Migrant imaginaries are key to Mexican immigration to the United States in a multitude of ways. My own anecdotal story of this centers around where my brother lives in McAllen Texas. McAllen is situated on the Rio Grande river in an area of Texas known as the Rio Grande Valley. This valley also includes numerous towns and cities situated in Mexico. Years ago an arbitrary line divided the countries (the river), not considering families that were located on both sides of that river. The idea that Mexican-Americans living in Texas were/ are afforded the luxuries and services of the United States has caused many Mexicans to attempt to live in Texas rather than their homes across the river. The unity shared by the people of this region is not based on national origin. It is based on the idea of equality for Mexicans afforded to other races of people living in Texas. Most anti-immigration rhetoric in the United States is used by people who have already assimilated into mainstream american culture. The Mexican-Americans of south Texas are largely 1st and 2nd generation Americans, or Mexican nationals and have not had the time to assimilate into mainstream american society. In a short period of time, i believe you will see most anti mexican immigration language decline or disappear.

Migrant Imaginaries

Immigration from Mexico has been a hot topic of discussion just as immigration has been an issue many years ago 
whether they be from Europe or Asian areas. The reason that migrants from Mexico is such a big issue is because
ultimately the United States took land away from Mexicans during the Mexican American war and treaty of Guadalupe
Hildago.  Migrant Imaginaries describes a social imaginary where people articulate their social being.  This migrants were
displaced from their land and were forced to either deal with these conditions or go back past the newly drawn lines into
Mexico. This book questions the issues of cultural citizenship, which is the interaction between culture and claims to 
citizenship. Mexican or chicano people, whether legal citizens or not, are still looked down upon because many people
think that they are illegal just because of the stigma. People see these groups of people as taking jobs from the US and
using tax dollars that they don't have to pay if they are not legal citizens.  These are a few stereotypes that these 
people experience, but in reality this is not necessarily true. I found this photo on the internet shows the previous Mexican border but is also an advertisement. 
It uses the Spanish language and says "In an Absolut World." This is questioning the border of the US in the media
which is something that doesn't happen often. That fact is problematic in itself that we do not talk about these issues
as much as we should.

How can Migrant Imaginaries speak to anti-immigration/migration sentiment?

This book was able to speak to those who might be anti-immigration because it explained immigration from the migrants point of view which is often overlooked. Camacho did a good job of this by presenting different songs and stories from the migrants themselves showing their actual purpose for immigrating and the struggles that they went through to get here. Many people feel that these people are only coming here to take away the jobs we have and to live off of the country, but by reading this book and the personal accounts you can see that that is not their purpose at all, but rather they wish to have a better life and to be able to provide for their families just as every other person strives to do. This also speaks to the anti-immigration and migrant sentiment because it makes people realize that at one point we were all immigrants in search of a better life and who are we to deny them the opportunity to better themselves.

Migrant Imaginaries

Migrant Imaginaries can speak to anti-immigration/migration sentiment first of all, by informing about situations that are often overlooked or not taught in school. Information that is vital to those who don’t understand or who have a negative attitude towards migrants. Specifically the situation with Mexican-Americans and the fact that a lot of them have been in the US a lot longer than some people realize. And that the land some of them live on was actually Mexico at one time. I feel that a lot of people either don’t know or understand that, and if they did there would be a difference in the amount of negative energy placed on those Mexican-Americans. Alicia Schmidt Camacho created a book that allows people to see a new perspective through not just informational text, but through poetry, songs and stories.  These are first hand experiences of those who have dealt and deal with situations that arise in this book. It is a way for someone on the outside to "walk in their shoes." Which is something that definitely can speak to and help those with anti-immigration/migration sentiment to understand a bit more.

Migrant imaginaries

Migrant imaginaries can speak to anti-immigration/migration sentiment because it creates a space where discussion can flourish.  It is a able to create that space because it presents certain selected stories from a different point of view than most people are used to.  It also uses a multidisciplinary approach by using such things as stories, media, and poetry which reaches deeper into the listeners mind that just talking about statistics.  It may also close off certain groups from hearing the message though because it excludes a lot as well, but that is to be expected with such a wide variety of things that could be discussed.  In regards to land and boarders it tries to speak to anti-immigration by saying the boarder crossed them, but that is the result of  losing a war, some would argue, and that makes their point would have less of an impact.  So in that way it can speak to anti-immigration sentiment, but it ain't lis'nen.

How can Migrant Imaginaries speak to anti-immigration/migration sentiment?

I think Migrant Imaginaries has a lot to offer when looking at immigration sentiments. I find it important to know some of the history between the United States and Mexico in order to better understand some of the issues at hand. I feel many forget that at one point in time, part of the U.S. was a section of Mexico. Much like the Native Americans, the Unite States expanded and pushed out Indian tribes, diminishing some of their culture and claiming their land as our own. We also did the same when expanding the U.S. over parts of Mexico but one difference between Native Americans and Mexicans is that in present time, many still see the Native Americans as being the indigenous inhabitants of North America. People seem to have forgotten that a decent proportion of the South-Western United States was Mexico, making those from Mexico one of the natural inhabitants of the U.S. as well.
 I also think the book also makes a great analysis on the economical relations between immigrants and the labor that they endure here in the U.S. When looking at the labor movements of the past 100 years, we can have a better grasp on the history and politics of the subject in order to better understand some of the immigrant issues that are occurring in the present day.

Migrant Imaginaries

I think Alicia Camcho did a great job detailing the lives of Mexican, Latin America and Carribean people history. I believe some Americans have a hard time understanding the complex issue of immgiration and how it affects the lives of people who had rightful ownership of property and rights, and how striping them of those two compentents hindering them to progress in life. I enjoyed her mentioning woman's movement in developing civil rights most of what we see alot in books and media revolve around male issue struggles and woman are just attached to them because they have to because their men are involved. But I like the seperation between the two genders in the book.

Migrant Imaginaries

I think Alicia Schmidt Camacho did a nice job of showing readers who are anti-immigration a different view point, by showing the viewpoint of immigrants whose people were once pushed out of the United States. Like Avery mentioned in her post, American citizens have the mentality that immigrants are only here to take away their jobs, while in actuality, most of them are here to just provide for their family as well as attempting to take back the land that they once had years ago. Camacho allows her readers to see it through a different lens. Through this book, people can begin to see how Mexicans were pushed out of a land that was truly theirs.

Migrant Imaginaries

I think that migrant imaginaries definitely speaks to anti-immigrant in America. Some Americans tend to think that they should have more say than immigrants when in all reality, they were once the immigrants. In the beginning of our country, 'Pilgrims' came to America and claimed the land that was already occupied by native people. Before the Mexican-American War and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago, what is now South West America, rightfully belonged to Mexico. After the land became apart of American soil, the Mexican people were treated like immigrants on the land they had lived on for generations, just as the Native Americans felt when the 'Pilgrims' came. As Camacho's book points out, there are many double standards given to different races. I found the picture below after searching "we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us." I think it speaks perfectly to the double standards that were held between the different races when it comes to anti-immigration in America.

Migrant Imaginaries

Alicia Schmidt Camacho's book Migrant Imaginaries can speak on anti-immigration sentiments through the unique perspective that she writes from.  She sheds light on the fact that Americans today are not only anti-immigration, but also have a false sense of entitlement.  It reminds me of the discussion we had during the beginning of the semester about West Side Story.  The "Jets" although made up of several different immigrant backgrounds feel they are entitled to the turf because they were there first and are "natives", while the Puerto Rican gang the "Sharks," has just immigrated to the land.  However in Migrant Imaginaries, Camacho portrays the opposite point of view, where these mexican immigrants, who were originally the natives, are being discriminated from land that was originally theirs. American feel entitled to this land because of their dominance in the Mexican-American War.  It is this point of view that coins the phrase "we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us."  In both cases, Camacho reminds us that it is important to remember that (with the exception of American Indians) everyone comes from a background of immigration and that everyone should be entitled to the opportunity to be treated fairly and earn a living in America.

In this scene from West Side Story, the two gangs discuss the terms of a rumble, and argue over the origin of their land dispute.  Members from both gangs throw around racial slurs, and ask each other "who asked you to move here?":

West Side Story

Migrant Imaginaries

The author does an excellent job of shedding light on an often unheard perspective of the “migrant imaginaries” by using the perspective of those pushed out of the land now owned by the United States. Taking this viewpoint gives a little bit more insight or sort of the “other side” of the story. Often as Americans we only ever hear how immigrants are bad because they take jobs away from us. When really as Camacho shows through the opinions in her book they are only trying to take back the land that was once theirs. The way they (the immigrants/migrants) see it is, they deserve to work in specific parts of the United States including Texas and New Mexico because it was once theirs. The book speaks to anti-immigration sentiment by giving an entirely new perspective on how the immigrants feel about their situation. Opinions are strong on both sides. This book opens up new ideas and gives people who are anti-immigrant a new perspective. Camacho does a good job of giving the readers an opportunity to understand how angry the Mexicans were after being pushed out of the land that was theirs. They are willing to fight to earn it back, the author discusses riots and protests as well as music and performances that all had to do with land rights. Migrant Imaginaries brings a new perspective to what people who are anti-immigrant understand.  

Migrant Sentiment

I think that migrant imaginaries can speak a lot to anti-immigration in the United States.  I think that a lot of times Americans get caught up with how American they are and how they don't want immigrants coming to America to take their jobs, when in actuality, the U.S. soil was the native land to a lot of Mexican immigrants and their ancestors.  I think a lot of times migrant sentiment is the view of opposing immigration due to the fear of immigrants takeover.  A lot of times this is actually quite ironic because we fear the coming of more immigrants to the U.S. when the United States was actually a country built up of freedom and immigrants itself originally. This images just portrays that America is a giant melting pot that was built up by immigrants and the fight for freedom.

Migrant sentiment

I don't think that there is a clear way for migrant imaginaries to reach out and speak to anti-immigration sentiment. in the case of Mexican immigrants, like Camacho is talking about, these immigrants are trying to gain back land that was taken from them and find work. People who are anti-immigrant just think that the immigrants are just trying to take jobs away from "Americans" not realizing the need for the money or even reparations for losing land. If you look at the image below, it shows how much land the Mexican immigrants lost. How is it fair for people to be anti-immigration when these people just want their land back, or even to just have some reparations for what was taken from them?

Migrant Imaginaries

By contextualizing the so called immigration of Mexicans in terms of their history on and with the land, Camacho casts light on an often ignored perspective. By writing from this point of view, she challenges anti-immigration sentiments, suggesting that Mexicans' investment in the SW pre- and post- Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo makes them feel not necessarily ownership of but a right to exist on these lands. As such, much of Camacho's argument deals with how identity as a Mexican significantly derives from land rights, and this identity is expressed through cultural movements and representations (e.g. song and myth). In this way, the book provides an alternative way in which to view the dissonance between what some U.S. citizens see as theirs and what many Mexicans feel they have a right to because of the rich history and involvement with the land. Ultimately, Migrant Imaginaries points out the double standards of anti-immigration sentiment in consideration of the Mexican-American relationship and history.

Racial Mourning

In Migrant Imaginaries, Lehman talks about racial mourning as a reckoning with the forces of racial subjection so that new possibilities for emancipation might emerge for the powerless.

Discussion Question

-Mexico Texan lends its historic voice to numerous studies of Chicano history, which serves as a departure point for conceptualizing Mexican American cultural studies
-They are Migrant Mexican laborer
-May refer to broken English spoken by Texas-Mexican speech
-In context to the Mexican American border with Texas
-As an expression of the Mexico-Texan's state of distress
-Mexico-Texan's received their name by non conforming to or their incapacity to perform within the structures of national belonging

Music on the Border

Atzlan Underground, "Decolonize" Well here's something they missed Self D means self determination To put a stop to colonization We begin with a historical analysis To illustrate a Mexican paralysis See Mexico's been occupied since 1848 Which left the mexicano at a constant 2nd rate Now learn the word called colonization Stranger in your own land under exploitation This is the state of the indigena today Under the oppression of the settlers way (2x) WE DIDN'T CROSS THE BORDERS, THE BORDERS CROSSED US! (3x) YET THE SETTLER NATION LIVES IN DISGUST! The American dream only for some Play the role and forget where you came from Now check it, this is their reality And just because it's wasp holds no validity WASP-White Anglo Saxon Protestant The frame of mind that keeps our oppression constant You try to be white and it's very respectable But be Xicano and it's highly unacceptable Then we're termed hispanic as if we were from Spain Trying to insert us in the American game And we're called wetbacks like we've never been here When our existence on this continent is thousands of Years This is the state of the indigena today Under the oppression of the settlers way (2x) WE DIDN'T CROSS THE BORDERS, THE BORDERS CROSSED US (3x) YET THE SETTLER NATION LIVES IN DISGUST ­ repeat To the earth, to the air, to the fire, and to the Water... The eagle and condor have met We must realize Our connection to this land Till a Hopi and a Mexica can really understand That invaders divided indigenous people Under english, french, or spanish it make us all feeble Unable to recognize each other From Xicano to Lakota all sisters and brothers In the spirit of Pontiac, all the red keepers of the Earth mother From the top of Alaska to the tip of South America Abya Yala, Anahuak, Turtle Island 506 years of indigenous resistance The prophecies are coming true The redemption of the red people has come! The 6th sun now arises The 7th fire has arrived Cihuatl is reclaiming We have returned to Aztlan We have returned to Aztlan! WE DIDN'T CROSS THE BORDERS, THE BORDERS CROSSED US (3x) YET THE SETTLER NATION LIVES IN DISGUST! GET THE *&^%, GET THE *&^%, GET THE *&^% WASICHU EATER OF THE FAT WASTER OF EARTH MOTHER AND PEOPLE COLONIZER OF AZTLAN AND THE WORLD GET THE FUCK OUT! Rage Against the Machine, "Zapata's Blood" "Zapata's Blood" Zapata's blood Wasn't spilt in vain So now the most poor wage war To reclaim their name Zapata's blood Wasn't spilt in vain So now the most poor wage war To reclaim their terrain On January 1st , 1994 The indigenous farmers of Southern Mexico Declared war on an unjust and illegitimate government Out of the debt of the most wild, the most poor Came a just arm struggle for democracy, justice, and liberty And it won't stop until that 65 year old dictatorship, the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (Institutional Revolutionary Party) is buried in the ground and the people's voice is heard once again Yeah So check it out: On January 1st, of 94 they became known as the Zapatista movement And they have a saying, and I want you all to sing along with me real quick. It goes something like this It goes everything for everyone... and nothing for ourselves. Everything for everyone, and nothing for ourselves. Everything for everyone, and nothing for ourselves. Everything for everyone, and nothing for ourselves. Yeah, sing that shit... Everything for everyone, and nothing for ourselves. Everything for everyone, and nothing for ourselves. Everything for everyone, and nothing for ourselves. Everything for everyone, and nothing for ourselves...

I believe that Panethnicity is a great combatant to racial lumping, but it is important to consider each individual circumstance. The Asian-American community combined to confront and express their interest with better representation as a group in the US census. However they were unwilling to accept a grouping as Asian/Pacific Islander which would give better representation. This example i believe is counterproductive to the idea of panethnicity. The Asian-American community viewed it as a textbook example of racial lumping, but in achieving their stated goal, better representation in the census, they battled for an option which would not unify the asian american community or help them achieve their stated goal.

An important factor to consider is the homogenous living situations many Asian-American immigrants came from. Many Asian countries are almost exclusively represented by ethnic backgrounds shared by all the people of the specific country. So the idea of unifying as a panethnic group in the United States to split interests must be difficult at times.

Panethnicity

*Is panethnicity an appropriate or useful response to racial lumping and discrimination?

I think that pan-ethnicity is an appropriate response to racial lumping because while racial lumping isn't always seen by all sides as something good I think it places a positive spin on things. Pan-ethnicity is defined as a political neologism used in multicultural societies for the grouping together and collective labeling of various independently distinguishable, self-identified and self-sustained ethnicities into an all encompassing group of people. I think that the term pan-ethnicity helps the Asian-American groups come together and sort of stand up against racism. Because there are so many different Asian ethnicities in America grouping them together and calling it "pan-ethnicity" I feel gives the Asian-Americans strength. This is because it is hard for them to find an identity individually but together they can find a group identity and possibly become stronger through a pan-ethnic group.

Panethnicity

Is panethnicity an appropriate or useful response to racial lumping and discrimination?

Panethnicity is a way of grouping a population of people based on their similar cultures, ideas, beliefs, etc. That being said, I do think it is a good way to respond to racial lumping and discrimination. The idea of panethnicity gives the different Asian-American populations a way of defining themselves without the negative connotations they may receive from other racial and ethnic groups. As Espiritu talks about in the books, Asian-Americans sometimes have a hard time being heard on important matters because of their ethnicity. Panethnicity can have a positive or negative impact on the different groups of Asian-Americans.

Panethnicity

Is panethnicity an appropriate or useful response to racial lumping and discrimination?

I would in some ways agree and disagree with the idea that panethnicity is appropriate or a useful response to racial lumping and discrimination. Panethnicity may be a good response to these things because it is simply a way to identify a large group of the population based on the commonalities that they share and often embrace. One benefit that could be seen by doing this is that often times the bigger your group is the louder your voice will be heard. Espiritu brought up the fact that many times Asian American cultures struggled to make their voices heard in a variety of places such as politics, but with grouping together in larger numbers it's makes it easier for them to stand out. Panethnicity may be seen as negative however, because you are not seeing the individual differences of the people within in this mass grouping of people, you are simply seeing the main commonalities amongst them. So some may say they lose some of their personal identity by using the response of panethnicity.

Panethnicity

There isn’t really a distinctive answer to this question. On one hand, panethnicity may be one of the least harmful ways to identify a group of people based on the fact that this is more of a chosen identity rather than forced on them. It is a way for these people to have an instant connection to those within the same panethnicity.  And since there is strength in numbers, having a voice as an Asian American is going to be more effective then having a voice as a Filipino. Espiritu did bring up problems with that system also. With the top Asian ethnicities, Chinese and Japanese, having a bigger voice and their ideas getting pushed ahead. But, at least there is some kind of voice coming from this group rather than being pushed to the side. On the other hand, lumping and grouping in any form can cause a loss in specific identities. For example, while Chinese and Japanese are both considered Asian American they still have many cultural differences. But since these ethnicities are lumped together in one group, their unique identities are lost within the typical stereotypes placed on Asians of all ethnicities. Like the cartoon below, when these unique identities are taken away, people start to assume that all within a group are the same; they like the same things, they think the same and are just generally the same. Which is a problem.

Pan-ethnicity

Panethnicity can be seen as a good response to racial lumping and discrimination, at least in the political aspects of things, because it helps to give the group representation in large numbers.  On the other hand, the downside of that means that people have to subscribe to what the group is supposed to believe, limiting political freedom.  It is a way of forcing people to believe in panethnicity by saying that if you don't follow the group and what they believe your won't be heard.

Out of the political realm I think that panethnicity is in no way helpful to combat discrimination.  I think that people should identify with their own ethnic identities.  When not talking about political issues people should be saying, "I'm Korean American," or "I'm an Estonian American."  People should have pride in themselves and the cultures they came from and not lump themselves into groups unless they feel the group represents who they are culturally.  Panethnicity can be seen as racial lumping by people who want to be lumped to get representation.  In the end pan-ethnicity is useful depending on when it is used.

Is panethnicity an appropriate or useful response to racial lumping and discrimination?

I would have to say both yes and no. One on hand, panethnicity works to create a group of people who may share some similar qualities. These qualities could be regional, religious, physical features, and other tidbits, which can work to unify people. But within that grouping, it is also very vague. Asian-Americans are often lumped together because of their regional background and their physical features. Smaller characteristics do not seem to be as widely recognized. An example could be that often many Asian countries vary in their customs and beliefs, such as the Japanese culture would differ from Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean. However, since they are regionally close, and share similar characteristics, they all lumped together into a large sum of people. So to me it is both a good and bad response. pan ethnicity works to see a group of people as different and acknowledges their difference, but it does so vaguely, not recognizing the more deep categories that are just being thrown together into one big group. I want to say It may even take away the individuality of a certain country's religion and culture by giving a broad label to their people.

Professor Whaley Post: Asian American Panethnicity, Chapters 6 & 7 Discussion

Discussion Questions Chapters 6 & 7: 1. According to Espiritu, what type of anti Asian violence took place in the mid-20th century and why? (135) What forms of intimidation were used and how were these ideas perpetuated through visual culture and material artifacts? 139 2. According to Espiritu, what year did Asian American ethnic groups begin to obtain full rights (136) 3. How did class struggle facilitate anti Asian sentiment? (137) Is this struggle still prevalent today? 4. Espiritu notes that European investments in the 1980s outweighed Asian investments, yet a good portion of Americans believed differently and had anti Asian attitudes as a result. Why do you think European investments are seen differently than Asian investments in the US economy? How does this compare or contrast to the issue of outsourcing and the US “debt” to China? 5. Describe these three incidents, why they happened, and what they say about the ramifications of racial lumping and hate crimes: • Vincent Chin (141-154) • Southeast Asian Children Killings (155-157) • Jim Loo Case (157-160) Reading Notes: • Asian Americans are threatened for the actions or perceived actions of those who may look like or who are perceived to look them 134 • Vincent Chin: a Chinese American male beaten to death because he was mistaken for Japanese in 1982 • Anti-Chinese sentiment dates back to the 19th century, wherein Chinese were stoned and their shops vandalized; violent acts went un-punished since no Chinese American was allowed to testify against white Americans (1854 Law). • Resource and economic competition a source of anti-Asian sentiment t 137 • Anti Asian bumper stickers, English only signs, and buy American campaigns are direct and indirect forms of discrimination 139 • European investment in US outweighs Asian, yet the perception among racialists is that there is an overinvestment in the US among Asian groups 139 • Ebens and Nitz were given lenient sentences for beating Chin to death with a baseball bat (3 years probation) 141 • Public display of defacement of cars from Asia was commonplace in the late 1980s • Activists knew that when one Asian American is targeted all are threatened because of dis-identification and racial lumping • Southeast Asian elementary school children murdered by Jim Purdy • Jim Loo, a Chinese American, murdered (pistol whipped in a pool hall) for being mistaken as Vietnamese by two white men, Robert and Lloyd Piche 157 • Pan Asian organizations can breed pan Asian consciousness • Sub group identities are important, making pan Asian solidarity not always feasible or desirable • Pan-ethnicity is reactive and creative Recent anti Asian violence • David Kao (Chinese American robbed and murdered in 2009) • Balbir Singh Sodhi (one of many South Asians beaten/killed in post-9/11 disidentification crimes) • 2013 incident at Columbia University where a student was harassed: http://gothamist.com/2013/05/09/columbia_hate_crime_victim_allegedl.php#. • 5 Asian women between 50-71 assaulted in NY City in 2010 and deemed hate crimes • In 2000, In Spokane, Washington, two white men and a woman specifically hunted random Japanese women in an elaborately planned scheme to kidnap, rape, sodomize, torture and videotape them. • In 2012, at least three women were raped by a rapist targeting Asian American women in Saint Louis; other serial rapists have been identified in CA and NY. More: http://www.oocities.org/tarorg/hatecrimes.html April 30, 2000: Anil Thakur, 31; Thao Q. “Tony” Pham, 27, Ji-Ye Sun, 34, Richard Baumhammers was charged in a shooting spree; on Baumhammer’s computer, investigators found a document calling for the creation of “The Free Market Party: dedicated to the concerns of European Americans.” August 10, 1999: Joseph “JoJo” Ileto, 39, a Pilipino American postal carrier in Los Angeles, was shot nine times in the chest and back of the head by Buford Furrow. Furrow said he killed Ileto because he looked Asian or Hispanic and because he was a federal employee making him “a good target of opportunity.” Earlier that day, Furrow also sprayed 70 bullets into a Jewish community center wounding five. Based upon a book found in Furrow’s van, police believe that he was carrying out a white-supremacist self-initiation ritual. Furrow had ties to Aryan Nations and The Order dating back a decade. The U.S. Attorney has filed hate crime murder charges against Furrow. July 4, 1999: Won Joon Yoon, 26, a Korean graduate student in Indiana, was shot as he was leaving church by Benjamin Smith, a white supremacist associated with the World Church of the Creator. April 29, 1997: Kuan Chung Kao, 33, a Chinese American engineer, was shot by Rohnert Park police Jack Shields and Mike Lynch responding to a call for disturbing the peace. Based upon his ethnicity and his carrying a stick, Shields believed Kao to be a martial arts expert and killed him within 34 seconds of arriving at the Kao home. May 3, 1996: Thien Minh Ly, 24, a Vietnamese American with a masters degree from Georgetown, died after being stabbed more than 24 times at a neighborhood tennis court by two “white supremacist types” as described by the police. Gunner Lindberg later bragged to a friend, “Oh, I killed a Jap a while ago.” November 8, 1995: Eddy Wu, a Chinese American, is attacked outside a supermarket in Novato, Calif., by an attacker who reportedly tells police that he wanted to “kill a Chinaman.” June 18, 1995: Thanh Mai, 23, was with two other Vietnamese American friends at a nightclub in Alpine Township, Michigan, when he was accosted by a group of young white males calling him a “gook.” When Mai tried to walk away, Michael Hallman hit him in the face causing him to fall to the ground with such force that his skull split open. Mai died five days later from major head trauma. May 1994: Tuong Phan, a Vietnamese American was outside his home in Westminster, Calif., when a man yelling racial slurs beats him with a four-foot long stick. August 14, 1993: Sophy Soeung and Sam Nhang Nhem, two Cambodian Americans who were attacked outside their apartment by several white men who call them “gooks.” Nhem dies shortly afterward. Harold Latour is found guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Two others are also charged in Soeung’s beating. August 15, 1992: Luyen Phan Nguyen, 19, a Vietnamese American pre-med student in Coral Springs, Fla., was beaten to death by a mob of white youths who called him “Chink” and “Viet Cong.” In that case, Bradley Mills is sentenced to 50 years in prison. In 1994, William Madalone, Terry Jamerson and Christopher Anderson are convicted of second-degree murder.

Panethnicity a useful response to racial lumping?

Panethnicity is ultimately is a cultural group that is made up of people from several different and distinct ethnic and national backgrounds. This can be both good for Asian Americans as it is a way to identify with one another and unite as a powerful unite but I also see it as being very problematic and not the greatest way to go up against discrimination.  Instead of seeing Asians with unique cultural backround it puts all ethnicities together.  It is also problematic because of the stigma that remains today of Asian subgroups being outsiders, immigrants, and during economic struggles, people to point blame towards for lack of jobs.  With panethnicity trying to cover all of these ethnicities it also puts those stigmas on everyone.  This goes along with the occidental gaze or seeing a group through Western views of the world often incorrectly.

There are many stereotypes of Asians include the strict, rigidity Asian parents have on their children and they are usually really smart. Even if Asians were born in the US they are seen always as foreigners who struggle with the English language.  Women are either seen as weak and only follow in men's footsteps or they are overly sexualized. Media plays a huge role when re-iterating stereotypes of Asian Americans and another aspect of this is that there are minimal roles for Asians to play in movies in the first place.  This allows people to stereotype even more.  An example of Asian stereotypes in the media is the movie 21 and Over. In this film the Asian is seen as a straight A student trying to get into med school and holds back from going out with his friends initially.  He does but is blacked out and unresponsive for a majority of the film showing that Asians rarely have a large role in the film.  It also never mentions what ethnicity he is and mostly Americanizes the character. There are several moments throughout the film that highlight Asian stereotypes but this clip is of his strict father making sure he gets to his interview on time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwyjBL53Mc4

Panethnicity as a Response to Discrimination

I think that for certain reasons panethnicity could be viewed as appropriate or a useful response to racial lumping and discrimination. I think that in many ways it does gives Asian Americans a bigger sense of power and identity within the United States. They are able to come together in politics to better voice their opinions but in the same sense they are not individually able to represent their Chinese, Japanese, or Vietnamese identities. Stripping away different traditions and cultures is like taking away who that person is. If they are all considered Asian American, they are only thought of as such instead of even being considered Japanese, Vietnamese, or Filipino. It seems like a lose-lose situation.

Is Panethnicity Useful?

Personally, panethnicity is not a useful or appropriate response to racial lumping and discrimination. Espiritu mentions in her book that the two most common ethnicities people associate Asian-Americans with are either Chinese or Japanese. It isn’t fair for other Asian ethnicities and cultures to be grouped together with these two cultures, label it “panethnicity” and call it a day because that term is “politically correct.” In my experience, when people assume that I’m either Chinese or Japanese, I get upset. Instead of asking me what ethnicity I am, they decide to lump me into a certain nationality.

As we talked about in class, many Asian Americans are under represented in movies, TV shows, and media in general. And if they are in movies or TV shows, Asian Americans are characterized as just by their race, not their ethnicity. They are just labeled as “Asian” instead of “Filipino,” “Vietnamese,” or “Cambodian.”

The following clip (starting from 1:35 to 1:50) is from the show Glee, when the two Asian students are called up by "Asian" and "other Asian." [I understand it's supposed to be funny, not going to lie, I laughed myself, but it suited the topic of discussion]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoo94KjK3LI

Panethnicity and Racial Lumping

I think that panethnicity is an appropriate response to racial lumping and discrimination because it gives Asian Americans a sense of cultural identity and importance in the United States.  I think it is beneficial because a lot of times minorities are not well represented in the United States.  With panethnicity it allows a large numbers of Asian Americans to be represented and have a voice in society and politics.

I do think that there is still some problems with the concept of panethnicity.  I think that if you step back and take a larger look at the idea, it can be taken as a form of lumping or racism.  I think it depends on what person you are asking.  To me, a caucasian male, panethnicity seems to be like a good idea because it gives Asian Americans a voice and representation.  But, to an Asian American or another minority it may be seen as another form of racism and discrimination against minorities in the United States.

Panethnicity or Stereotyping?

In my opinion, panethnicity is not an appropriate response to racial lumping and discrimination.  To me, panethnicity seems like a milder form of racism and stereotyping. In Asian American Panethnicity, Espiritu states that "Asian American primarily meant Chinese or Japanese American" (pg. 50).  Because Chinese and Japanese Americans are the two most recognizable groups due to both the size of their population and there relative history in the United States, the political issues and values that they raise are often misrepresented as the political views of the whole Asian American panethnic group, which includes several smaller nationalities such as Korean and Filipino. For example, Korean and Filipino women were very under represented during the Asian American women's movement, as the needs of Chinese and Japanese women were primarily attended to (Espiritu pg. 51). 

However, this kind of misrepresentation did not end with political issues. Chinese and Japanese Americans were primarily hired for jobs that required Asian American insight such as ethnic studies teachers for example (Espiritu pg. 51).  Panethnicity also became a problem during several of the wars fought throughout the 20th century.  Because of WW2, Korean, and Vietnam all being fought against nationalities that fell under the "Asian American" panethnic group, members of the group that were not of the enemy nationality struggled to convince Americans that they were not the enemy.  Racial slurs such as "gook" were used to demean all members of the panethnic group rather than just that of the enemy nationality.

Panethnicity

I think that panethnicity is a useful response to discrimination and racial lumping. It could help make people feel less hated because they wouldn't be picked on. However, I do think that panethnicity is still a problem. Like we talked about in class, certain ethnic groups may feel left out when being placed within other ethnicities. For a person to feel wanted and good about themselves they should be able to identify with whatever ethnicity they so choose. There are a lot of ethnicities that people mix up, like most Asian cultures. Because people can't tell the difference most of the time, they assume that they are all the same. If people were to gain the knowledge of different ethnicities I think this would solve the problem of racial lumping and panethnicity. However, I think that there will still be discrimination whether panethnicity or racial lumping is used. People are going to hate based on how they view others.

Does panethnicity work?

Like just about everything, panethnicity seems to be useful in some cases and detrimental in others. For example, in order to garner representation in the political sphere, it was appropriate for Asian ethnicities to unite panethnically. However, this often results in Japanese Americans and Chinese Americans dominating the Asian American demographic, whereas smaller groups like Filipino Americans became "unseen." As such, panethnicity can result in reinforcing the notions behind racial lumping, putting all Asian Americans into a group of predominately Japanese and Chinese representation and ignoring the individual (and often very different) concerns of groups like Filipino Americans (e.g. being a small ethnic minority and not getting the necessary welfare funding or being paid less despite having the same amount of education as J.A. and C.A.). Ultimately, panethnic formation does many of the same things racial discrimination does in not seeing difference and not acknowledging that different ethnic groups face different issues. While I'm tempted to say that panethnicity should be used only in cases in which those issues are common of all Asian groups, I don't think any such case would truly arise because there is always going to be variation among and between ethnicities.

Video on racial lumping--gets to his main point at 3:54: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NH0o_Eb6DY

Cartoons and Children

 

One of the most important part of being a child is to sit in the mornings and watch cartoons and laugh at the silly pranks and jokes our favorite cartoon characters perform. But when does watching cartoons actually become a problematic concern for children. And what do cartoons these days actually promote  that Lehman see's as a problem for young children?

When I think about cartoons and how they teach young children I think some recent cartoons are inappropriate for handling race and stereotypes in television. Cartoons are suppose to consume time to keep kids out of trouble for a couple of hours, not teach kids how to curse or use race or sex as nuances for laughable purpose. This gets at the real issue that parents need to teach their kids the importance of what they see on TV and filter their minds. I think organizations like the Civil Rights Movement were right to boycott cartoons because they taught young children that blacks and other minorities were just silly, lazy, violent creatures, and children pick up on these ideas and carry them and spread them to friends and then they form wrong ideas about certain social class groups. The trend that's new in media is the use of sex in cartoons and how its the new norm, but this is just as bad as using overly rated racial stereotypes in cartoons. The problem is that this stuff sells not a lot but its want the audience wants and needs to see to make a show a hit. So it will be interesting to see where cartoons head in the future and what  problems they might encounter for their young audiences.

Animated movies and TV shows affect on children

To answer the question in short, I think that yes animated films and television shows have the power to shape the impressions of young children. When we are children we are all extremely impressionable, most things children see and hear tends to be modeled after something they saw done by someone else. When you are young most of the shows that are suitable for children that age are cartoons or animated movies. For me when I was young I think that I watched every Disney princess animated movie at least a hundred times as a child. (This is where I blame my silly idea of wanting to be a princess when I grow up!) So to use myself as an example, then yes animated movies and shows had shaped me into believing that I could actually be a princess when I grew up which I quickly learned was not the case.
Children seem to be the most impressionable because they are young and don't know what to believe. So it is easy to understand that the more children view any type of animated film, whether it is a Disney princess or the Tom and Jerry cartoons what they see on a regular basis can begin to loosely shape their actions. At the same time the cartoons are shaping their impressions and the way they act, it could begin to shape the stereotypes they believe in.

Influence of Animated Films

While I can definitely see how animated films would have the potential to shape a young child’s mind, I don’t think that it would be correct to say that they 100% do. What a child sees/interprets compared to what an adult sees/interprets, is going to be very different.  And even if the animated film creator has certain ideologies and beliefs that bubble into their creation, the probability of a child picking up on it is probably very small. But with all that said if a child is constantly watching shows and films with violent tendencies or inappropriate words, I can definitely see how that might affect their personality. Same thing goes with little girls wanting to be princesses and the idea that they have to find their prince. 

In the end, I feel, it all depends on what the child is watching and how long they watch it. If a child is sitting in front of the TV all day watching cartoons, then maybe they will be more likely to pick up on the subtle influences because that is what they are exposed to for such a large amount of time.