03-17-2021, 04:11 PM
Here is a quote from Dino's article:
In the 19th century, white colonizers moved Westward, propelled by a vision of manifest destiny and seizing land from the original Native inhabitants. But it was Asian workers who built the infrastructure crucial to the West’s economic growth: railroads, farms, mines, canals.
Is it possible that references to "the West" here just mean the U.S. West, cowboys and stuff? E.g., the author does not say the "railroads, farms, mines, canals" of "Western Civilization" or "Western Culture."
"White" not Black or Latino, colonizers are referenced. Some historical bits . . .
. . . owing to a 1854 California Supreme Court decision, Asians were not allowed to testify in court. “Whites could practice violence on communities of color without consequence,” says Jason Oliver Chang, a historian at the University of Connecticut. “It’s a signal to the larger community about who belongs, and who faces consequences.”
This seems to make anti-Asian racism all about whites. I am guessing that is because the Chinese in question did not have the power to control the laws in their favor.
Also,
As the conversation turns toward addressing anti-Asian hate, many Asian Americans are forced to grapple with the larger question of race in the U.S., including racism within Asian communities. Last year vividly illuminated racism’s role in police killings and coronavirus inequities. “It’s so important to think about this violence not as perpetrated as lone individuals,” Man* said. “It’s not exceptional. It’s a symptom of a violence that is also impacting other racialized people and BIPOC communities.”
Looks like a recognition that "All sides do it."
Seems these historian types are always seeking to understand racial violence in historical terms, especially the history of institutional/legal control. And I am curious as to what others in the forum think about this. If one wanted to address racism as a problem in need of solution, does it help to understand the history of racism and the institutional leverages which have distributed its effects unequally in the U.S.? Let's assume that many or all of the Chinese impacted by the unfavorable laws mentioned above may have also held racially unfavorable views of whites. If the whole issue were only about distributing blame, then perhaps that recognition would be "nuff said." If blame is the problem, then problemed solved. But what if ongoing discrimination, including acts of violence, is the problem? Should recognition that racism is not all white render us incurious about causes and effects of that discrimination in the U.S. today, especially where it may be rooted in law, housing and even geography?
*The "Man" referred to here would be Simeon Man, historian of race at the University of California Sand Diego, author of Soldiering through War, a book about the racial politics of the U.S. post-War Pacific "empire." https://www.amazon.com/Soldiering-Through-Empire-American-Crossroads/dp/0520283368
In the 19th century, white colonizers moved Westward, propelled by a vision of manifest destiny and seizing land from the original Native inhabitants. But it was Asian workers who built the infrastructure crucial to the West’s economic growth: railroads, farms, mines, canals.
Is it possible that references to "the West" here just mean the U.S. West, cowboys and stuff? E.g., the author does not say the "railroads, farms, mines, canals" of "Western Civilization" or "Western Culture."
"White" not Black or Latino, colonizers are referenced. Some historical bits . . .
. . . owing to a 1854 California Supreme Court decision, Asians were not allowed to testify in court. “Whites could practice violence on communities of color without consequence,” says Jason Oliver Chang, a historian at the University of Connecticut. “It’s a signal to the larger community about who belongs, and who faces consequences.”
This seems to make anti-Asian racism all about whites. I am guessing that is because the Chinese in question did not have the power to control the laws in their favor.
Also,
As the conversation turns toward addressing anti-Asian hate, many Asian Americans are forced to grapple with the larger question of race in the U.S., including racism within Asian communities. Last year vividly illuminated racism’s role in police killings and coronavirus inequities. “It’s so important to think about this violence not as perpetrated as lone individuals,” Man* said. “It’s not exceptional. It’s a symptom of a violence that is also impacting other racialized people and BIPOC communities.”
Looks like a recognition that "All sides do it."
Seems these historian types are always seeking to understand racial violence in historical terms, especially the history of institutional/legal control. And I am curious as to what others in the forum think about this. If one wanted to address racism as a problem in need of solution, does it help to understand the history of racism and the institutional leverages which have distributed its effects unequally in the U.S.? Let's assume that many or all of the Chinese impacted by the unfavorable laws mentioned above may have also held racially unfavorable views of whites. If the whole issue were only about distributing blame, then perhaps that recognition would be "nuff said." If blame is the problem, then problemed solved. But what if ongoing discrimination, including acts of violence, is the problem? Should recognition that racism is not all white render us incurious about causes and effects of that discrimination in the U.S. today, especially where it may be rooted in law, housing and even geography?
*The "Man" referred to here would be Simeon Man, historian of race at the University of California Sand Diego, author of Soldiering through War, a book about the racial politics of the U.S. post-War Pacific "empire." https://www.amazon.com/Soldiering-Through-Empire-American-Crossroads/dp/0520283368
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
