I never thought of identifying myself as an Asian before coming to the United States for school. I had always considered myself as a Chinese national, or more specifically, the ethnic Han Chinese national, but that was not the case when I arrived here.
Interestingly, while White Americans and Black Americans are categorized separately by skin tone, the Asians are just thrown together by a geography. Within the group, South Asians, East Asian, Middle Eastern Asian, or Central Asians all have distinct look, (sub)culture or religious identities. Yet they are all put together as simply "Asian". On the other hand, America used national origin or geographical location to subdivide European immigrants of 19th or 20th century into specific groups like Irish immigrants or Eastern European immigrants.
Personally, I have always believed that the geographical definition of Asia on its own was flawed and Eurocentric. The plate tectonics theory always shows Eurasia as one cohesive continent.
But the Europeans (Greeks/Romans) carved a line in the middle, between the part of the world they knew and conquered, and the part of the world that they had not fully discovered. They decided that their "civilized" side was going to be "Europe", and the other uncharted side was going to be Asia. What they did not know, as shown in the map below, was that Asia was, in fact, much larger, much more culturally diverse, and much more complicated than their expectation. Historically, multiples empires of different ethnicities such as Persia, India, China, Mongolia, and Japan had fought ferociously against each other; by the Greeks or Romans' standard, I assume that each of these empires will be considered a geographical continent of itself, but the lack of understanding of this continent resulted in the fact that we all live in one continent: Asia.
Such Eurocentric view of simplifying Asia persisted and found its way to the American understanding of racial identities. While Asian immigrants or Asian Americans do show many points of similarity, generalizing Asian Americans into one homogeneous group and ignoring the differences within the group are dangerous practices.
In some way, such simplification was not unique to Asian Americans. When establishing the institute of slavery, White America never paid attention to the cultural origin of the African slaves. However, by undermining their cultural ties to home and creating a horrendous but commonly shared experience of enslavement, the institute of slavery was able to forge this new and merged identity of being "African American".
In comparison, the Asian immigrants never endured the same type of experience that could possibly generate a unified identity. Also, the Asian immigrants came much later, when nationalism was on the rise globally and national origin became a much stronger identity. While the identity of being "Asian" certainly creates strong solidarity between different sub-groups, intra-racism or discrimination based on ethnicity still exist.
We must remember that Japanese immigrants only came in flows after the exclusion of Chinese immigrants, and Chinese Exclusion Act was lifted the same year when Japanese Americans were sent to the internment camps. The advancing technologies also permitted the growth of transnationalism, meaning that affairs in the home country can easily impact the race relations in America. When Korean Americans supported the Korean nationalism in early 20th, in a certain way, they pitted themselves against the Japanese Americans. Instead of strictly upholding solidarity, Asian sub-groups can, in fact, hold each other back in struggles based on ethnicities or national origins.
Thus, when we are reading Trespassers?, we should be aware that a large portion of the book is based on an empirical case study of Asians in the Bay Area, mostly Indian Americans or Chinese Americans. In the Intro, the author fails to set this premise, only focusing on the intersection of Asian identity and socioeconomic status: "I worried that focusing primarily on the stories of Chinese and Indian Americans, Fremont's largest Asian American groups, many of whom were highly educated, high income professionals, would ignore the struggles of many who could not even afford entry into the Valley's exclusive suburbs". Such premise was already evident in the fact that the book focuses on life of suburbs, therefore automatically eliminating the socioeconomically underprivileged Asians.
The premise of different Asian ethnicities was never addressed, or discussed in a way that can be easily brushed away. As informed readers, however, we should be aware of the premise and actively use intersectionality to recognize the differences within the same group.
Interestingly, while White Americans and Black Americans are categorized separately by skin tone, the Asians are just thrown together by a geography. Within the group, South Asians, East Asian, Middle Eastern Asian, or Central Asians all have distinct look, (sub)culture or religious identities. Yet they are all put together as simply "Asian". On the other hand, America used national origin or geographical location to subdivide European immigrants of 19th or 20th century into specific groups like Irish immigrants or Eastern European immigrants.
Personally, I have always believed that the geographical definition of Asia on its own was flawed and Eurocentric. The plate tectonics theory always shows Eurasia as one cohesive continent.
But the Europeans (Greeks/Romans) carved a line in the middle, between the part of the world they knew and conquered, and the part of the world that they had not fully discovered. They decided that their "civilized" side was going to be "Europe", and the other uncharted side was going to be Asia. What they did not know, as shown in the map below, was that Asia was, in fact, much larger, much more culturally diverse, and much more complicated than their expectation. Historically, multiples empires of different ethnicities such as Persia, India, China, Mongolia, and Japan had fought ferociously against each other; by the Greeks or Romans' standard, I assume that each of these empires will be considered a geographical continent of itself, but the lack of understanding of this continent resulted in the fact that we all live in one continent: Asia.
Such Eurocentric view of simplifying Asia persisted and found its way to the American understanding of racial identities. While Asian immigrants or Asian Americans do show many points of similarity, generalizing Asian Americans into one homogeneous group and ignoring the differences within the group are dangerous practices.
In some way, such simplification was not unique to Asian Americans. When establishing the institute of slavery, White America never paid attention to the cultural origin of the African slaves. However, by undermining their cultural ties to home and creating a horrendous but commonly shared experience of enslavement, the institute of slavery was able to forge this new and merged identity of being "African American".
In comparison, the Asian immigrants never endured the same type of experience that could possibly generate a unified identity. Also, the Asian immigrants came much later, when nationalism was on the rise globally and national origin became a much stronger identity. While the identity of being "Asian" certainly creates strong solidarity between different sub-groups, intra-racism or discrimination based on ethnicity still exist.
We must remember that Japanese immigrants only came in flows after the exclusion of Chinese immigrants, and Chinese Exclusion Act was lifted the same year when Japanese Americans were sent to the internment camps. The advancing technologies also permitted the growth of transnationalism, meaning that affairs in the home country can easily impact the race relations in America. When Korean Americans supported the Korean nationalism in early 20th, in a certain way, they pitted themselves against the Japanese Americans. Instead of strictly upholding solidarity, Asian sub-groups can, in fact, hold each other back in struggles based on ethnicities or national origins.
Thus, when we are reading Trespassers?, we should be aware that a large portion of the book is based on an empirical case study of Asians in the Bay Area, mostly Indian Americans or Chinese Americans. In the Intro, the author fails to set this premise, only focusing on the intersection of Asian identity and socioeconomic status: "I worried that focusing primarily on the stories of Chinese and Indian Americans, Fremont's largest Asian American groups, many of whom were highly educated, high income professionals, would ignore the struggles of many who could not even afford entry into the Valley's exclusive suburbs". Such premise was already evident in the fact that the book focuses on life of suburbs, therefore automatically eliminating the socioeconomically underprivileged Asians.
The premise of different Asian ethnicities was never addressed, or discussed in a way that can be easily brushed away. As informed readers, however, we should be aware of the premise and actively use intersectionality to recognize the differences within the same group.