineligible for citizenship” as all “Orientals” had been. It
meant if one was “Oriental” “Mongolian” or “Asiatic,” one
could not become a naturalized citizen. (Pilipinos were exempt
from 1898 to 1934). This law was in effect until the 1954.
Thind took his case to the Supreme Court because he wanted to
become a U.S. citizen. The Supreme Court ruled that Thind is
Caucasian but he is “not white” according to “common
understanding.” Needless to say, his citizenship request was
denied.
In 1912, Mr. Young of Washington state who was half-Japanese
and half-German was trying to become a naturalized U.S.
citizen. He was denied because he was half-Japanese (U.S.
Supreme Court). The Supreme Court ruled that “half white and
half Japanese is not full white.” He was promptly denied
citizenship. These are examples of how the law has defined
what is “race” and how it will be applied (in these cases to

citizenship). These are examples of “race as a social
construction.” It is used as a socio-political tool to allocate
resources to a dominant group and deny or strict them from
subordinated groups within a racial stratification system.
So how would a social constructionist explain “ethnicity?”
There is a common joke in AAS that I've already shared with
you in previous lectures that illustrate this point: How many
Asian Americans were there before 1960? The answer is zero!
How could that be? The Pilipinos were in the New World (what
would become part of the U.S.) even before the U.S. was
established. Cheng and Eng (the conjoined twins from Siam)
fell in love with North Carolina and settled around 1839. The
Chinese began coming to Hawai’i and the west coast as early as
the 1830s. Yet the name, the term, the pan-ethnic understanding
of aggregate group known as “Asian Americans” did not exist
before 1960. See "A Myth and a Movement" from Chapter 2 in
Helen Zia's book, "Asian American Dreams." (Zia, pp. 46-50).
Though subjected to either the same or similar “racialized,”
race-based laws pertaining to just about all areas of life (e.g.
employment, living quarters, marriage, voting, political
participation, education, owning land, using public facilities,
etc.), “Asians” (Chinese, Japanese, Pilipinos, South Asian
Indians, Southeast Asians, etc.) did not come to see one another
as part of one racialized group. A racial formation process (see
Omi & Winant’s framework) took place based on ethnic
identifications. “Asian Americans” or “Asian Pacific
Americans” as a “pan-ethnic” group is an example of “social
construction.” And still in the process of being formed and
transformed, socially constructed, de-constructed and
reconstructed. . .
Questions to Ponder: Both the Boston Bombers (Tsarnaev
Brothers) and the San Bernadino Killers (Syed Farook and
Tashfeen Malik) were "ethnically" of Asian ancestry and they
were Muslim by religious faith. The Tsarnaev brothers were

ethnic Chechnyans within Russia and the married couple,
Farook/Malik, were of Pakistani ancestry. What about their
"race?" Do "race" and "ethnicity" and "religion" all match up
in these cases?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/boston-attack-
profiles/index.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an
external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external
site.
http://www.houstonpress.com/news/about-the-central-asian-
link-to-those-boston-bombers-6718382 (Links to an external
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-san-bernardino-
shooting-malik-pregnant-20151228-story.html (Links to an
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-barnardino-shooting-wife-
tashfeen-malik-role-fear-jihad-brides/ (Links to an external
Race, ethnicity, pan-ethnicity and religion all
intertwine. Though they are all socially contructed instruments
that either categorize groups of people, enforce social
boundaries from within and without, they remain concrete,
material and visual ways (albeit contradictory ways) in which
we view, examine, and understand human social reality.
"Asian American" or "Asian Pacific Islander American" as
a pan-ethnic category of people has been centuries in the
making (at least since Filipinos began arriving in Louisiana in
the mid-1700's and since the Chinese began arriving in Hawai'i
and California in the 1830s. . .

Sources:
Espiritu, Yen Le. Asian American Panethnicity. 1993.
Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. Racial Formation in the U.S.
1994.
Williams-Leon, Teresa and Cynthia L. Nakashima. The Sum of
Our Parts: Mixed Heritage Asian Americans.2001
Zia, Helen. Asian American Dreams: The Emergence of an
American People. 2000.
http://profs-polisci.mcgill.ca/abizadeh/Ethnicity-
Fulltext.htm (Links to an external site.)Links to an external
site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external
site.http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2009/03
/the-social-construction-of-race-ethnicity-sex-and-
gender.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external

Week 3Lecture #3, Part I The Primacy of the Assimilation Paradi.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from cockekeshia

More from cockekeshia (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Week 3Lecture #3, Part I The Primacy of the Assimilation Paradi.docx