How I Imagine the Proceedings of Landmark Cases

In re Ah Yup (1878)
Ah Yup: Let me become a citizen.
The White Man: But you're...you're Asian...
Ah Yup: So?
The White Man: (shrugging) You're not white.
Ah Yup: But I want to be an American.
The White Man: But you're Asian.
Ah Yup: So??
The White Man: (sighs deeply) So, Ah Yup...(whispers) you're not white. (Pats Ah Yup on the back)

In re Rodriguez (1897)
(In the jury room, a giant photo of Rodriguez is displayed)
Juror #1: He looks...
Juror #2: Suspicious.
Juror #1: He could be a tanned Texan.
Juror #3: Or Native American...I bet people think he's black sometimes.
Juror #2: Or a job-stealing pot dealer.
Juror #1: Nah, he's not black.
Juror #2: He's definitely not white.
Juror #1: But that white guy vouched for him.
Juror #3: Oh yeah? Who vouched for the white guy?
Juror #2: I dunno, he's white.
Juror #1: Right. I mean...well. Mexico is all sorts of mixed, I don't have a problem with his naturalization. He's nothing we don't like. At least he doesn't have a King. Or an Emperor.
Juror #3: Huh...Historically, I guess, Mexico is kind of similar to us.
(they ponder this notion)
Juror #2: ...except it's Mexico.

It's like bickering children.

The readings this week focused on Asian and Latino racial development in the United States during and since the 1920s, during the reign of the national origins quota system. Kim and Genova both argue that Asians and Latinos need "...to confront the stubborn intransigence of an 'American' racial order defined in black and white" (Genova 15). Kim specifically addresses the "racial triangulation" of Asians, caught between the encouraging blacks and disparaging blacks. Mae Ngai, author of Impossible Subjects, centers on the growth of U.S. nationalism following WWI and the problems of illegal immigration that developed.

I find little to disagree with in these readings; the authors present their arguments with substantive evidence based in law and history. One particular line, Ngai writes, "nationalism's ultimate defense is sovereignty" (11). From there, she goes on to dissect the rise of international borders, the restrictive U.S. immigration policies that followed and the inevitable upsurge in illegal immigration. Pride leads to arrogance, arrogance leads to selfishness, selfishness leads to a giant, climb-able wall along the Texas-Mexico border. When the borders were relatively open, illegal aliens existed only on paper. Then having papers--certifying one as a human with a home--became a requirement. Only when you [foreigner] prove to us [Americans] you have a home somewhere else will we consider letting you stay. It's Lockean theory of property gone absolutely haywire.

But I don't think a country like the U.S. could have developed any other way (given the history of the world up until then). As much as it is difficult and often painful to revisit the aspects of our country's past, marred by xenophobia and hatred, it is ultimately only a reflection on ourselves and the nature of humankind, as the future will be. Within these readings and from the responses I've read thus far, there appears to be a need to compensate and rectify the wrongs of the U.S.: to be inclusive and understanding of everyone, all the time. Yet from what I can recollect from high school history classes, every major power--in space and time--has been wary of and restricted access to foreigners, a natural inclination when you have a lot and other people don't.

November last year, I was having a drink with my dad, who moved here in the 1980s. I bring him up for a few reasons, which may take a few more posts to address: a) he has a number of black and Latino friends; b) he still identifies with Taiwan despite residency here for nearly three decades; c) he's Chinese (surprise!). This particular evening, my dad was expounding his theories on the United States and I asked him if he thought he was ever trying to be white. He frowned and shook his head. I laid out some facts, like the predominately white suburb of CT we live in, his growing interest in golf, his indignance at the Obama race question. He cut me off, saying, "It was never about being white or black. It was about moving up in the world. If it were another group that had the luxury activities and the big houses, I'd have done the same thing."

Kim proposes a "field of racial positions", namely to reform racial hierarchy to place Asians in a triangulation between Whites and Blacks. This, I resented heavily. Reforming the racial hierarchy, possibly with the best of intentions, only serves to further solidify and bind this country to its racial traditions because it is still a hierarchy. Moreover, it positions all non-white groups to strive to be "white", associating success and wealth with a color of skin. The category of "white" should be "blank".

As the conversation went on, I asked him if he was resentful of policies regarding Asians in this country; his parents tried to flee to the U.S. during WWII but could not and ended up in Taiwan. At this, he just laughed. "There's no point in being mad about the way things are, T., as long as you can remember they rarely stay that way," he mused. "You know, it's absolutely...absolutely amazing you've got an Ethiopian place next to a sushi restaurant. People forget how young humans are...these things take time."

Since I can remember, I've thought the United States' racial problems can be traced to one solid fact; rich people are scared of poor people. And I always imagined how nice it would be to have one giant party where rich people would learn, poor people aren't so bad. I thought of a similar situation for white people who are scared of black people, but the party looked the same as the first one I imagined.

Racial relations have continued to fascinate me but as I get older, I find myself returning to that original idea, enjoying its childish simplicity, especially as I read these articles on spatialization and racialization and New Orleans' Mardi Gras Indians. When all the convolutions are stripped away, it still remains the same. Black people are scary; Asians/Indians are nerdy; Latinos will do all your work for a dollar. Oh, and the Irish are alcoholics; the English don't tip and Native Americans...well, no need to worry about them.

Throughout these two articles, I found two things to be the most interesting. Firstly, in Racial Formation of the United States, Omi and Winant intricately analyze the development of the United States as an inherently racial state, with its all of our state institutions being racial ones, carrying out the same policies of exclusion and repression.

Secondly, in Lipitz's article, (and this actually angered me more that interested) he writes about the actions of the police officers as proof of the "racialization of space and the spatialization of race". "The officers felt their obligations to protect property values, to keep local thoroughfares open for commerce.... These same officers, however, would never act in the same way toward the crowds of revelers that routinely congregate near the Louisiana Superdome" (Lipitz 2). I mostly detest his use of the word "never", which I find to be just as racist as the actions of those officers. It makes a presumption, yes, about the majority, but a presumption nevertheless.

All in all, I continue to fail at seeing the point to this type of dissection of our country's institutions and practices. While I admire the time and effort put into the research, I get incredibly frustrated when I read words like "never" in research and then repeatedly see biased phrasing throughout the work. Because at the end of the day, none of this has brought anyone, black or white, together. The problem still lies in our individual world views and I just don't think fair housing laws is the solution.