Thursday, May 12th, 2005

Are Asians and Latinos Just A Different Kind of White?

Tamara Nopper reviews George Yancey’s sure-to-be-controversial new book. Much more on this to come…

UPDATE: Check comments below for more links and discussion.

posted by Jeff Chang @ 9:20 am | 109 Comments

109 Responses to “Are Asians and Latinos Just A Different Kind of White?”

d.pirtle says:

May 12, 2005 at 1:43 pm

whiteness in an institution that i am glad to see people writing, researchiing and, talking about. i’m going to get my hands on this book asap.

– dorothy
from los angeles~
ronnie brown says:

May 12, 2005 at 7:57 pm

i hate to say i told you so, but…
EAT MY SHORTS says:

May 13, 2005 at 1:44 am

er, that was a deep article. Too deep for me and my not too deep brain. However, as a black can I just say, I love everyone. Black, White, Asian, and latino.

Asians like blacks in my opinion. I know Ice Cube was exposed them back in the day but that was the older generation of Asians. My mama used to work at A Japanese Embassy and they was all cool, one of them taught me Kung Fu and shit. we need to chill with all the race analysis cause I just treat cats as I find them, generalising need to stop. I think you’ll find that those latinos/Asian that accept whiteness like the writer of the article said are just the sam,e as oreos. Have you read that pyscho john mcwhorter? He is pro european like John Hawkins.
Oliver says:

May 13, 2005 at 9:07 am

All due respect Jeff but I’m really surprised you’d give Yancey’s argument any real run. First and foremost, there’s nothing here that’s being advanced that’s radically new (and thus hasn’t already been cast into doubt before). Yancey’s book (which isn’t that new – it came out in 2003 and has already received numerous reviews), at its most basic, repeats a belief that has existed for DECADES, namely that all brown and yellow people hate black people and secretly desire to be white.

I don’t disagree with Yancey’s postulation that anti-black racism is one of the formative ways in which immigrants can assimilate (though this idea has been a part of race relations scholarship for years). Nor do I disagree with the suggestion that many Latino and Asian Americans (immigrant or American born) desire the spoils of white privilege (Eric Liu, holla) and moreover, would seek to distance themselves, whether personally or strategically, from African Americans.

However (and these points have been made countless times in the past but apparently, they need repeating):

1) desiring to be white and actually being accepted as white are two wholly different things. Yancey’s argument that Latinos and Asians will become “white” seems to fail to take into account that whites have not proven to be that historically – shall we say? accepting? – of non-whites. While I agree that there are different levels of acceptance that may apply to one racial group and not another, the idea that whites are going to extend the category of “whiteness” to Latinos and Asians by 2050 is beyond implausible. If anything, the shrinkingwhite population is going to create a reentrenchment of “I’m white, you’re not” essentialism/exceptionalism as white folk feel under threat. See all the nativism that’s happening throughout Europe.

2) Seems to me that rather than assimilating into a blank, white norm, most immigrants actually make great strides to retain much of their “cultural” heritage intact, including but not limited to ethnic-oriented businesses (i.e. visit any LA strip mall), cultural organizations and events, and the retention of languages that don’t conform to a mono-lingual, English-only model. None of this means that Latino and Asian immigrants are automatically “black” but it sure would seem to distance them from “white.”

3) Moreover, where is there any mention of the ways in which MANY Latinos and Asians seek to draw both personal and strategic alliances with Blacks? I think there are more than enough exceptions to warrant at least a mention. Yancey (or maybe it’s just Nopper) seem to flatten racial groups into monolithic, homogenous entities – something I’d hope we can all agree none of these groups actually are.

4) Also, I doubt Yancey at all tries to challenge or interrogate the very category of “black” (though I can appreciate how he undertands whiteness in comparison). With the massive growth in the Black population coming from West Indian immigration, this is creating considerable tension between different “black” sub-communities, especially as better educated and higher class immigrants benefit from the same social programs that slavery-descended African Americans do, and therefore, create competition (and resentment) within the black community over limited resources. Where’s Stuart Hall when you need him?

In short, Asians and Latinos are not a different kind of white. Nor are they a different kind of black. And I think if we’re really going to take seriously the nature of race relations for the 21st century, it’s going to take a more fully developed set of analytical tools than what I see being discussed in this review.
Jeff says:

May 13, 2005 at 9:58 am

Blame me being in a cave for 4 years writing–which makes me a Cave Asian–that I didn’t have any idea about this book. Gonna reserve entire judgment til I’ve had a chance to read. In the meantime, here’s links to two reviews, which are very critical of the book from a Black and Latino angle.

Amanda Davis in African American Review
She mainly critiques his use of data, and his lack of recognition of diversity in Black communities.

Richard Delgado in Texas Law Review
Delgado is a well known Critical Legal Studies/Critical Race Theory scholar. He places Yancey in a category of racial neoliberals (in which he also includes his colleague Mari Matsuda, boy I’ve been out of this debate for a long time…), that emphasize the white-black divide and assimilation to the detriment of understanding race and racism as a whole. This is a partial download.

Also of interest, Yancey’s speech to a Christian group called: “Is Homophobia (and sexism) the same as racism?”

Last I will say that I find this debate fascinating–even if on face I think a lot of Yancey’s claims are ridiculous–because it reflects what I think is a new and growing divide among lefty intellectuals of color on the legacy of the radical multiculturalist movement of the 80s (which everyone knows I proudly repped).

I’m beginning to think–and this is what a blog is for, to have it out in public with lower stakes than an more “intellectual” debate–that during the 90s, hip-hop–esp. in its consumerist forms–allowed many of us to get happy about the triumph of multiculturalism.

Of course, it was largely an uneven, market-driven triumph, so we still have many of the same questions that plagued us at the end of the 80s and beginning of the 90s.

I’ll stop here and reserve more comment. Holla back once yall have dug into this stuff…
EMB says:

May 13, 2005 at 10:32 am

i think oliver alludes to this by talking about the flattening of racial identities but gotta make it explicit: lots of latinos identify as black…
Oliver says:

May 13, 2005 at 4:14 pm

Lizz,

Question: are those Latinos who ID as black (I’m presuming Dominican, some Puerto Rican, etc.) in turn accepted as black by blacks? I was always under the impression that the latter was not always the case.
ronnie brown says:

May 13, 2005 at 4:46 pm

“lots of latinos identify as Black”…

because, THEY ARE BLACK!!!!!

one of white supremacy’s most devastating effects is the sense of shame it imposes on those of African descent in particular and to a lesser degree all other non-white peoples.

If the slave ships rudder had turned south instead of north, right instead of left, my ancestors could have landed in a number of destinations: Haiti, Brazil, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Cuba, etc., etc.

would i be any less Black?…if i speak Spanish or French, would i be any less Black?…of course not!…but under the pressure of white supremacy i may seek to avoid the stigma imposed upon my African ancestry by seeking to define myself with euphemisms such as ex. “Latino” or through a national designation…ex.”Puerto Rican”.

This is the psychological shape-shifting non-white people engage in order to manage our shame in self. Under the present climate of multiculturalism, white supremacy must adjust and adapt to the new playing field. It has to find to absorb multi-lingual, multi-hued immigrant populations while keeping its caste pecking order intact.

“Whiteness”, for people of color, is not COLOR but real or imagined STATUS…so lets dispense with the pussy footin’ and acknowledge that Asian and Latinos are being offered a higher place on the racial food chain…for a price!

Oliver Wang, (i’m assuming this is you, if not, my apologies)

Would you provide some instances where Latinos and Asians are seeking to make “personal and strategic” alliances with Black folk???

Jeff,
Correct me if i’m wrong,(and i’m not puttin’ you on blast, good brother) but i recall you mentioning that you have some Native Hawaiian ancestry…How many of your fellow brethren acknowledge their African bloodlines, in spite of all the intermarriage with other ethnic groups over several generations?…if you haven’t had anyone mention it lately, it’s because of the power and perceived status of “whiteness”…”status” is bestowed by underplaying or denying any African ancestry in your family tree or avoiding any aggressive political alliances with (and this includes immigrant Black populations) African-Americans…

in regard to this subject, its time we put ALL our cards on the table, no?
Jeff says:

May 14, 2005 at 11:04 am

ronnie,

if the context is the continental US, i’m in agreement that the dominant axis remains white-black. in other places, it may be settler-native. the idea of blackness changes once you leave what chuck d calls “the box” of the upper 48. i like this–we’re supposed to think outside the box, right?

in hawai’i, the native-settler axis is much more relevant than notions of blackness. native hawaiians don’t tend to call themselves black–it’s already a category that refers to african americans–or refer to themselves in terms of a relationship to africanness. (presuming you’re talking about ‘original man’ africanness, no?)

if you mean ‘africanness’ in terms of skin color–in hawai’i, color is very important–i often joke that i’m the white sheep of the family, which does in fact carry a lot of the same implications that light-skinnedness carries in black/latino communities…s’posed to be smarter, s’posed to be less cool or authentic or funky, conferred more privileges, on and on. in hawai’i ideas of beauty and color are more complicated, but that’s another discussion.

so in other words, the categories don’t tend to work so good when you start getting deeper into the details. i wonder if yancey has ever seen fania in africa. my point being, how do you get to that conclusion if you ignore liz’s point? the categories themselves don’t work.

if we take this idea of “assimilation” on its face, which i don’t, and that’s another convo…to me, for instance, it’s obvious that assimilation rates are different **within** asian and latino communities, and that that has a lot to do with class and language. i think there’s lots of folks that can’t apply for their white cards.

honestly, and i was supposed to withhold judgment til i read the book, but since you asked, i think that if you spend 15 minutes in south oxnard (largely chicano) or east oakland (where southeast asians, blacks and latinos live together), yancey’s argument looks like a crock of psuedo-intellectual bullshit.

and honestly, if you got a theory that doesn’t work in south oxnard or east oakland or similar type places, then you don’t have a theory that’s gonna move us where we gotta go.

and ronnie, i think that’s an argument that goes both ways. i think african americans gotta look at building aggressive, principled alliances with other groups as well. not saying that your stuff needs to be watered down, either, but with all due respect, it’s not about getting a chicano in south oxnard or a cambodian in east oakland to acknowledge that africans are original man and woman. if that’s what you’re saying…

but all that said, i’m ready to keep my mind open on this and be thoroughly convinced. my main thing is, and yall know me, what kind of theory is gonna help us get to where we need to go to get everyone free. if yancey’s argument is gonna move us in that direction, i’m ready to listen…if anybody’s argument is gonna move us in that direction, i’m ready to listen…
ronnie brown says:

May 14, 2005 at 12:29 pm

Jeff,
I’m gonna give you time to read to book…then we’ll compare notes. I’ll rest on this thought; i do think Yancy’s premise was meant to be taken as an analysis of the overall climate. No doubt there are communities of color where multiculturalism in its truest essence is able to thrive…but sub-sets do not represent a national will committed to equality among ethnic groups.

Regarding Lizz’s point on latinos identifying as Black; it’s not that categories have no relevance, it’s that certain categories were created as a means to diminish the value of African ancestry…Latino was one of those terms.

Lastly, with all due respect, the African-American resistance movement has ALWAYS been the catalyst for forging alliances with other groups. Have you forgotten that the political platform of the Black Panthers, MLK,jr., SNCC was the notion that the liberation of Black folk would create the tide that would raise the quality of life for all dispossessed people???

Black people reaching out to others is not the problem…it’s the reluctance of the “others” to do likewise.

Jeff, i’m suprised you left your flank exposed on this particular point…i’ll assume it’s because it’s a lazy Saturday. lol
Jeff says:

May 14, 2005 at 1:03 pm

ah kick me in the ass! of course you’re absolutely right. tho i wonder if we can consider yancey to be part of the african-american resistance movement? again, don’t know enough yet to comment.

but you make a really important point in the context that you and i live in–california, cause as i talk about in the book, african american populations are declining here–it’s possible we’ve seen our last black mayor in the bay area with willie brown. he ran on a post-rainbow kind of ticket (LOL, lots of cali folks will disagree with me on that, i know, but listen, i worked in sacramento in the late 80s early 90s, and that was very much the idea and model, as per your first comment…).

the thing that’s interesting about what yall have had going on with villaraigosa v hahn is exactly this question…african americans are trying to figure out how to position themselves in relationship to whites and latinos. again, not the resistance movement per se, but definitely a sign of things today.

back to the lazy saturday–these are always incredible convos…

peace!
EAT MY SHORTS says:

May 16, 2005 at 3:52 am

reading Jeff, Ronnie and Oliver makes me wish I had stayed in School. Shit goin over my head.

But word, latinos hate blacks. I saw this dark skinned dude one time and came at him like a brotha and dude was like “i’m latinio”, I was like word… Dont call a puerto rican black, its an insult to them.
ronnie brown says:

May 16, 2005 at 4:48 am

EMS,
the fact that SOME Latinos consider their blackness a stigma is a testimony to the power of white supremacy upon ones psyche.
Anonymous says:

May 16, 2005 at 9:12 am

This is definitely an interesting discussion.

Blacks, in spite of all the leadership and influence on America, are still very much prisoners of racism. Meanwhile Asians and Latinos are often able to bypass the Black/White race paradigm.

I think another differentiation is that the Black community has always been about leadership and the collective. Asians and Latinos are more likely to play the background when it comes to racism and making a fuss in public. This benefits Latinos and Asians, but doesn’t appear to extend the gains of Latinos/Asians to Blacks — well, at least not immediately.

Let’s face it, there ain’t no replacing Black leadership or the role Black people have played in our history. In that sense — yes — all other groups are kinda “white” because no other group in American is gonna pay dues like that (lest we forget Native Americans though).

Will Asians and Latinos simply take up the yoke and inherit the Black/White race paradigm? I don’t see how that is possible… who will be the target? Our new elite will be a racist white-latino-asian alliance? Will they intermarry and form a mixed-race racist elite? Please explain.
ronnie brown says:

May 16, 2005 at 7:28 pm

Eric,
You pose an excellent question. MOST Asians and non-black latinos still treat the race issue like the crazy grandma one would banish to the upstairs bedroom…DENIAL, DENIAL, DENIAL!…As we saw with President Fox of Mexico, anti-Black sentiment is engrained in the culture of EVERY post 1492 society. Black folk are the universal representation of “the bottom”…and ANY non-black person of color who would dare to claim otherwise is a delusional liar.
Jeff says:

May 17, 2005 at 1:22 am

The latest on Fox’s comments.
Anonymous says:

May 17, 2005 at 8:03 am

Dear Ronnie,

I would be interested in talking with you more about your ideas–I tried to find an email for you on your blog site but couldn’t. In any case, I see that there is a great deal of hostility towards you and your arguments, as evidenced by respondents’ desire to not deal with them but to find ways to discredit your arguments through the strategic arguments about 1) Black essentialism and the internal diversity of Blacks (Oliver Wang’s specialty)–which doesn’t undermine Yancey’s argument at all; 2) a conversation about homophobia among Blacks–as if Asian Americans who are hostile to dealing with anti-Black racism really care about BLACK queer folks; 3) the selective willingness to take
Yancey “seriously” if he writes something that could be used strategically against him in order to not take him seriously when he is making an argument that challenges the worldviews of most on the multiracial left; 4) the strategic use of President Fox’s “apology” (which had to be encouraged for the sake of diplomatic relations) to discredit your commentary about Fox; and 5) the efforts to “regionalize” race relations, which is common effort to localize race rather than globalize race and is also ahistorical, hostile and serves to undermine your point about anti-black racism and blacks in the GLOBAL modern world order, which of course, also includes Oakland.

BTW, I was out in Oakland when the review was circulated and if there is any empirical evidence that is needed to support Yancey’s argument, it is indeed in Oakland. How else can you explain a) that the majority of Black people are homeless; b) that most of the people attending Berkeley are white and Asian; c) that Black people appear almost invisible there to the point where you start to wonder if Black people live in the Bay; d) the ability for Asians and Latino/as to penetrate trendy, white areas and make them multiracial; and e) that Asians could own many businesses in trendy white areas, have mainly Latino/a employees and that you rarely saw Black people in these areas as a worker or customer. If you saw them at all they were mainly homeless?

In any case, Ronnie, I agree with what you are saying. If you want to chat more, please feel free to email me at tnopper@yahoo.com.

Tamara K. Nopper
Philadelphia
Anonymous says:

May 17, 2005 at 8:18 am

Correction:

In my recent post, I wrote: “that the majority of Black people are homeless.” I meant to say “that the majority of homeless people are Black.”

Also, I would add the following questions: what would compel Black people to work with Asian Americans? Do both groups equally benefit? Have Black people ever EQUALLY benefitted from these coalitions with non-Blacks? And why do Asian Americans seem to think that being into hip hop and slang is the same thing as actually listening to a Black person?

Tamara K. Nopper
ronnie brown says:

May 17, 2005 at 10:05 am

Tamara,
Thanx for your response. My e-mail is ronnie_58@hotmail.com

I’m in the middle of class on a slow computer, so i gotta be brief…anyhoo, the reality of racism/white supremacy as a global reality is a tough nut to swallow for ANYONE who’s not Black…and for those who have embraced the pseudo “Blackness” of Hip-Hop culture there is even a deeper level of denial.
Jeff says:

May 17, 2005 at 6:43 pm

Hey Tamara,

Since it’s probably not clear from the postings, and since you’re new around here–I should be clear that I’m mainly (and usually) in agreement with Ronnie. I certainly wasn’t trying to “strategically discredit” or undermine his arguments. I was trying to deepen the convo. He’d shut me down if I was that dumb. You see how he shuts me down when I’m trying to act smart…

I don’t disagree with most of your points about my homeplace either. There is a history to the points about Berkeley’s admissions, about gentrification, and other stuff you mentioned. There are other issues to consider, like rural poverty. But the larger point you’re making is right on the mark.

To me, it’s been one of the most depressing things about living in California. Especially in the Bay Area, I think the ideology of multiculturalism does hinder open discussion about anti-black racism. This fact is what makes the stakes over Yancey’s argument (and isn’t he based in the southwest as well?)–as well as your own work–so important to discuss.

Finally, I think that the importance of principled coalition building with a focus on those most lacking is self-evident.

California and New York provide vivid, even horrific examples of what happens when such coalition work fails or is destroyed. In turn, the problem of the left of color is a microcosms of the larger problem with the left in general.

And finally, for the record, I think that a coalition of the least, coming from poor and marginalized commmunities of color working from the grassroots up–as opposed to a coalition of the willing–provides the best chance of reinvigorating a popular progressive movement.

This is never to minimize the primary question of: whom does this coalition best serve? But I think that efforts to resolve both issues have to be simultaneous, not consecutive.

Anyway, those are the assumptions that I bring to the debate…

Peace,

Jeff
ronnie brown says:

May 17, 2005 at 8:30 pm

Jeff,
There are two quotes from Yancey that i pulled from Ms.Nopper’s review that butress my contention that building coalitions between Blacks and other people of color is what the old folks described as being “more than a notion”…#1 “The rejection of African-Americans rather than the acceptance of European Americans is the best explanation of social distance in the U.S” #2 “The informal rejection of African-Americans rather than a tendency by the majority to oppress all minority groups in a roughly equal manner is the linchpin to the American contemporary racial hierarchy”…

White Supremacy doesn’t need a uniformity of color, language or culture in order to maintain its pecking order…all it needs is a “wink and a nod” from a willing immigrant group to not make any strategic alliances with African-Americans…that’s why some Korean, Arab, East Indian, white Latino merchant classes have such an adversarial and exploitative presence in Black neighborhoods.
ronnie brown says:

May 17, 2005 at 8:51 pm

Tamara,
To answer to question about the “equality” of coalition building…i think we both know that most are one-sided, with a self-serving agenda on the part of some and usually entered into as a last resort. The history of Black folk in America is the template of every group with a beef or a cause…not to cultivate any meaningful relationship with us, but only to use our liberation struggles as a way to establish an uncontestable moral high ground.

and in regard to hip-hop and slang, that’s the pseudo “Blackness” i was talkin’ about…it can come of as fast as Justin Timberlake snatchin’ of his kufi when pressed about Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction”, it’s as shallow as being a corporate head of “diversity” marketing…
ronnie brown says:

May 17, 2005 at 8:57 pm

…and i’m still waiting for Oliver Wang to provide some examples of Latinos and Asians seeking to make those “personal and strategic” alliances with Black folk!
Anonymous says:

May 17, 2005 at 9:08 pm

Without agreeing or disagreeing, I do wonder about the nature of the “wink and nod”. Anecdotes would do much to paint a picture. My impression is that the racism of Latinos and Asians is generally one of fear, rather than opportunism, whereas many white people are still victims of that freaky biological racism shit.

A comparison of the specific influences on, and nature of, Asian and Latino racism against Blacks — as compared to traditional white racism against Blacks — might be illuminating.

I want to know the nature of this new racial hierarchy before I simply write off Latinos and Asians as “the new white people”. After all, that’s some pretty serious slander to accuse someone of acting white 😉
Jeff says:

May 18, 2005 at 2:29 am

[[[#1 “The rejection of African-Americans rather than the acceptance of European Americans is the best explanation of social distance in the U.S” #2 “The informal rejection of African-Americans rather than a tendency by the majority to oppress all minority groups in a roughly equal manner is the linchpin to the American contemporary racial hierarchy”…

White Supremacy doesn’t need a uniformity of color, language or culture in order to maintain its pecking order…all it needs is a “wink and a nod” from a willing immigrant group to not make any strategic alliances with African-Americans…that’s why some Korean, Arab, East Indian, white Latino merchant classes have such an adversarial and exploitative presence in Black neighborhoods.]]]

Ronnie,

Yes, white supremacy adapts to different ways for different folks. Question then: how do we deal with the emergence of Black elite like Russell or Henry Louis Gates or…? Do you think they comprise a problem similar to the problems that the merchant classes you named do for those trying to move those communities in a progressive direction? Not trying to divert the question, I’m really asking honestly: How do we deal with class within our communities?

I ask this, because part of what I’m understanding here is that the critique of what Tamara calls the “multiracial left” seems to stem directly from its inability to deal with the ongoing presence and problem of the Black underclass. I also ask this in an honest attempt to try to grapple toward solutions…what do your politics say we should be doing?
Anonymous says:

May 18, 2005 at 5:09 am

Hello,

Jeff, I find your way of debating really diversion tactics. For one, just because I am “new” to your site and that you generally agree with Ronnie Brown does not mean that you are not being hostile to his commentary regarding my review. Meaning, I made my list of ways in which people are not dealing with Ronnie Brown’s comments by actually reading what people are saying.

Second, do Asian Americans REALLY want to honestly deal with class? I really doubt Asian Americans want to have an honest conversation about class given that no one seems to want to address what Ronnie Brown talks about in terms of merchants, ownership, or even, the dynamics of UCal Berkeley that Jeff mentions. Asian Americans frequently try to divert stuff to class (which is a major tendency of whites, no?), but really, do they want to go there? If so, they might have to confront more than they bargained for since Asian Americans are in no way anti-capitalist (if they were, why would there be such difficulty dealing with what Ronnie Brown raises in terms of the merchants in Black neighborhoods and why do Asian Americans seem to bring up Black elites in order to avoid the conversation)?

Third, how come Asian Americans are frequently pointing out to Blacks the internal diversity among Blacks whenever Black people raise criticisms of the power and privileges of Asian Americans?

Fourth, why are people so quick to want a solution when we haven’t even agreed what the problem is? What is the point of telling one a solution if that person is just trying to tell me my analysis of the problem is wrong, even when they try to do so with the empty and insincere rhetoric of coalition and political urgency?

Fifth, I am not talking about the multiracial left’s problem with the “Black underclass”–I am talking about the multiracial left’s problem with Black people, including the Black people often emphasized in efforts to divert conversation. A focus on the “Black underclass,” is a poor attempt to divert the conversation from one of global white supremacy/anti-Black racism (which of course includes dynamics around capitalism and capital) to a multiracial working-class model. The latter model is one that can dismiss the power and privileges that even poor Southeast Asians have over Blacks, including the richer ones people tend to quickly emphasize, just by virtue of not being Black.

Indeed, the urgency around poor Southeast Asians is in itself made possible through the naturalization of Black suffering. Here’s an article I wrote regarding this issue:

http://www.aamovement.net/viewpoints/2000-03%20archive/camb_deport1.htm

Perhaps the questions I pose should not be answered right away and maybe just thought about.

Tamara K. Nopper
Philadelphia
Jeff says:

May 18, 2005 at 5:39 am

LOL. Hey Tamara, if you find my “debate” diversionary it’s probably cause I’m not debating, I’m trying to be persuaded. Gotta run right now, but more soon…
Oliver says:

May 18, 2005 at 8:40 am

(Warning: This is really long)

Ronnie,

Not avoiding your query but even though Jeff is like blood to me, I only have time to check his blog once a week or so. Onward:

1) Are you saying that in the history of American race relations there have never been Latino or Asian American organizations/individuals who’ve sought to forge meaningful political, cultural and social relations with African Americans? Your incredulity at my point would seem to suggest that we live in a world of absolute divisions and segregations.

Just so I’m not ambigious about this Ronnie: we don’t all get along. Most of the time, our communities are jockeying for position in either explicit conflict with one another, or at the very least, our gains equate to other folk’s losses. But there’s a long history of anti-racist organizations and individuals that have TRIED (notice, I did not say “succeed”) in bridging that gap.

And yes, I agree, most anti-racist social movements have used various Black-led movements as a template. And yes, I agree, most of those movements have come up in short in truly building meaningful solidarity across racial lines.

But to suggest that genuine (whatever that word means here) attempts don’t exist between black/latino/asian communities seems to be a bit of an overstatement, no? This is what Amanda Davis raises in her essay too.

Let me throw out a few names since you ask:
Yuri Kochiyama
Grace Lee Boggs
Jeff Chang
Fred Ho *cough cough*

Also, keep in mind, I’m not a social movement scholar: holler at one of my former schoolmates like Dylan Rodriguez if you want a longer list. I just dropped the first four names that came to me.

(This is where I’d normally invoke the names of Vijay Prashad, Robin Kelley and George Lipsitz, aka the Holy Trinity of race/culture scholars, but I’ll leave “polyculturalism” at home today).

2) Also Ronnie, I was wondering if you might address the point I made earlier: that if there’s a divide b/t Black/Latino identities/communities, it’s perpetuated on BOTH sides. You may want to embrace what we typically talk about as the “Latino community” is really just Black (insofar as most of that population can trace African ancestry) but my sense of it – and this is absolutely open to correction – is that most Black Americans don’t automatically presume that Dominicans or Puerto Ricans or Panamanians, etc. are “Black” like they are simply on the basis of skin color. Mind you: I might be overusing New York as a template since the segregation of different racial AND national groups is more pronounced there.

As you probably know, in the Bay Area, the main Latino population is Chicano, most of whom have ancestral roots that are a mestizo mix of Native and Spanaird but not as African-derived compared to the Caribbean context. I doubt many of them would self-identify as African American not just out of racism but out of the fact that they don’t have African roots.

By the way Ronnie (or Tamara since she’s now in the mix), I’m curious how you’d respond to some of the arguments put forward by PR scholars like Juan Flores and Raquel Rivera that Blacks only include Puerto Ricans amongst their ranks when it serves their purpose but in other contexts, will seek to separate themselves. (Mind you – I’m not suggesting that PRs don’t play a leading role in that separation as well.)

And Ronnie, I’d also like to hear your thoughts on the expanding competition and tension b/t African Americans and recently arrived West Indian and African immigrants. To me, this is evidence that the category of “Blackness” is becoming increasingly destablized – not to the point of racial erasure (I mean, c’mon) but at least falling more into line with the kind of fractured/Balkanized identity structure that pan-ethnic communities like Natives, Latinos and Asian Americans have dealt with.

To me, this is what the future of race relations (intra and inter) is going to increasingly resemble, for better or for worse.
Oliver says:

May 18, 2005 at 9:03 am

I’m going to take it back to Yancey’s main argument (at least on how Tamara expounds it): the biggest fundamental flaw I see in his thesis is that just b/c Latinos and Asians aspire for the privilege of whiteness (I don’t fundamentally disagree with Yancey on this, by the way) doesn’t mean they actually attain a state of honorary whiteness.

My postulation from my first post in this thread was that, if anything, I think we might very well see an re-entrenchment of virulently exclusionary white identity as that population begins to feel shrunken and squeezed. Look at the popularity of red neck humor by Larry the Cable Guy. Dude is tapping into a lot of anxiety around the steadily shrinking white population. Are they going to open their arms to embrace their brown and yellow brethren, just to swell their ranks?

I seriously doubt that.

I’m more open to Yancey’s idea that, as whites do fall back, it’s more likely to be Asians and Latinos taking their spots – whether in physical spaces (housing patterns, business ownership) or a more abstract social/cultural sense. But to me, this doesn’t make them white. I think what I would have wnated to see from an analysis like Yancey’s is a more nuanced and complex discussion of race that doens’t reduce it (as it always seems to be) to Black/White.

The defining colorline in the 21st century, to me, is emerging along at least three fronts, not just two.
Oliver says:

May 18, 2005 at 9:28 am

I’m on a roll…

Tamara asks, “Third, how come Asian Americans are frequently pointing out to Blacks the internal diversity among Blacks whenever Black people raise criticisms of the power and privileges of Asian Americans?”

Example? I’m assuming you’re tossing this my way since this is, of course, “my speciality”. Fine, I’ll bite.

You’re confusing two completely different issues at play here so let me spell this out:

First of all, I think it is perfectly reasonable for “Black people to raise criticism of the power and privilege of Asian Americans.” We do not live in an equal society and I agree that Asian Americans enjoy certain privileges of power that African Americans do not (moreover, such privileges are often enjoyed AT THE EXPLICIT EXPENSE OF AFRICAN AMERICANS).

(Sidebar: I’ve had a convo with Jared Sexton about whether or not Asian Americans are less disenfranchised than Blacks when it comes to notions of American citizenship. That’s a whole ‘nother topic but an interesting one).

Second, the reason I raise the internal diversity of the African American community is because it seems to me that folks like Yancey are presuming that the Black community is a monolithic whole, lacking in any fractures that might suggest that to talk about Blackness in our contemporary moment requires more complexity and nuance that he and others seem willing to concede. (Ok, that was a really bad run-on sentence but hopefully, you get my drift)

I guess this is reflective of my larger concern with Yancey’s argument: that it’s flat and reductionist. As Ronnie and Lizz’s posts point out, there’s considerable debate over racial categories such as Latino and Black to begin with and as you (Tamara) point out, how can you talk about the solution if you can’t adequately articulate the problem. To me, it’s problematic to talk about Blacks vs. Latinos vs. Asians if those categories themselves are in play. I think for all of us concerned, there’s some common sense definitions being brought to bear but even that’s reflective of hegemonic categories imposed on us as well, no?

Again, please see my first point above: I am absolutely not denying that severe, systemic inequality exists. But please don’t conflate my asking the second question with a denial of the first. to me, they are two comletely diferent issues. I tend to write about them together however because I question the logic that there is a unified Black stance about race relations when the very definition of Blackness is already contested terrain – now more than ever.

To put it another way, if some Blacks don’t think West Indians should have access to the same social resources that they do (note: we’re mostly talking about middle class privileges such as college scholarships, work grants, etc.), I actually think this would serve to collapse some of the social distance between Blacks and non-Black people of color (NBPOC – terrible acronym, I’m open to an improvement) and suggest that what we’re seeing is less a battle between four food groups and more about dozens of skirmishes being found both intra and interracially.

I mean, why not write a book about how Ethopians and Somalians are the new whites? Using Yancey’s scale of educational/employment achivement and ambition + rejection of traditional Black American communities/culture, I think one could easily make the argument that you have an emergent generation of White Blacks that’s different from earlier generational debates around the split b/t the Black bourgie and the underclass (Bill Cosby, holla.)

But you know what? Jared once argued to me that what Asian Americans want, more than anything, is to stop being treated as “the enemy.” And it’s a bitter pill to admit this, but yeah, many times, w are enemies and not allies as we might want to think otherwise. I suppose, the sooner we can all agree on that, the sooner we can all begin on changing it.

However, my point is that there are “enemies” all around us and therefore, if you’re going to talk about improving race relations, it’s going to take a larger scorecard than just one with four or five columns.
ronnie brown says:

May 18, 2005 at 10:07 am

Jeff,
I’ve admired your work from afar for many a year. We have mutual friends in both the writer’s fraternity and in our personal life…and of course, we’ve met (however briefly) face to face. For me, there’s no need to qualify your honesty, it’s a given. I did not consider your inquiry “hostile” or “evasive” as such…perhaps a better definition might be what Tamara described as attempting to come up with a solution without having come to a comprehensive agreement of what the problem actually is.
Anonymous says:

May 18, 2005 at 12:09 pm

All of you shut up!

United we stand, divided we have fallen and are continuing to fall!

Put the color shit aside (cuz from this convo the white man got all of you hooked on his wacko race shit) and let’s organize to take this land back and create a better future-send whitey back to europe for starters.
ronnie brown says:

May 18, 2005 at 12:27 pm

Oliver,
thanx for checkin’ in. I’ll address the issues you brought up as soon as i get home from work. Needless to say i approach this topic from many levels, but my main concern is that we resist the temptation to engage in a circular arguement. Mankind has imposed caste systems upon each other from the beginning of time. Post 1492 racism/white supremacy is just the latest in a long line. Thing is, folks get a little shakey talkin’ about it depending on your place in it. I’d rather cut around the soft talk and declare “it is, what it is” and deal with this thing straight up.

This is why i can appreciate Tamara’s approach to this topic…not that she needs any defense from me, but i like the way she holds folks feet to the fire; for to long these discussions get bogged down in scholarly tit for tat…okay back to work, i’ll get backatcha later…
Anonymous says:

May 18, 2005 at 1:41 pm

I’m ready to deal with this thing straight up.

Where’s my To Do list?

😉 eric
ronnie brown says:

May 18, 2005 at 4:27 pm

Jeff,
i don’t know how long you’ll be in NYC, but if you were able to get in contact with Rosa Clemente and direct her to this blog, i believe she would be able to offer a unique perspective from a Afro-Latino viewpoint…
Oliver says:

May 18, 2005 at 4:28 pm

Ronnie,

Believe me, the last thing I want to get into is a post-structuralist argument where we end up talking about “the perceiver’s perception of the perceived” or some other rhetorical nonsense.

However, when you talk about “it is what it is”, would it be fair to say that *this* is what it is?

Whites = oppressors
Blacks = oppressed
Latinos/Asians = wanna-be oppressors

I’m not being defensive in asking this – just seeking clarification.
ronnie brown says:

May 18, 2005 at 6:14 pm

Oliver,
I can appreciate your desire for clarification; and i don’t fault you for askin’, but your question reminds me of the angst/anxiety expressed by white folks during my years of activist work dealing with issues of racism/white supremacy. So-called well- meaning whites couldn’t grasp the simple concept of white privilege because the only thing that could come out of their mouth was: “you’re not talkin’ about me, right?”

Maybe i’m a little jaded, but is it really necessary to state for the record that ALL whites are NOT the oppressor and ALL Latinos/Asians are NOT the next oppressors waiting in the wings?
ronnie brown says:

May 18, 2005 at 6:50 pm

Oliver,
In regard to the questions you brought up in your recent posts, i (for the purposes of not getting sidetracked from the meat of the matter) will give you the short stack…

1. Of course there have been Asian-American/Latino activists partnering in the struggle…Yuri Kochiyama lived and breathed the spirit of Malcolm X, the Young Lords, Brown Berets, etc…but i’m not concerned about the EXCEPTIONS to the rule.

2.Issues of identification and cooperation between members of the African diaspora (African-Americans, Afro-Caribbeans, Afro-Latinos and Africans from the Motherland) are an “in-house” discussion. For the purposes of clarifing the pervasiveness of GLOBAL anti-black sentiment, the Black community/diaspora IS A MONOLITHIC WHOLE, group fractures nonwithstanding…
ronnie brown says:

May 18, 2005 at 7:10 pm

For me, white privilege and honorary white status/anti-Black anxiety is summed up like this: You’re in a fancy eatery w/your girl, suited and booted, dressed to impress…the couple ahead of you is being led to their table, while on the way they slip on a wet spot on the floor and ebonically speaking, bust they ass!…and the only thing runnin’ through your mind is: “i’m glad it wasn’t me!”…

honorary white status for people of color is simply this: you won’t receive all the benefits of being in the white club, you may get snubbed or profiled from time to time, but at the very least, YOU BE TREATED AS BAD AS BLACK PEOPLE!

it is, what it is…you feelin’ me now?
ronnie brown says:

May 18, 2005 at 7:12 pm

correction: “you won’t be treated as bad as Black people”…
Jeff says:

May 18, 2005 at 8:55 pm

damn yall. i’ve been out all day to do two hip-hop aesthetics events–sister rosa was at one of them today actually–and yall take it to an entirely different level! i was already trying to process tamara and ronnie and now it’s gonna take me a week to catch up. gimme a minute.

btw ronnie–never any worries, peace.
Oliver says:

May 18, 2005 at 10:18 pm

Ronnie,

I had a much longer reply but deleted it because it wasn’t turning out very constructive.

As you note, the problem with these convos is that they tend to get circular and I think, in the process, we do get – as you write – “jaded” because we presume we’re hearing the same questions and answers being stated over and over. To be candid, I’ve felt that way about your comments in this thread which is why I sought clarification but I fear that, in that process, I ended up coming off overly defensive. I tried to take pains not to be and I’m personally appalled that I would come off on some “ain’t I a special white boy?” whine ala Upski’s essay. Clearly, I’ve done a bad job of clarifying my own position.

Alas, the hour is late and I still have other work that needs to be done. I’ll try to pick this back up tomorrow.
ronnie brown says:

May 19, 2005 at 12:18 am

Oliver,
Comin’ to an understanding for the process of solutions is a “push/pull” process. We’re supposed to be allies, right? My comments may be redundant, tis’ true…but i say, why ask new questions if you can’t deal with the answers you’ve already received?

The hour is late…i just typed this post after waking up from falling asleep at the keyboard.

tomorrow is a new day…
Jeff says:

May 19, 2005 at 5:22 am

Our boy Lalo takes on Fox.
Oliver says:

May 19, 2005 at 7:01 am

Tamara,

You ask: “And why do Asian Americans seem to think that being into hip hop and slang is the same thing as actually listening to a Black person?”

The question that comes to mind is: who are you talking about? You’re painting with an incredibly broad brush and while I certainly don’t disagree that many people confuse cultural consumerism with actual social contact, it’d be helpful to know who you’re talking about.

Kids on the street?
Rappers with contracts?
Spoken word poets on the circuit?

If if it’s all of the above, in what instances have they conflated their adoption of Black cultural style with meaningful social contact and solidarity?

Moreover, I agree that it’s absolutely foolish to presume that the adoption of a culture equates to acceptance of the community that created said culture. However, you seem to suggest this is unique to ALL Asian Americans whereas I’d argue this is a larger problem with cultural consumerism in America, writ large. None of this minimizes the importance of what you’re raising – I just think if we’re going to talk about the problem, let’s talk about the problem. To me, ignorant Asians dropping ebonicized slanguage is as troubling as dumb ass white folks with kanji tats or Blacks who use kung fu films as their sole point of cultural contact with Asians.

(Disclaimer: in stating the above, I am not saying that we all are equal in social standing to begin with. Cultural appropriation is obviously relative to positions of power and inequality but I don’t see that distinction being made anyways).
Oliver says:

May 19, 2005 at 7:42 am

Jeff,

Is that sambo-esque character a Mexican pop culture icon, I presume?

Ronnie,

I ask new questions because I’m not fully understanding the old answers. It’s not because I’m unwilling to listen to or accept unpopular wisdom. Believe me, I’m not trying to desperately hold onto the traditional pluralist, multiculturalist position that’s been the idealized norm in American race relations. Even though Fred Ho thinks otherwise, my dept. at Cal (Ethnic Studies) hardly practices a pluralist approach and if race relations within our dept. is any indication, we’ve already entered a heady new world racial order.

But what I find dissatisfying about Yancey is not primarily his conclusions (though I do think he passes over some important areas of inquiry but I don’t want to get sidetracked into them). The question that naturally comes to mind is, “ok, now what?” If the new race relations paradigm (or maybe it’s just been there all along?) is not white/non-white but rather, black/non-black, what do we do with that realization? How do anti-racist movements retune their strategies? How do communities of color build meaningful relationships with one another if, at the core, everyone is trying to distance themselves from Blacks?

Simply naming the problem doesn’t intuitively produce answers to those sets of questions, which to me, is the more important issue at hand. Sure, you can’t work out as solution until you’ve named the problem but personally, I’ve already heard this problem detailed before. I’m still waiting on the solution.

The only thing that’s been suggested to me is – and this is a direct quote – “a dictatorship of the black masses.” Provided, I understand that the term “dictatorship” is being used in the Marxist fashion (i.e. Marx’s dicatatorship of the proletariat) but you can appreciate, for rhetorical reasons, why this doesn’t sound like a great marketing slogan for inter-ethnic cooperation.
Oliver says:

May 19, 2005 at 7:48 am

I went back to a series of long emails Jared and I exchanged, much of which touches on the topic at hand here and I pulled out this comment too which I found provocative:

“unless and until black political motion and movement can again
become popular (and mass-based, a grassroots mobilization), other
communities will find themselves spinning their wheels.”
ronnie brown says:

May 19, 2005 at 4:10 pm

“How do communities of color build meaningful relationships with one another if, at the core, everyone is trying to distance themselves from Blacks?”

Oliver,
You’ve asked the $64,000 question, my man!…You’ve basically summed up America’s race relations paradigm: white/non-white/Black…

This is white supremacy’s pecking order…nothin’ new, just puttin’ out into the open… language, cultural appropriation, “diversity” represent no threat to the status quo because these are categories people can lose themselves in while at the same time toeing the caste line; not even seeing the contradiction. That’s why a Black elite can be created and maintained without doing damage to the racist superstructure. Please believe you can cop Black cultural style (language, dress, art, etc.) and not respect Black people!

That’s why Tamara’s question( “Why do Asians seem to think being into hip-hop is the same thing as actually listening to a Black person?”) is so relevant…

That’s why Hip-Hop has yet to become the politically unifing force we all hoped that it would become.

Yancy’s premise is not new. Richard Pryor called it in his 1975 “new niggers” routine…For me, Yancy is puttin’ a fresh shine on a very old car…
Oliver says:

May 19, 2005 at 6:33 pm

Since we’re being candid here and telling things as they are, let me just say that a question like, “Why do Asians seem to think being into hip-hop is the same thing as actually listening to a Black person?” is both leading and reductive. You might as well just ask, instead, “Why are Asians so racist and stupid?” since the question, the way it’s worded, clearly implies both.

If the issue is about cultural appropriation, let’s state it correctly:

In an age of rampant cultural commodification, how can we get people to stop confusing cultural consumption with social interaction?

And more importantly, how can we use popular culture as a way to forge contact between different communities? (I’m thinking of “contact” here in the way that Samuel Delany describes it in “Red Square, Blue Square” – as meaningful intereaction between people who would otherwise be forced apart by social divisions.)

In other words, you can’t stop cultural consumption – that’s going to occur regardless of the balance of power, regardless of moral authority. However, you can find ways of using that consumption as a beginning to enact real contact, rather than the vicarious, virtual experience that attracts people to begin with.

I think hip-hop offers that potential but as I’m sure most of us would agree – it’s very rarely realized. I do think performers are more likely to take advantage of the opportunity for contact but I agree – the “average fan” is either unaware of the potential or unwilling to see it through. It also doesn’t help that hip-hop audiences are becoming more specialized, and thus separated, as time goes on.

Ok, hip-hop aside, the $64,000 question is still on the table. Any takers?
ronnie brown says:

May 19, 2005 at 7:50 pm

Oliver,
On first glance, Tamara’s question didn’t strike me as racist and stupid ( though your opinion is as valid as any)…as much as it brought into focus the ability of humans to compartmentalize our interaction with each other. We can harbor racial bias and stereotypes against certain people and at the same time imitate and enjoy the cultural contributions of the same.

Substitute “Asian” for any other ethnic group, it makes no difference.

I respectfully challenge you and Jeff to pose that “$64,000 question” to your readership. Perhaps then we will see efforts to promote meaningful coalitions among communities of color finally gain some traction…

Feed Me!

Revolutions

DJ Nu-Mark :: Take Me With You
DJ Nu-Mark remixes the diaspora…party ensues!
El General + Various Artists :: Mish B3eed : Khalas Mixtape V. 1
The crew at Enough Gaddafi bring the most important mixtape of 2011–the street songs that launched the Tunisian & Egyptian Revolutions…
J. Period + Black Thought + John Legend :: Wake Up! Radio mixtape
Remixing the classic LP w/towering contributions from Rakim, Q-Tip + Mayda Del Valle
Lyrics Born :: As U Were
Bright production + winning rhymes in LB’s most accessible set ever
Model Minority :: The Model Minority Report
The SoCal Asian American rap scene that produced FM keeps surprising…
Mogwai :: Hardcore Won't Die But You Will
Dare we call it majestic?
Taura Love Presents :: Picki People Volume One
From LA via Paris with T-Love, the global post-Dilla generation goes for theirs…

Word

Cormac McCarthy :: Blood Meridian
Read this now before Hollywood f*#ks it up.
Dave Tompkins :: How To Wreck A Nice Beach
Book of the decade, nuff said.
Joe Flood :: The Fires
The definitive account of why the Bronx burned
Mark Fischer :: Capitalist Realism
K-Punk’s philosophical manifesto reads like his blog, snappy and compelling. Just replace pop music with post-post-Marxism. Pair with Josh Clover’s 1989 for the full hundred.
Nell Irvin Painter :: The History of White People
Well worth a Glenn Beck rant…and everyone’s scholarly attention
Robin D.G. Kelley :: Thelonious Monk : The Life And Times Of An American Original
Monk as he was meant to be written
Tim Wise :: Colorblind
Wise’s call for a color-conscious agenda in an era of “post-racial” politics is timely
Victor Lavalle :: Big Machine
Victor Lavalle does it again!