|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. The white reaction to potential "Asian-Amerikans"
II. Political sources of resistance to changed understanding
III. The Asian-unAmerikkkan reaction to whites
IV. Prospects for Asian-unAmerikan nationalism
In MIM Theory #8,(1) MIM addressed the approach of Asian-descended nationalism inside u.$. borders. Now we update the prospects for Asian-unAmerikkkanism. First, we start with the white response to Asian-Amerikans in the 20th and 21st century. Secondly, we cover the Asian-unAmerikan response to whites. Thirdly, because there is no clear land or high-profile national claim of Asian-unAmerikans, we discuss the interplay of various factors advancing or holding back Asian-unAmerikkkan nationalism.
I. The white reaction to potential "Asian-Amerikans"
Much attention has gone to the educational and employment attainment of "Asian Americans" as the "model minority." Whether because of the influence of Confucianism and Buddhism which prioritized educated rule or whether because as MIM says the Amerikans conducted a brain drain on Asia while drawing more evenly from other continents, the popular image is that Asian- Amerikans have competitive or even higher educational attainment than average Amerikans.
"In 1980, for the central college-going ages of 20 and 21, more than 50 percent of Asian-Americans were enrolled in school compared to about a third of whites at the same ages."(2)One study finds the elevated class status of Asian-Amerikans so evident that it starts with the assumption that whites and Asian-Amerikans are the same class above Blacks and Latinos. Then the study proceeds to test whether or not conservatism and ethnic identification are the strategies of upper-status individuals within the Euro- Amerikan and Asian-Amerikan communities to preserve class advantages.(3) Hence, from Amerikans we have an image of inarticulate or brainwashed lower-class Asian-Amerikans and articulate but conservatively active upper-class Asian-Amerikans. The theory is very much in line with Democratic Party interests regarding assimilation (detaching immigrants from their cultural leaders) and income distribution policy within U.$. borders.
Supporting such studies favorable to the Democratic Party is a different body of social psychological studies which regards prejudice and discrimination as outgrowths of brainwashing or false consciousness of the supposedly multiracial "working class," not a real competition or economic problem.(4) MIM would contend that almost any psychological research endeavor is flawed without reference to outside-psychology forces. We would not deny that chauvinism has to be taught and no one is born with an aversion to skin color or hatred of certain languages, but for various psychological oddities to add up into a direction in a group of people and not just an individual, there has to be a social force outside the domain of psychology, which is why we call for the abolition of psychology as a subject matter.(5)
Instead of starting and ending in increased bourgeois education to overcome prejudice, social psychological studies bridge the gap by going to bourgeois sociology. These sorts of studies drawing fine distinctions by income among the richest 10% of people in the world(6) have never had much appeal to MIM, though we recognize a superior method than employed in psychology. From our perspective, people inside U.$. borders legally are one mass of bourgeoisie, and we believe ourselves vindicated by the lack of a socialist party or radicalism in the united $tates. The typical bourgeois sociologist of the rich countries is a highly deluded social-democrat forever speaking of fine distinctions amongst the bourgeoisie and hoping that fanning such class envy will bring social-democracy or even socialism. (That is not to recommend spending more time with the television or church over the most highly deluded of professors.)
However, surveys taken over the decades confirm that despite perceived and somewhat real class advantages of the émigrés fleeing communism in East Asia, U.$. whites regard Asian-descended ethnic groups as most offensive to their social sensibilities. That is to say that culture is relatively autonomous from fine degrees of difference within the bourgeoisie. At root one may say that Asian-unAmerikans are not yet distant enough from their class history in Asia itself, and that is the reason for Asian-unAmerikan cultural conflict with whites. We see a very similar phenomenon in recent years with talk radio blasting Mexican migrant workers as the source of all evil, an evil so great that conservatives are willing to lose elections over it. Though here in the united $tates, clearly migrants and second-generation Mexican-unAmerikans have too much contact with and memory of exploited people culture and whites don't like it.
The important thing is that in spite of perceived fine class distinctions between Asian-Amerikans and other minorities, whites still distance themselves from Asian-Amerikans most, including crucially, on gender questions. White students undo the usual pattern MIM refers to as 'ho structure, by preferring as marriage partners other minorities that older society-at-large perceives as lower status than potential Asian-Amerikans. White students also prefer the other minorities in spite of the economic "model minority" image. That's another reason why we say culture and hence nationality is relatively autonomous from class.
The classic Bogardus(7) social distance scale measured among college students whether or not one could conceive marrying someone from a given ethnic group. Run once a decade since 1926 (with the exception of the 1930s) with a one to seven scale with marriage being possible scoring a "1," the Bogardus survey made it possible to ask Amerikans and whites specifically how they regarded each ethnic group in Amerika.
The most commonly mentioned result of the Bogardus studies is that since 1926, the numbers gradually go down toward an average of one for all ethnic groups-- meaning an openness to marriage. Already by 1977 it was clear that political correctness was on the way. Even those who were racist or consciously ethnic chauvinist had the sense not to express it as much.
"The absolute level of expressed prejudice has declined. The mean level on Bogardus's social distance scale has moved down from 2.14 in 1926 to 1.93 in 1977. The proportion willing to vote for a presidential candidate from a racial, religious, or ethnic minority has increased steadily at least since the late fifties. Shorter time series in the seventies point to increased tolerance of miscegenation and decreased "anti-" group feelings. Second, the range of distances between groups has narrowed. Bogardus's social distance scale shows a decline in the distance between the top and bottom groups from 2.85 in 1926 to 1.38 in 1977. Similarly the ratio between whites and blacks on the Michigan feeling thermometer fell from 1.3 in the mid-sixties to 1.2 in the seventies."(8)This overall trend is well-known to the public. It means that people say more and more that they can fantasize marrying into other ethnic groups. The numbers above are averages of scores from 1 to 7 on whether one feels one could marry into an ethnic group. An average of 7 would be total impossibility of ethnic mixing-- "bar from my country."
In 1981, sociologists had this reality to report for Asian-Amerikans:
"The decline of the Koreans into last position is probably attributable to several factors. The Koreans have always received low rankings in the Bogardus' surveys and were also rated last in the 1956 study. The upward movement of blacks and Mexicans, who were below the Koreans in 1966, also created a void. . . .The sociologists could not report the same for Asian-Amerikans, because the distance score for Koreans actually increased between 1966 and 1977. It's not just that others moved up in what is known as political correctness or politeness today, and left Koreans last. It's that the absolute score of Koreans was up.(10)"The groups falling into the lowest third of the rankings were of Asiatic or southeastern European background. . .
"Blacks, Native-Americans, and Mexican-Americans, three of the most identifiable minority subgroups within the American populace, have begun to enjoy a measure of acceptance."(9)
According to Thomas C. Wilson, the non-Southerners born between 1961 and 1972 actually prefer higher average social distance from Asian-descended, Hispanic and Jewish people than the post-World War II generation (1946-1960) before them. So in this case there is the reverse of "progress" for the three social groups.(11) The facts point to a sense that Jim Crow in the South was too much, but economic competition with Asian- descended and Hispanic people has started to become a factor. The prettiness of certain results over time stems from the fact that Southern attitudes have converged with the rest of the united $tates.
The reasons for why Asian-unAmerikkkans are on the bottom of the social heap are not readily apparent. The economic challenge from Japanese car sales to Amerikan manufacturing did not arise till the 1970s. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Japan led surveys in the united $tates for next major enemy. Yet, the findings on Asian-Amerikans go back decades before tensions over Japanese cars and the rise of Japanese economic might as the world's second-largest economy. Even recently with the rise of the high-flying Internet nerds in the U.$. economy, the brain drain does not convey social status to potential Asian-Amerikans either.
Although exoticness has often protected various nationalities from extremes of negative treatment, Asian-Amerikans are proportionately the most exotic. The Europeans imported a relatively large portion of Blacks via slavery. They killed and inter-married with the remaining natives and of course, they have to be familiar with neighbor Mexicans. In this sense, potential Asian-Amerikans are the least familiar to Euro-Amerikans. The Euro-Amerikans did bring over coolie labor from China, just to show the Chinese where they rank, but not in the numbers that other non-white ethnic groups encountered whites. Emory S. Bogardus himself reported in 1928 that good feeling toward Chinese was increasing, despite the fact that Chinese, Japanese and Hindus received the lowest rankings in his 1926 survey. The Chinese reported a trend of being treated better:
"They alone appear on the positive side of the ledger with a surplus of friendliness reactions experienced toward themby Americans. They are not 'competitors' or 'invaders' today; there numbers in this country have been decreasing; hence, the psychological advantage is theirs, and good will toward them is on the gain."(12)Later Chinese numbers and Asian-Amerikan numbers in general increased and so we cannot apply this notion anymore on gender, though it may be at work on questions of crime and neighborhood. First generation immigrant culture we would surmise protects against arrest, partly because really distinct Chinatowns, Koreatowns etc. have less interaction with whites not only because of segregation but also because of language, so it seems as one paper noted about Japanese-Amerikans being "quiet," a finding which we may find boils down to language separation for some Asian-descended ethnic groups.
On the topic of "quiet," within Euro-Amerikan couples there is supposedly a division where the male is quiet and the female articulate. This also confirms stereotypes on why males are supposedly better at math but not language. The perennial stereotype discussion in the media is that females are expressive in relations and males are not. The latest CNN article on this subject is more emphatically pro-male than ever: "To improve your marriage be quiet" is the article title. "When a man feels shamed by a woman's criticism, his body is flooded with cortisol, a stress hormone with an effect that is decidedly unpleasant."(13) The article also claims that males are more likely to pump up with adrenaline under stress than females. Regardless the point is the impression that romantic relations in the united $tates feature articulate and expressive females.
Hence, the situation for "quiet" may be unexpected in situations of white male to Asian-Amerikan female relations. At the same time it may be why Asian-Amerikan females are considered "exotic" and more attractive proportionately than Asian-Amerikan males.(14) White females are already frustrated with white male quiet and do not want a worsened situation with Asian-Amerikan quiet. Conversely, where we expect the Euro-Amerikan female to be more expressive about feelings, we may obtain a different result and it might be the silence of racism in the presence of Asian-Amerikan males.(15)
According to a sample of white female liberal arts students in 1971, Arabs were the ones to maintain the most social distance from, with an average score of 2.27 on a scale of one to eight. Socialists averaged 2.93 and communists 5.17. The same 1974 paper reported 1971 results for white male engineers showing only a mean social distance of 2.14 for communists, behind the Arabs at the bottom at 2.41.(16) Results were still bad for potential Asian-Amerikans. The negative survey results for potential Asian-Amerikans continued through all the studies up to the present.
A 2001 survey very similar to the Bogardus survey but modernized brought good news for Blacks but bad news for Arabs and Muslims. Blacks rose to 9th place out of 30, ahead of the Dutch, with an average of 1.33. Arabs hit the bottom with 1.94. Second-to-last was the new entrant "Muslims." Also, all the Asian- descended groups fell below Blacks, indigenous and Latino populations.
To a small degree, the 2001 result for Blacks might be from the non-Black and non- white sampling. If we restrict findings to white attitudes toward Blacks, then whites rank the Dutch above Blacks, Jews slightly above Blacks and Poles lower than Blacks. The Black result means the majority of whites can conceive marrying Blacks.
If we exclude Arabs and Muslims, because of the timing of the survey after 9/11, then the bottom ethnic groups are Haitians and Vietnamese(17)-- two ethnicities with impoverished boat people images--support for MIM's contention that economic development and historical class culture questions are underlying factors in expressions of chauvinism today.
Overall, a bigger (n=2916) and better anonymous survey than ever was done in 2001 (after 9/11) to attempt to cover the whole united $tates. The result was the same for Asian-Amerikans:
"U.S. Whites remained top-ranked, with the various European groups continuing to occupy most of the upper ranks, while a variety of racial minorities, especially Asians, continued to rank near the bottom."(18)The people reporting social distance data are obscure technicians of academia known as sociologists. They have reported the same thing in every social distance survey since 1926, that Asians are the ones to keep most distance from, according to Amerikans.
Departing from the Bogardus approach, a different 2001 study asked students on a campus directly about their friends and dating preferences. The study showed that Euro-Amerikans statistically significantly preferred Mexican-Amerikans and Blacks as dating partners over potential Asian-Amerikans.(19)
Asian-Amerikans in turn preferred whites, Mexican-Amerikans and Blacks in that order. This 2001 study also confirmed other studies in showing Koreans the most nationalist in their attitude toward dating.(20) Unlike other studies, the 2001 study was able to link attitudes toward behavior directly on the same campus through a study of friendship networks. What whites said about ethnicity, they did.
MIM contends that rich country social scientists rarely study class, because they are usually stuck on fine intra-bourgeois differences. That leaves nation and gender. Rich country sociology on gender is usually an exercise in white nationalism, but in the case of the Bogardus surveys, we finally obtained some ethnic groups to compare. The social distance research unintentionally shows the relative autonomy of gender from class and the relative autonomy of national culture from class. When potential Asian-Amerikans have gender interactions with whites, the offense is not coming via current class standing; although, it could be coming via culture from past historical class standing outside U.$. borders. So we have to look out for ethnic difference qua fine intra-bourgeois distinctions of the here and now as opposed to ethnic difference actually rooted in historical culture referring outside U.$. borders.
One proof of the MIM thesis was a business study on Hispanic identification after 9/11. The stress of 9/11 brought about a sudden drop in Hispanic self- identification, an increased Amerikan patriotism and improved "work attitudes."(21) This is the danger of the ambiguity on the Martin Luther King integrationist road, that at any time, the Amerikan bourgeois is likely to realize that his or her civil rights struggle is insignificant compared with the global class struggle. At that time, the U.$. minority in question may choose to identify as Amerikan out of underlying class solidarity against the Third World. Hence, the truth is that MIM is undertaking a delicate division strategy. With the exception of the most "fresh off the boat" people, there is always a danger that national assimilation will coincide with class assimilation. We have to do the best we can with what we have to advance internationalism instead of Amerikan patriotism.
Another way this question expresses itself is the pettiness question. If by a mistaken civil rights emphasis, the communists emphasize petty or whiny complaints of the oppressed nations instead of real class divisions, there is always the danger that these members of the bourgeoisie will suddenly realize that "that's nothing compared with 9/11" or a similar event. The result will be patriotic assimilation and more militarism. We communists have to keep the focus on the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the bombing of Pakistan, economic inequalities leading to Third World deaths and the role of the state in attacking the lumpen— the most intense life-and-death conflicts. If we emphasize some of the petty word insults that much of the collegiate research literature emphasizes, if we do not rebuke political correctness, we open ourselves to seeing all our work go down the drain with one 9/11, one war event. In that event, the integrationist struggle of whiny complaint becomes an assistance to a more competent and better staffed war machine.
For future research on gender, the present writer would suggest that it is not just the use of English or the class of English, but also the pace, cadence and associated gestures used in English which may be a large source of inter-ethnic offense. To study this it will be necessary to study exposure to parenting by Third World parents, and if possible the exposure of those parents to grandparents. Parts of China will have had little interaction with U.$. imperialist culture. Parts of Taiwan or $outhern Korea will be aspiring U.$. states. Already in 1966, a study attempted to break down social distance by ethnicity by looking at quality of English used, dress and markers for profession. The study still found that some whites would give qualified Blacks their professional accord but not want to live in the same neighborhood,(22) so there is some difference between social questions and economic questions. Nonetheless, the majority of the gender-related complaints discussed in this paragraph are secondary questions, and mainly of interest via theories of relative autonomy that cast light on national questions.
II. Political sources of resistance to changed understanding
What is less known than the decrease in overall social distance scores over the decades is that narrow academic specialists have upended conventional wisdom on social distance rankings and various sources of racial alienation repeatedly without much political effect. A Los Angeles area study from 1992 concluded as follows:
"The patterns are unexpected. Structural thinking, rather than increasing perceptions of threat, decreases Whites' tendency to view Blacks as competitive threats. Individualistic thinking is more consistently important than is structural thinking. However, rather than decreasing perceptions of threat, individual- istic thinking tends to encourage Whites to view Asian Americans and Latinos as competitive threat. . . .We speculate that these differential patterns are the legacy of the civil rights movement and antidiscrimination struggles led by African Americans that may increase sensitivity to structural constraints when focusing on Blacks.
Also, the recent and often economically motivated immigration of many Asian Americans and Latinos may make striving for individual achievement salient when focusing on these groups."(23)
In MIM Theory #8, we also pointed to Yen Le Espirtu's work on the creation of “Asian American Panethnicity.” A 1989 survey of the Los Angeles times showed that 25% of the public thought Asian- Americans have gained too much economic power while no other ethnic group received more than 7% of the public's concern. More importantly, in 1982, a national poll showed that 44% of the public blamed U.S. economic problems "almost completely" or "very much" on the Japanese.(24)
Whether they know it or not, the so-called communist groups talking about "the working class" or "the middle class" are encouraging Euro-Amerikans to unite with Blacks exactly in terms where they feel no competitive threat, but where they do feel a threat from Asian-unAmerikkkans and Latin- unAmerikkkans. That's another reason why MIM is right to stress the lumpen and war. Petty-bourgeois frictions are the predominant frictions in the U.$. gender question, as is not surprising since gender is a lived phenomenon, while the lumpen, migrants and soldiers do not add up to a large portion of gendered interactions. The white majority is petty-bourgeois and its daily frictions fall on Asian- unAmerikans most widely, not as imperialists in a minority, but Euro-Amerikans as middle-class people in intra-bourgeois conflict with Asian-unAmerikkkans.
MIM would say that many findings in research on Asian-Amerikans touch blind spots in Amerikan social science. 1) Blacks are not deemed as much a threat to whites anymore, because since the 1980 Census, the majority of whites are white collar. Rich country sociology still being stuck in social-democratic concerns and serving the Democratic Party,(25) it has not adjusted to the changing global class structure. Since neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party can talk about the lumpen except for demagogic purposes such as the Willie Horton ad in 1988, it disappears for some purposes of white concern. There is no lumpen constituency able to reward or punish a careerist. 2) Rightly or wrongly, whites specifically view Asian-Amerikans as an upper-education competitive threat, which is why surveys of students have ranked Asian-unAmerikans below Blacks. 3) Historically, Blacks have interacted with whites in English longer than both Asian-Amerikans and Latinos. This accounts for the high profile of Black movement leaders while the highest profile Latino demonstrations were Spanish-speakers in recent May 1st protests over visa or citizenship problems.(26) For Asian-descended people speaking various languages such as Chinese, Korean & Vietnamese, the chances of building a high- visibility movement via English-as-a-second-language on a pan-ethnic basis are almost nil. Anyone who has ever watched non-English speakers converse with other non-English speakers via English understands the difficulty of establishing a pan-Asian-unAmerikan movement with a high profile in Amerika. 4) The majority of "statistical variation" in social inequality is between Amerikans and those outside their borders, and there is no such parallel variation inside U.$. borders. Nonetheless, the influence of Amerikan nationalism blinds most social science researchers to potential causes in factors with real statistical variation. The global distribution of assets, migrant workers and the lumpen receive almost no attention except where migrants and the lumpen are tools of middle-class designs.
Liberal Black-centered neo-colonialism stems from a pattern of arguments with Euro-Amerikkkan conservatives, namely that the Democratic Party is able to claim credit for the 1960s era civil rights laws, the seating of Black delegates at conventions and attendance at Martin Luther King rallies. Blacks are also the number one voting block for the Democratic Party by percentage, far outdistancing any other ethnic group in its enthusiasm for Democrats. As long as this is the case and as long as there are only two major parties, the media and disproportionately qualitative researchers will continue to have major political rewards to theorize with Blacks at the center of a reformist integrationist struggle. These rewards stemming from the Democratic Party which coincidentally is in charge of blue states and most inner-city governments where Blacks live will be unseen but influence research propagation and interpretation. As we write this, 59% of Amerikans think there is at least some prospect of a Depression(27) and the world has already seen the U.$. reputation destroyed since 9/11. Now we learn why there is Bobby Kennedy liberalism, to save the day for imperialism.
For an example of how politics blinds researchers who know better, rather than accept that whites in fact view Blacks as less of a competitive threat than Asians and Hispanics, and that that might have a ricochet effect on Black self-identification, a recent paper by sociologists Jennifer Lee and Frank Bean(28) says that social pressure results in the "drop rule" only for Blacks, meaning that mixed race individuals with Black blood are Black. Supposedly this "drop rule" does not apply to anyone else, not even recent immigrants according to Lee and Bean, the perfect Democratic Party ideologists, whether they know it or not. For economic competitive purposes involving U.$. whites, it is best in fact to pass as Black, and not be confused as Latino or South Asian--a totally opposite interpretation of the "drop rule" that happens to be better supported by the social data.
This is not to deny that there are single-issue social surveys particularly in regard to "threats to the neighborhood" in which Blacks are seen as the greatest threat by whites.(29) Older ethnic whites continue to be most worried about Blacks, but that is based on history, the size of the Black population being large enough to "threaten" a neighborhood.
It is only in Bogardus-style surveys of white college students--the petty-bourgeoisie of the future--that we learn the future trends of the white population, trends that are increasingly important with the class structure changes happening. At this moment Obama is crushing McCain two-to-one in the youth vote,(30) but such a result had its foreshadowing in the 2001 Bogardus-style results and how they differ among students and the population at large.
Social distance surveys featuring the Bogardus social distance scale in particular focus on college students' attitudes toward inter-ethnic marriage and everything in- between up to immigration itself. In a sample of 135 middle school teachers examined in 1993, the correlation with rankings of 24 ethnic groups reported by college students in 1925 was an astounding .87, with 1 being the highest the correlation could be. A correlation of Bogardus's sample of businessmen in 1925 correlated with the middle school teachers of 1993's rankings, .96.(31) Hence, students are not necessarily completely isolated in their opinions.
When we turn to the study of adults in general, not just teachers or students, we find that Blacks return to the bottom of the social distance heap or at least second-to-last with Asians at the bottom. It is possible to argue that not just students but adult Jews and Blacks see Asians at the bottom from the Charles Weaver data published in 2008.(32)
The Weaver data contradicts the data from students and validates many U.$. surveys over the decades showing Blacks under attack when considered as potential neighbors. One could argue whether surveying adults in general or students is more realistic for the question of marriage, since approximately half or more of the adult population is already married. One may wonder what good it does to include in a marriage-related survey someone who is married and 65.
MIM would contend that liberal neo-colonial strategy centered on Blacks, integration and the Black role in the Democratic Party is so influential, that all the Amerikan organizations spouting Mao in the 1960s with the exception of PLP and the Black Panthers joined the Democratic Party(33) rather than prioritize division strategy and internationalism. All denounced Mao's "Three Worlds Theory"(34) dividing imperialists despite the fact that Mao himself went so far as to distinguish between pro-U.$. compradors and pro-Japanese compradors occupying China. Despite the Black Panther Party's affinity for Frantz Fanon, who divided between settlers and industrial workers in European countries and who upheld the veil in the face of French repression of it, Amerikan spouters of Mao fell into Iran- bashing rather than take on the Democratic Party's attraction among Blacks. In short, when Amerikans think of oppressed nations they think of the civil rights movement, the Democratic Party and Blacks, not Algerians or Egyptians or sub- Saharan Africans. (One reason may be that in the world today, Bush's highest approval ratings come from India, I$rael and some countries in sub-Saharan Africa.(35) If there were an African country that proved its love for Democrats on a regular basis, we surmise that there might be a growing intellectual attention to super-exploitation there.)
Typical whites do not regard Blacks as a competitive threat. Likewise, surveys show that Blacks rate Asian-Amerikans and Latinos as greater economic threats than whites. Blacks and whites mirror each other on this question.(36) Hence, there is a natural Black-white middle- class alliance especially when the Black lumpen can be forgotten as in certain brands of left-wing of parasitism politics useful to the Democratic Party. The white self-interest in the liberal neo-colonial Democratic Party conception is now obvious: upper-middle class whites are allying with Blacks, because they do not view Blacks as intra-bourgeois economic threats. By equating Blacks with Egyptians and prioritizing Blacks, white Democrats build an ideological basis for super-exploitation. Whites wish to justify super-exploitation by pointing to Blacks not exploited inside U.$. borders. The white hope is that Obama will quell international public opinion opposing the united $tates.
So it is no accident that the same organizations that fell into the Democratic Party also rejected MIM's analysis of super-profits and Fanon on the veil and settlers.(37) At the same time, with a Black-centered neo-colonial strategy favorable to the Democratic Party, the liberals play divide-and-conquer with fad of the week inside u.$. borders. Bash Iran this day or Pakistan the next: it's all justified by a greater than 85% Black voting rate for Democrats.
A 1990 paper shows that social distance between whites and Blacks depends on the level of liberalism of the white.(38) So what we are seeing is upper-middle-class white youth boosting Blacks up through the public opinion ranks.
The Amerikan nationalist image presented to the world is that ethnic prejudice is on the decline. An added factor is that political correctness makes it overly crude to hear about survey scores for various ethnic groups. That's why MIM is here to prime the pump and draw attention to realities that are necessary to understand.
What is lacking is a vanguard party to discuss the issues. Within U.$. culture, the way that such findings gain popular traction is through individual stories, but surveys find Asian-unAmerikans high on collectivist values relative to Euro- Amerikans.
MIM itself would rather be known for publishing hard but collective fact on wages, assets, imprisonment rates etc. than for individual story-telling, but there are consequences in the asymmetric battle for understanding. The present writer witnessed a paper presented on the little-known pattern of facts of social distance. The researcher had another Bogardus-style sample, in which Blacks came second-to- last and Koreans came last. In breaking down his data further, he found uninteresting the cases of whites who felt distant from both Blacks and Koreans. Yet among those who specifically felt distant only from Blacks, conservatism was predominant. Among those who specifically targetted Koreans, liberals were predominant. The paper did not end up published and the presenter was more known for a tenure battle in the University of California system. The famous individual did not step forward and make a huge political stink about an interesting finding. What we should infer from Bogardus-like studies is that there are various fads or strategies for neo-colonial division within the united $tates. That's why MIM has always stressed an overall strategy of the exploited to counter Amerikan neo-colonialist divide-and-conquer. The "Three Worlds Theory" is the expression of that overall approach.
With the success of Barack Obama, some are proclaiming "the end of Black politics,"(39) because there will only be integrated Amerikan patriotic politics. Though many Asian-descended people within U.$. borders feel it is "too early" to arrive at an Asian-unAmerikan politics, the fact is that we are headed for a time of confusion in U.$. politics, and old secure political niches are being vacated. The anti-war legacy of Martin Luther King needs to be rescued and extricated from his integrationist legacy, because more assimilated people are more pro-war machine. We oppose using Blacks as an integrationist model for everyone else.
Our template should be the First Nations, the Iroqois for example. The Mohawks have their own territory and schools. That is how to assure that the kids do not grow up assimilated into the imperialist war machine devastating the planet.
III. The Asian-unAmerikkkan response to white reaction
Given the white reaction to potential Asian-Amerikans, an Asian-unAmerikkkan response arose. The Asian-unAmerikkkan response was not able to establish an instant republic of Asian-unAmerika. Instead it started with the family and gained further impulse to conservative image from single urban feminists forming such a large portion of the Democratic Party. Though by some interpretations, the mores of both Asian-unAmerikans and Latinos are more conservative than both those of whites and Blacks, the objective impact is more revolutionary than either white or Black pseudo-feminism. The reason is that conservative-by-Amerikan standards family is choking off the flow of new troops to the U.$. military. It is the high birth rate Christian rural whites supplying the military along with Blacks.(40) Yet so-called conservatism among Asian-unAmerikans and Mexican-unAmerikans on family questions results in cultural distinction which starves the U.$. war machine.
When the Asian-unAmerikkkan response arose, outmarriage decreased. Fortuitously, Asian immigration has increased and created more partners of choice for potential Asian-unAmerikans. Potential Asian-unAmerikans form a larger portion of the U.$. population than before. Hence, it is possible that even second and third generation potential Asian-Amerikans will reduce outmarriage.(41) 1990 and 2000 Census data indicates that potential Asian-Amerikans second generation and beyond also decreased their outmarriage over ten years, so it's not just a question of a wave of first generation people coming in through immigration.(42)
Between 1980 and 1990, Census data showed that outmarriage for Asian-Amerikans actually declined while it increased for all other ethnic groups in the united $tates.(43) In that period, the size of the potential Asian-unAmerikan population doubled. In addition, the relative portion of non-white outmarriage increased. These findings from 1980 to 2000 are consistent with the following picture: whereas earlier generations of Asian-Amerikans lived in isolation and had no choice but to fit in with whites, they received bottom-of-the-heap social treatment, harbored the resentment and when immigration eventually drastically increased, five ethnic groups stayed "in-house" with each other-- Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Filipinos and Vietnamese. Pan-ethnic Asian-unAmerikkka arose.
There are many factors opposing the rising Asian-unAmerikkkan nation. 1) The Martin Luther King model still says that the various minorities should join in equal super-profit sharing in Amerika instead of taking up an anti- integrationist and nationalist road. 2) Despite separation into national enclaves, potential Asian-unAmerikkkans will have a higher portion of exploited workers without legal working rights than whites do, but the majority of people inside u.$. borders regardless of nation will still fall into the global exploiter class, and this will identify all nations inside U.$. borders with rich countries increasingly on a class basis. 3) Large portions of potential Asian-unAmerikkka still cannot converse among themselves in one language, and the growth of English may be suspect as a whitewashing force against all pan- Asian-unAmerikkkan impulses.
Given weaknesses of Asian-unAmerikkka on class questions and the future of language patterns that will arise, it is critical that a distinct Asian- unAmerikkkan family arise, and on this point there has been success. We suspect that attacks on Democratic Party-oriented pseudo-feminism and white nationalism are part of the family building block of nationalism.
In MIM Theory #8 we predicted the emergence of Asian-descended nationalism within U.$. borders. We can now see additional reasons why that prediction is even more true now. In addition to the "fresh off the boat" problem of forming a critical mass of intellectuals right away, Asian-unAmerikans had the problem of deciding whether or not they would go individually for Chinatown, Koreatown etc. This will continue to be an issue in large pockets in North America, but less so in California for instance. Helen Kiyong Kim in her 2006 dissertation found 20 second-generation Korean ethnic females at a Midwestern university who saw no use for "Asian-American," an especially salient complaint since it is coming from second generation people. The separation of Asian ethnicities factor in addition to the lack of a land question typical in a national question held back Asian-descended nationalism of a parallel form to other nationalisms within U.$. borders. As we speak though, time is settling this problem with huge in-marriage rates for a new entity, the Asian-unAmerikan.
In 1980, the Asian-Amerikan outmarriage percentage was 25%. In 1990, the figure became 15%. So assimilation by any measure decreased while population size increased.(44) The change also coincides with a loosening within the Asian-Amerikan community that demonstrates a reaction to white perception: intermarriages among Indians, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese and Filipinos increased from 11% of Asian-Amerikan marriages to 21%.
Out of their outmarriages, Asian-Amerikans cut back on whites from 77% in 1980 to 60% in 1990. Asian-Amerikans became the increasing choice of Hispanics with a rise from 3% to 11% of Asian-Amerikan outmarriages.
Koreans led the way in changing choices. One third of Korean marriages were outmarriages in 1980. By 1990, it was only 7%.(45)
Through the 1900s expressed prejudice was going down and at the beginning (outside Hawaii and the Pacific islands) Asian- Amerikans lived in relative isolation. In the 1960s, the civil rights movement came and there has been a growing acceptance of super-profit sharing within U.$. borders since then. With this bird's eye view on history regarding political correctness and economic integration, the present writer had expected with the lengthening of time exposing potential Asian-Amerikans to Euro-Amerikans, that Asian- Amerikans would increasingly over time blend into the white population, much along the style of indigenous people. The larger portion of self-identified "Native- Americans" do not live on reservations and have high portions of white ancestry with 60% or higher outmarriage. In spite of recent data, sociologists continue to publish this thesis that used to be the present writer's, that Asian-unAmerika is not to be. As indicated above though, there are political prejudices at work on this question. Currently, the data is running in favor of Asian-unAmerikkka on an accelerated basis, at a second-order level. A new wave of studies will come after the 2010 Census.
IV. Prospects for an Asian-unAmerikkkan nationalism
Not everyone agrees there has been an Asian-unAmerikkkan reaction against Amerika. Sharon Lee and Monica Boyd support the assimilationist trend thesis without data supporting them chronologically. It appears they wrote with the assumption that integration is the desired goal and wished to draw attention to Kanada as suspect in this regard, because Asian outmarriage was lower in Kanada than in Amerika, thus raising questions of KKKanadian tolerance.(46)
Others backed the Asian-Amerikan assimilationist thesis without data because of an emphasis on Black intermarriage ratios that seemed lower than everybody else's. A study looking at 2000 data focussed on the fact that Blacks and whites do not marry. Yet it also found that demographic growth pointed to what MIM calls favorable conditions for nationalism:
"Clearly, the growing pool of Hispanic and Asian immigrants has given demographic impetus to racially homogamous marriages among immigrants themselves, and it also has slowed the pace of intermarriage for their native-born counterparts— an issue to which we will return."(47)
Hispanics and Asian-Amerikans follow the 'ho pattern MIM has spoken of where attractiveness depends on class. The opposite would be where attractiveness depends on biology or some evolutionary psychology.
"Foreign-born Asians and Hispanics (1) had lower intermarriage rates than their native-born counterparts at every educational level, (2) experienced declines in intermarriage in the 1990s at every educational level, and (3) exhibited exceptionally large educational differences in interracial marriage. For example, intermarriages accounted for only 9.3 percent and 1.5 percent of all marriages in 2000, respectively, among foreignborn Asian and Hispanic women with less than a high school education. Intermarriages accounted for 36.4 percent and 36.0 percent, respectively, of all marriages among their counterparts with college educations or more."(48)The situation was opposite with Blacks. Black males were three times more likely to intermarry than Black females and the greatest gains for intermarriage occurred in the least educated Black category between 1990 and 2000.
Jennifer Lee and Frank Bean became overexcited by Black intermarriage results from the 1990 and 2000 census data. They admit that there is in fact at the moment a force of "non-white" status, but they predict with the progress of intermarriage a new Black/white order in which everyone will be assimilated as "white" except African-Americans.(49) In other words, Lee and Bean hold the old thesis of the present writer with regard to Asian-unAmerikkka, despite seeing data contrary.
In contrast, Qian and Lichter have shown that ethnic group size is converging with Blacks in the case of Latinos and Asian-Amerikans. Qian and Licther also obliquely raised the question of whether there is an ideal marriage/cohabitation versus single/asexual ratio.(50)
27.5% of Amerikan females aged 15-44 never married or co-habited and that varies by ethnicity, so it is no shock that there is no Black marriage or cohabitation in interracial relations if there is also relatively little Black marriage or cohabitation in Black-on-Black relations. Aside from marriage, there are plenty of other avenues of white influence including the television and the Democratic Party. So we would not necessarily conclude that Black females who escape marriage are necessarily less assimilated into Amerika. We would require a better understanding of the issue.
Black females aged 15-44 have a 39.7% chance of having never cohabited or living in marriage. In contrast the figure for white females 15-44 is 24.7%. The figures for other races aged 15-44 falls in between whites and Blacks. These figures may be somewhat flawed for our purpose for not being age weighted to compare across ethnicities. Nonetheless, if we assume marriage is good, Black females suffer poorer results than whites regardless of income community, age level or previous divorce experience. The government study took a strong stand that marriage is good for people.(51)
According to Muhammad Kenyatta writing for Monthly Review, Blacks have taken up more extended family notions and less male-centered notions, for historical reasons of white oppression in the slave era. The obvious opposite theory would be that Black-on-Black marriage rates are authentic and desirable for their own cultural reasons.
Revolutionary Frantz Fanon made a similar argument as Kenyatta's in explaining African-on- African violence in the colonial era. African violence against Africans was a gradual awakening to the problem of white oppression. He named a chapter of his book Wretched of the Earth "Colonial War and Mental Disorders," where he shows that the strains of the fight against the French caused damage in African-to- African relations. Sartre summarizes Fanon in the preface: "Colonial aggression turns inward in a current of terror among the natives. . . . If this suppressed fury fails to find an outlet, it turns in a vacuum and devastates the oppressed creatures themselves. In order to free themselves they even massacre each other."(52) Eventually, according to Sartre and Fanon, the Africans do recover their own persynalities through success against colonialism, and history has proved them correct.
To this writer, it is not a simple matter to be able to say that feminists can automatically assume that female-headed households are a disaster. So that is another question spliced into this situation, not just the national question but the gender question.
The Black intermarriage data raises the question of a "natural marriage" rate for Amerikans. What should the Black marriage rate be if it were not for Euro-Amerikan oppression is the question, and obviously with MIM's stance being neutral or positive toward asexuality, and MIM's stance against Amerikan exploiter population growth and against finding more cannon fodder to fight in Iraq etc., this question of the ideal marriage/cohabitation rate is not going to be a slamdunk for MIM to answer. We are confident that regardless of the amorphous and weak influence of pseudo-feminism on all ethnic groups inside U.$. borders, that the overall demographic future is not going to change.
What we can say is that like white females, Black females are deep in the grips of the Democratic Party and have been over decades, while first generation Latinos and Asians do not vote. One damage done by the Obama campaign is the necessary smoothing over of Black differences with white pseudo-feminism.
With white females having had the highest marriage and cohabitation rates, one can assume that that is on account of other good outcomes for white females economically and health wise. Alternatively, one could argue that female marriage/cohabitation rates contain a culturally subjective element and the white rate should not be the gold standard.
MIM has argued before that the decline in Japanese marriage in particular is proof that "all sex is rape" historically. For example, Japanese females now take advantage of staying with rich parents to avoid marriage. In the 30-34 age group 5% were never married and living with parents in 1975 versus 19% in 2000.(53) Without MIM's orientation toward the underlying coercion in gender relations, there is no way to explain why marriage and birth rates decline when females obtain the choice of supporting themselves economically as they do today in the rich countries.(54)
Liberals may not be willing to face the full meaning of their beloved "choice" in feminist practice. Independence of females could mean a decline in marriage and child-raising as all the evidence for rich countries shows. In China and southern Korea there is also statistical proof that abortion "choice" leads to abortion of female babies(55) and even post-birth infanticide in India and China.
So we are parsing three different arguments. One is the Liberal pragmatist one focusing on one-on-one interactions. Typically, the method is qualitative and can end with a book concatenating a string of stories of various individuals. In the post-modern version, the book will include a "diversity" of individuals telling their biographical stories.
Then there is the Muhammad Kenyatta structuralist argument that even Black-on-Black marriage rates are principally affected by white domination. So obviously he is saying that one cannot tell what is going on just by looking at two Black individuals. As MIM has pointed out, the poor male/female ratio among Blacks caused by imprisonment of males and possible anti-Black-male discrimination in health care support Kenyatta's argument.
Then there is the MIM feminist structuralist argument that again we cannot tell what is going on by looking at interactions between two individuals. We have to look at the whole Black-on-Black marriage statistic, the whole Japanese marriage rate over time etc. In this case, a feminist structuralist argument would be as MIM indicated that "all sex is rape" and in the rich countries we start to see greater "choice" leading to new results including less marriage, less sex and fewer children per female. Where there is a conflict between MIM's feminist structuralist argument and Kenyatta's anti-racist structuralist argument, Mao's teaching on the "principal contradiction" says to go with the argument best for the oppressed nations, because they bear the real agent of social change, the exploited. The trouble being that most U.$. Blacks are bourgeois and Blacks also serve as such a crucial chunk of the U.$. military, it is perhaps better to take the MIM structuralist argument on feminism than the Kenyatta argument. The underlying question is since Japanese females are also abandoning marriage, it is perhaps not always correct to use whites as the gold standard. Later marriage and fewer children is the rich country trend as MIM has pointed out with Europe, the united $tates and Japan.(56) So in some sense, where Black females are already is the trend in rich countries globally.
There is an overall decadence in gender relations in the imperialist countries, so white females ' more frequent marriage can also be interpreted as more frequent divorce, as stated in a 2006 paper: "only about 5% of those who married in 1867 eventually divorced, but over 50% of the marriages contracted in the last decade are expected to end in divorce."(57) In 1867, the United $tates was yet to achieve its status as economically regressive in the Leninist sense. Finance capital did not dominate yet and in fact, the industrial North had just conquered the agrarian South, so capitalism was on the physical upswing. Leninist theory states that that is the reason divorce was rarer in 1867. The Wikipedia offers a more gender-specific argument: " In post Victorian America divorce rates sky rocketed as was shown in Elaine Tyler May's Great Expectations: Divorce in post Victorian America which argued that the shift from the repression of desire to pursuing it [occurred—ed.] due to increased leisure time and the eight hour day." Again, it's not a slamdunk to argue that having been one of the females to get married and then divorced is a privilege.
What is true of Amerikan marriages is even more true of interracial marriages. Over time, white marriages to Asian-Amerikans were more likely to break up than white-on-white marriages. Likewise, Asian-Amerikans had longer lasting marriages among themselves.(58) So even when there is at least an initial marriage vow, cultural issues persist. On average, for new immigrants and migrants, the relationship to whites and the divorce question will appear as one of rich country white decadence, not a gold standard.
On the other hand, examining the cross-racial statistics on marriage in the 15-44 U.$. marriage group does tend to undercut white nationalist pseudo-feminism even while drawing attention to Black-on- Black lack of marriage and cohabitation. For those confused about whether feminism is about heterosexual relations or not, a third outside "relatively autonomous" factor again casts decisive light. The economically and racially privileged U.$. females prefer higher marriage and cohabitation rates as an exercise of their "choice" in privilege. So it is up to these pseudo-feminists. The facts are that the privileged females in the united $tates prefer commitment from males. Privileged Japanese females do not. If whites are the gold standard, then marriage is too. Amerikan females prefer the patriarchal institutions over none at all. Those inconsistently advocating asexuality should know that the data shows that white females make use of their privileges to obtain male commitments, so it is not possible to argue in a strictly Liberal way that white females do not want the heterosexual relations they are in. One is forced to make either a false consciousness argument or a MIM-style argument that U.$. females are actually men in the global-sense. Meanwhile, the Japanese females abandoning males have more collectivist norms than Amerikans do, so it's hard to see how Liberalism is going to reconcile any of the facts with feminism.
Confirming Qian's and Licther's use of group size as a factor and MIM's mention of sex ratio,(59) Sean-Shong Hwang, Rogelio Saenz & Benigno E. Aguirre show that English usage, citizenship status, sex ratios and community size all predict whether Asian- Amerikans will marry whites. The more the English and citizenship status, the better the chances of marriage. Larger available Asian-unAmerikan communities and more favorable sex ratios reduced the chances for outmarriage.(60) Via the Black-on-Black marriage/cohabitation question one could say that encouraging marriage is also encouraging assimilation and the economic rat race.
The good news is that the trend is for Asian-unAmerikans to have ever larger communities to choose mates from:
"As recently as 1970, less than 1% of the total U.S. population was of Asian origin. The Asian American population increased to 1.6% in 1980, and to 3% by the 1990 census. Continued high levels of immigration and sustained population growth will lead to an Asian population in the U.S. that is projected to increase from 7 million in 1990 or 3% of the U.S. population to 35 million in 2040 or 10% of the U.S. population."(61)Hence, we can say that increased immigration increases Asian-unAmerikan nationalism. If Asian- descended people get a wide enough choice of mates to choose from, they marry their own people, because whites won't have them. Class plays a relatively weak role, but the larger the economic gap between whites and Asian-unAmerikans, the less likely a marriage.
Many have suspected that with the Japanese-Amerikans being richest and most established that they would break from the pack on various questions; yet, it turns out that once in the united $tates, what matters most is white perceptions, not previous history. Koreans, Japanese and Chinese mix well inside the united $tates despite prior history, if the size of groups is there to mix (not necessarily on every college campus for instance). Because Japanese-Amerikans are not distinguished from the other four Asian-Amerikan groups just mentioned by whites, Japanese- Amerikans come out in surveys sometimes equal with the other potential Asian-Amerikan groups.
Within the Asian-unAmerikkkan people being created, the male is actually the carrier of culture, contrary to popular stereotypes about cultures internationally. The Asian-Amerikan female is 50% more likely to outmarry than the male.(62) With that weighting in mind, it is not surprising that Asian-Amerikans follow a 'ho pattern, preferring marriage partners based on class. The reverse is not true, because whites prefer Asian-Amerikans less than Blacks and Latinos --despite slight advantages of Asian-Amerikans in material well-being. Collectively, the Asian-Amerikans are the whites' 'ho, the informal expression MIM uses when referring to the selection of mates by economic criteria, as is characteristic and unavoidable under capitalism.
The male is also the carrier of the culture as proved by a study of biracial households. When the Asian parent is male, his children are more likely to identify as Asian-Amerikan than if the Asian parent is female. Similarly, ethnic consciousness increases with the education level of the Asian parent.(63) Families that had significant cultural transmission tasks in East Asia via education persist in that role once in Amerika.
What Asian-unAmerikkkans need to learn in their nationalism is that currently Asian-Amerikans extend more trust and social distance(64) privileges to whites than returned to them. In fact, as of the 2008 study published by Weaver, there is no statistical difference between how Asian-Amerikans treat themselves and how they treat Euro-Amerikans on social distance.(65)
There are two little known reasons for changes in white-to-Asian-Amerikan relations of recent decades. One is that whites became a white collar population and their economic concerns changed accordingly in recent decades. Whites now regard Asian-Amerikans as competitors. The Asian petty-bourgeoisie is more salient for most whites while the Black lumpen is more salient for older ethnic whites. Secondly, Asian-Amerikans still tally as more collectivist in their values than whites,(66) and hence Asian-Amerikans do not return competitive favors to the whites.(67) The Bogardus studies show that whites rate potential Asian-Amerikans last while Asian-Amerikans now treat whites as if they were Asian-Amerikans themselves. Breaking Asian-Amerikan U.$. .patriotism will even out the relationship between whites and Asian-unAmerikkkans.
MIM has spoken often of the importance of the "relative autonomy" theory in application to the intertwining of class, nation and gender. Here again we see an oblique contribution from gender to the understanding of nation and class. When Mao said that racial questions boil down to class, he oversimplified, because the national question is also relatively autonomous from class. We cannot boil down white perceptions of potential Asian-Amerikans to class. Social distance by ethnicity does not correspond with class. The Euro-Amerikans are melding together an Asian-unAmerikkkan nation by their common treatment of East Asians. We rather suspect the same is happening with South Asians and Middle Eastern peoples, though in the case of Asian Indians, the male is more successful in intermarriage than the female.
As late as 1965, the University of Michigan's administrators tattled on white students to their parents if they dated Black students. Now in connection to a famous affirmative action case for University of Michigan admissions there is a study showing that with newly discovered policies administrators can alter the social behavior of 18-year-olds on race to differ from their background and thereby increase racial mixing. Hence, the new thinking in Mary J. Fischer's paper says that admissions criteria should include what would do the most to even out super-profit sharing and dating among racial groups--preparing people for integrated life.(68)
Although MIM usually has little reason to oppose civil rights or integrationist struggles over admissions, this latest policy undercuts MIM's anti-militarist strategy. As of now, there would be too many majority-white institutions with the effect of whitewashing national minorities. This in turn undercuts the anti- war movement as MIM has demonstrated in other articles.(69) Hence, when we hear that Asian-unAmerikkkans are an increasingly measurable phenomenon, we take heart. It means there will be another basis of opposition to typical Euro-Amerikan thinking.
Increasingly, from looking at data, MIM supports nationalist institutions for the peoples of color. When the peoples of color form the clear majority, then they can press integration in Amerikan schools, hopefully with the assistance of the joint dictatorship of the proletariat of the Third World.
Asian-unAmerikans have their cultural works and also their representatives in identity politics. Frankly, much Asian-unAmerikan writing is reminiscent of pseudo-feminism, with an unstated sense that the hard work went into a non- political career which shows up in subjective and vague writing, forays into poetry and proclamations of identity that end with the proclamation or at best, the writing of another biographical history of a family.
What is lacking is the kind of analysis of hard sociological and economic data that vanguard parties usually undertake. This article is a first pass on the question. Hopefully it will interest others. If not, it will be because all energy is going to building the Asian-unAmerikkkan family unit, as a precursor to the nation.
By social and cultural measures, it is Asian-unAmerikkkans who are increasingly the most separate from Euro-Amerikans in the united $tates. In this article, MIM attempts to prime the pump for the creation of a critical mass of Asian-unAmerikan intellectuals by summarizing hard data on the social place of Asian-unAmerikkkans. Increasingly the social material for a critical mass of Asian-unAmerikkkan intellectuals necessary to form a party does exist.
We have a chicken-and-egg problem for Asian-unAmerikkkan nationalism. There is a vast array of complaints out there in political correctness world;(70) yet, Asian-unAmerikans continue being shunted into math, sciences and engineering. Thus, there is an act of leadership needed to grasp the overall picture and focus in on the most important issues pressing on Asian-unAmerikans. Without the leadership, the people do not know what the issues are, but without the issues to discern, potential leaders do not interest themselves in public concerns.
The Asian-unAmerikans have the widest conflict with whites because of intra-bourgeois and gender conflict. The Latino middle-class also continues to be seen as a threat to whites. The state targets a minority of Blacks most for lumpenization and a minority of Spanish-speakers most for visa-less super-exploitation. By contrast, Asian-unAmerikan conflict with whites is not concentrated at the extremes but more relevant to everyday life of whites.
With the election of Obama, the good thing will be that those who are not sucked in will be a firmer basis for a revolutionary movement. Opposition to the Democratic Party and its covert wings will clarify the revolutionary pole inside U.$. borders. Some Blacks will be heralding the success of Martin Luther King integrationism at the expense of his anti-war legacy, while others will see the situation differently and rededicate themselves to revolution more along the lines of the original Black Panthers.
The imperialists face a difficult trade-off. Their ideology of worshipping technical productivity favors the brain drain and thus increased immigration. Any slacking in the immigration and migration rate causes severe economic dislocation and fewer chances to assimilate those who are a potential engine of economic growth even as perceived by the imperialists. Yet increases in Latino and potential Asian- unAmerikan population raise the prospects for bourgeois nationalism.
Endnotes:
1. www.etext.info/Politics/MIM/mt/mt8.pdf
2. Charles Hirschman and Morrison G. Wong, "The Extraordinary Educational Attainment of Asian-Americans: A Search for Historical Evidence and Explanations," Social Forces, Vol. 65, No. 1 (Sep., 1986), pp. 1-27.
3. Shana Levin, Jim Sidanius, Joshua L. Rabinowitz & Christopher Federico, "Ethnic Identity, Legitimizing Ideologies, and Social Status: A Matter of Ideological Asymmetry" Political Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Jun., 1998), pp. 373-404.
4. " The classical prejudice model does not expect expressed feelings of competitive threat to differ sharply from other expressions of prejudice. . . Allport's model of prejudice emphasizes the irrational component of group hostility. . . The learning of feelings and stereotypes takes the place of direct experience and knowledge. Accordingly, any factor that im- parts information and knowledge, such as higher education, should reduce levels of prejudice and hostility." (p. 954) Lawrence Bobo and Vincent L. Hutchings, " Perceptions of Racial Group Competition: Extending Blumer's Theory of Group Position to a Multiracial Social Context," American Sociological Review, Vol. 61, No. 6 (Dec., 1996). MIM's explanation for why the upper-middle-class is more progressive than the lower-middle-c lass is not education but appropriation of surplus-value. Those paying attention believe there is more cushion or "room to give" than among exploiters closer to the line with the exploited.
5. See http://www.etext.info/Politics/MIM/mt/mt2+3.html
6. http://www.etext.info/Politics/MIM/faq/imperialistpopulation.html
7. For some history on Bogardus, see Colin Wark & John F. Galliher, " Emory Bogardus and the Origins of the Social Distance Scale," Am Soc (2007) 38:383–395.
8. Tom W. Smith and Glenn R. Dempsey, "The Polls: Ethnic Social Distance and Prejudice," The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 4 (Winter, 1983), pp. 584-600.
9. Carolyn A. Owen, Howard C. Eisner, Thomas R. McFaul, "A Half-Century of Social Distance Research: National Replication of the Bogardus' Studies," Sociology and Social Research, 1981, vol. 66, no 1, pp. 80-98.
10. In five surveys between 1926 and 1977, Asian Indians were on the bottom twice, Koreans twice and Japanese once. Tom W. Smith and Glenn R. Dempsey, "The Polls: Ethnic Social Distance and Prejudice," The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 4 (Winter, 1983), p. 598.
11. Thomas C. Wilson, " Cohort and Prejudice: Whites' Attitudes Toward Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and Asians," Public Opinion Quarterly 1996-07-01 pp. 253-274.
12. Emory S. Bogardus, Immigration and Race Attitudes (DC: Heath & Co., 1928), pp. 114-5.
13. Minako Kurokawa Maykovich, "Reciprocity in Racial Stereotypes: White, Black, and Yellow," The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 77, No. 5 (Mar., 1972), pp. 876-897.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/09/26/o.improve.your.marriage/
14. For both the stereotype of Asian-Amerikan females as exotic for white males and Asian-Amerikan males as not manly enough for white females: Derald Wing Sue, Jennifer Bucceri, Annie I. Lin, Kevin L. Nadal, and Gina C. Torino, "Racial Microaggressions and the Asian American Experience," Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 2007, Vol. 13, No. 1, 72–81.
15. The white female star in the movie "South Pacific" has a racially frustrated silence. http://www.etext.info/Politics/MIM/movies/review.php?f=long/southpacific.txt
16. M. Carr Payne, Jr., C. Michael York, Joen Fagan, " Changes in Measured Social Distance Over Time," Sociometry, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Mar., 1974), pp. 131-136. It is sometimes asserted that females show more tolerant attitudes in the Bogardus surveys, but the above study and another disagree. See, Michael Hughes & Steven Tuch, " Gender Differences in Whites' Racial Attitudes: Are Women's Attitudes Really More Favorable?," Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 66, No. 4, Special Issue: Race, Racism, and Discrimination (Dec., 2003), pp. 384-401.
17. Vincent N. Parrillo & Christopher Donoghue, "Updating the Bogardus social distance studies: a new national survey," The Social Science Journal 42 (2005) 257–271.
18. Ibid., p. 267.
19. "The results of additional t tests showed that European Americans were less positive about dating Asian Americans than they were about dating either African Americans t(139)=-2.69, p<.01 or Mexican Americans, t(144) =-5.83, p<.001." Chuansheng Chen, Kari Edwards, Brandy Young & Ellen Greenberger, "Close Relationships Between Asian American and European American College Students," The Journal of Social Psychology, 2001 (141)1, pp. 85-100.
20. Ibid., p. 97. Also, 1979 Los Angeles sample " the Japanese rates of out- marriages were the highest (60.6%), followed by the Chinese (41.2%) and the Korean (27.6%)." HARRY H. L. KITANO WAI-TSANG YEUNG LYNN CHAI HERBERT HATANAKA, "Asian-American Interracial Marriage," JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY, February 1984.
21. Robert G. DelCampo, Donna M. Blancero & Kristie M. Boudwin, "Hispanic professionals after 11th September: a move toward 'American' identification," Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal Vol. 15 No. 1, 2008, pp. 20-29.
22. HARRY C. TRIANDIS, Wallace D. Loh & Leslie Ann Levin, " RACE, STATUS, QUALITY OF SPOKEN ENGLISH, AND OPINIONS ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS AS DETERMINANTS OF INTERPERSONAL ATTITUDES," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1966, Vol. 3, No. 4, 468-472.
23. Lawrence Bobo and Vincent L. Hutchings, " Perceptions of Racial Group Competition: Extending Blumer's Theory of Group Position to a Multiracial Social Context," American Sociological Review, Vol. 61, No. 6 (Dec., 1996), pp. 951-972.
24. Yen Le Espiritu, Asian American Panethnicity: Bridging Institutions and Identities (Philadelphia: Temple University press, 1992), pp. 137-9.
25. For an example of a sociological work seeing itself as a pressure on the Democratic Party not to go back to representing white males, See Adolph Reed Jr., ed., WITHOUT JUSTICE FOR ALL: THE NEW LIBERALISM AND OUR RETREAT FROM RACIAL EQUALITY. (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1999).
26. http://www.etext.info/Politics/MIM/agitation/gatekeeper/index.html
27. " Report: Majority says depression is likely," http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/10/report-majority.html
28. "Reinventing the Color Line Immigration and America's New Racial/Ethnic Divide," Social Forces, Volume 86, Number 2, December 2007.
29. For a listing of several such surveys showing Blacks historically deemed the greatest "threat to the neighborhood": Tom W. Smith and Glenn R. Dempsey, "The Polls: Ethnic Social Distance and Prejudice," The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 4 (Winter, 1983), pp. 584-600.
30. "New Poll: 61% of Youth Vote Projected to go to Barack Obama," 6October2008, http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7104
31. Milton Kleg & Kaoru Yamamoto, "As the World Turns: Ethno-Racial Distances After 70 Years," The Social Science Journal, Volume 35, Number 2, pages 183-190.
32. Charles N. Weaver, "Social Distance as a Measure of Prejudice Among Ethnic Groups in the United States," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2008, 38, 3, pp. 779–795.
33. http://www.etext.info/Politics/MIM/sds/obamasds100108.html
34. http://www.etext.info/Politics/MIM/wim/wyl/threeworldstheory.html
35. " Gallup Polls in 139 countries reveal approval of U.S. leadership in sub-Saharan Africa is about twice as high as it is in other areas of the world. But residents in the region tend to be just as approving of the leaderships of several major nations that provide aid to sub-Saharan Africa." Julie Ray, "U.S. Leadership Approval Highest in Sub-Saharan Africa," 8April2008, http://www.gallup.com/poll/106306/US-Leadership-Approval-Highest-SubSaharan-Africa.aspx
36. Lawrence Bobo and Vincent L. Hutchings, " Perceptions of Racial Group Competition: Extending Blumer's Theory of Group Position to a Multiracial Social Context," American Sociological Review, Vol. 61, No. 6 (Dec., 1996), pp. 958-9.
37. http://www.etext.info/Politics/MIM/gender/veiling070207.html
38. Katherine E. McClelland and Carol J. Auster, " Public Platitudes and Hidden Tensions: Racial Climates at Predominantly White Liberal Arts Colleges," The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 61, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 1990), pp. 607-642. This is also the one sample from one college (1986) that shows an upper-middle-class white preference for Asian-Amerikans over Latinos and Blacks.
39. Matt Bai, "Is Obama the End of Black politics?" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/magazine/10politics-t.html 6Aug2008.
40. http://www.etext.info/Politics/MIM/agitation/milit/mexicantroops.html
41. For an example of the small numbers of potential Asian-Amerikans, as late as 1970, there were only 70,000 potential Korean-Amerikans in the United $tates. Surveys of the isolated showed that by the third generation there was assimilation. Harry H. L. Kitano, Wai-Tsang Yeung, Lynn Chai & Herbert Hatanaka, " Asian-American Interracial Marriage," Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Feb., 1984), pp. 179-190. Now there are large enough numbers of potential Asian-Amerikans to call past trends into question.
42. Zhenchao Qian & Daniel T. Lichter, "Social Boundaries and Marital Assimilation: Interpreting Trends in Racial and Ethnic Intermarriage," AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2007, VOL. 72, p. 79.
43. Sharon M. Lee and Marilyn Fernandez, " Trends in Asian American Racial/Ethnic Intermarriage: A Comparison of 1980 and 1990 Census Data," Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 41, No. 2 (1998), p. 329.
44. Sharon M. Lee and Marilyn Fernandez, " Trends in Asian American Racial/Ethnic Intermarriage: A Comparison of 1980 and 1990 Census Data," Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 41, No. 2 (1998), pp. 323-342.
45. Ibid.
46. " The majority of Asian couples are endogamous—about 80% of US Asian couples (Table 1, second row) and 92% of Canadian Asian couples." (p. 317) " The main difference in this comparative study is the lower Asian exogamy rate in Canada, where less than 10% of Asian couples are exogamous compared with 20% in the US."(p. 325)
Sharon M. Lee and Monica Boyd, "Marrying out: Comparing the marital and social integration of Asians in the US and Canada," Social Science Research 37 (2008) 311–329.
47. Zhenchao Qian & Daniel T. Lichter, "Social Boundaries and Marital Assimilation: Interpreting Trends in Racial and Ethnic Intermarriage," AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2007, VOL. 72 (February:68–94).
48. Ibid. 49. Jennifer Lee & Frank D. Bean, "Reinventing the Color Line Immigration and America's New Racial/Ethnic Divide," Social Forces, Volume 86, Number 2, December 2007.
50. Zhenchao Qian & Daniel T. Lichter, "Social Boundaries and Marital Assimilation: Interpreting Trends in Racial and Ethnic Intermarriage," AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2007, VOL. 72 (February:68–94).
51. Department of Health and Human Services, "Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States," Vital and Health Statistics, Series 23, Number 22, July 2002.
Some internal evidence from this study indicates that the difference between Black females and white females is not on account of an older white female age distribution within the 15-44 age group.
52. Jean-Paul Sartre preface, The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon (NY: Grove Press, 1968), p. 18.
53. James M. Raymo and Hiromi Ono, " Coresidence With Parents, Women's Economic Resources, and the Transition to Marriage in Japan," Journal of Family Issues 2007; 28; p. 658. Although Raymo and Ono reported the figures, they drew mixed conclusions from their statistical modeling and do not necessarily agree with MIM on the final reason that Japanese females are putting off marriage and children indefinitely, but no one doubts that it is happening.
54. In 2002, Germany, Italy, Greece and most of eastern Europe actually would have shrunk population-wise if not for migration. Jean-Paul Sardon, " Évolution démographique récente des pays développés," Population (French Edition), 59e Année, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2004), p. 309. In 1930, all Western European countries had more than two children per female done with child-bearing. By 1967, already that distinction belonged only to a handful of places such as Albania, Macedonia and Ireland. Germany reached 1.46 children per woman finished with childbearing years. Ibid., 340.
The percentage of Western females never having children has increased slightly with the generations born since World War II according to Donald T. Rowland. He is talking about 15% of females never having children becoming more like 20% today. Donald T. Rowland, " Historical Trends in Childlessness," Journal of Family Issues 2007; 28; 1311.
Between 1980 and 1995, the percentage of Japanese females unmarried in the 25 to 29 age group doubled to reach half. Japan tied for the lowest birth rate in the world with Italy at 10 per 1000 population. AMELIA A. NEWCOMB, "In Japan, single life looks good," Christian Science Monitor; 1/2/98, Vol. 90 Issue 26, p1.
55. In $outhern Korea abortion is illegal, but the law including on notification of the male is not enforced to such an extent that only 45% know there is a law. "US discourses on abortion as pro-choice versus pro-life seems irrelevant. The struggle for abortion rights has never been a feminist project for Korean women. In a sense, they were never granted the right to choose, but they did not need any legal right to gain access to what they chose to do. None of the studies and essays that I reviewed had mentioned a case in which the legal clause requiring 'husband's consent' kept a woman from getting an abortion. Nor has the debate 'when does life begin?' ever been a political battle in South Korea."
The result of "choice" in Korea is a sex ratio imbalance with more males than females: "According to the 1994 statistics, the sex ratio for first-born babies was 106.1, and for the second-born babies, it was 114.3; the ratio drastically increases to 205.6 for the third-borns and 237.0 for the fourth-borns (total sex ratio of the year was 115.5)."
It appears 4.4% of abortions are attributable to fetus sex being female in $outhern Korea. It's another perfect example of how Liberalism is not compatible with feminism. Young Rae Oum, "Beyond a Strong State and Docile Women," International Feminist Journal of Politics, 2003, 5:3,1.
56. http://www.etext.info/Politics/MIM/gender/demographics2004.html .
57. Xuanning Fu, " Impact of socioeconomic status on inter-racial mate selection and divorce," The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 239–258.
58. Xuanning Fu, " Impact of socioeconomic status on inter-racial mate selection and divorce," The Social Science Journal 43 (2006), p. 251.
59. http://www.etext.info/Politics/MIM/gender/garistocracybenefits.html
60. SEAN-SHONG HWANG, ROGELIO SAENZ AND BENIGNO E. AGUIRRE, " Structural and Assimilationist Explanations of Asian American Intermarriage," Journal of Marriage and the Family 59 (August 1997): 758-772.
61. Sharon M. Lee and Marilyn Fernandez, " Trends in Asian American Racial/Ethnic Intermarriage: A Comparison of 1980 and 1990 Census Data," Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 41, No. 2 (1998), pp. 323-342.
62. Zhenchao Qian & Daniel T. Lichter, "Social Boundaries and Marital Assimilation: Interpreting Trends in Racial and Ethnic Intermarriage," AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2007, VOL. 72 (February:68–94). Boyd and Lee have summarized the whole question as follows: "Asian women in both the US and Canada intermarry at higher levels than Asian men. Younger and higher-educated Asians are more likely to intermarry, although the effect of education is not linear. Exogamy is lower where there are large Asian populations, such as the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia in Canada. In each country, we found substantial and similar differences in exogamy rates across different Asian ethnic groups, for example, the Japanese are most likely to intermarry while Asian Indians/South Asians are least likely to intermarry." Sharon M. Lee and Monica Boyd, "Marrying out: Comparing the marital and social integration of Asians in the US and Canada," Social Science Research 37 (2008) 311–329. Hwang et. al. noticed the female lead in intermarriage in their sample as well.
SEAN-SHONG HWANG, ROGELIO SAENZ AND BENIGNO E. AGUIRRE, " Structural and Assimilationist Explanations of Asian American Intermarriage," Journal of Marriage and the Family 59 (August 1997): 765.
See also, Sharon M. Lee and Marilyn Fernandez, " Trends in Asian American Racial/Ethnic Intermarriage: A Comparison of 1980 and 1990 Census Data," Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 41, No. 2 (1998), p. 336.
Asian Indians are the exception, p. 337.
63. Yu Xie and Kimberly Goyette, "The Racial Identification of Biracial Children with One Asian Parent: Evidence from the 1990 Census," Social Forces, Vol. 76, No. 2 (Dec., 1997), pp. 547-570.
64. "European American participants reported being less comfortable socializing with Asians than Asians were with socializing with European Americans (F= 6.0,p = .014, Cohen's d= .30)"--a study of a Rocky Mountain college. Smith, Timothy B. Smith, , Raquel Bowman, & Sungti Hsu, "RACIAL ATTITUDES AMONG ASIAN AND EUROPEAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS: A CROSS-CULTURAL EXAMINATION," College Student Journal; Jun2007, Vol. 41 Issue 2, p436-443.
65. The mean for how Asian-Amerikans rate themselves is 2.31 and the exact same for whites on the neighborhood question! There was also no statistically significant difference for marriage. On the other hand, white adults measured in the Weaver study rated Blacks last, but still gave Asian-Amerikans very different ratings than for themselves on both the neighborhood and marriage questions. Charles N. Weaver, "Social Distance as a Measure of Prejudice Among Ethnic Groups in the United States," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2008, 38, 3, p. 788.
66. Carmen C. Lewis & Joey F. George, " Cross-cultural deception in social networking sites and face-to-face communication," Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 2945–2964.
67. Bobo & Hutchings found no statistically significant competitive threat to Asian-unAmerikkkans according to their own attitude--not for whites, Latinos or Blacks. This again points to a higher degree of collectivism in Asian-unAmerikkkan thought that has yet to whitewash out. Lawrence Bobo and Vincent L. Hutchings, " Perceptions of Racial Group Competition: Extending Blumer's Theory of Group Position to a Multiracial Social Context," American Sociological Review, Vol. 61, No. 6 (Dec., 1996), p. 959.
68. Mary J. Fischer, "Does Campus Diversity Promote Friendship Diversity? A Look at Interracial Friendships in College," SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, Volume 89, Number 3, September 2008.
69. http://www.etext.info/Politics/MIM/agitation/milit/mexicantroops.html
70. Derald Wing Sue, Jennifer Bucceri, Annie I. Lin, Kevin L. Nadal, and Gina C. Torino, "Racial Microaggressions and the Asian American Experience," Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 2007, Vol. 13, No. 1, 72–81.
![[About]](/Politics/MIM/gifs/0_about.gif)
|
![[Contact]](/Politics/MIM/gifs/0_contact.gif)
|
![[Home]](/Politics/MIM/gifs/0_home.gif)
|
![[Countries page]](/Politics/MIM/gifs/globe.jpg) |
![[Art]](/Politics/MIM/gifs/art.jpg)
|
![[News]](/Politics/MIM/gifs/0_hotnews.gif)
|
![[RAIL]](/Politics/MIM/gifs/0_rail.gif)
|