Racial
identity construction establishes a line which separates “us” from “them” by
creating boundaries and assigning meaning to those boundaries and the people
described by them. These boundaries and meanings can be asserted internally, by
the group, or they may be assigned externally, by outsiders. They are created
over time and are influenced by a mixture of historical, political, social and
cultural factors which each affect identity construction by varying degrees and
in different ways. Due to the influence of these factors, identity construction
is an ongoing process; boundaries and meanings shift and change in light of new
information, policies, norms and cultural ideals (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007). In
this post I will explain the importance of these historical, political, social
and cultural factors to the development of racialized group identities by
focusing on the racial identity formation of Japanese in Hawai`i and Afrikaners
in South Africa. I will highlight the critical arenas in which construction
occurred and use the examples to illustrate the importance of history to the
creation of racial identity formation.
Racial
identities are, in part, the products of interactions between social actors,
and although construction may occur anywhere within the social realm, there are
six arenas in which these interactions are critical to formation: politics,
labor markets, residential space, social institutions, culture and daily
experience (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007:170). It is within these arenas that boundaries are
created, defined, defended and broken down; it is also where meaning is
ascribed, asserted and internalized—most often within several arenas at
once. It can be difficult to isolate the
effect of one arena from another as they are often linked and overlap, as will
be illustrated within the example of the Japanese in Hawai`i.
In
order to discuss the construction of a group racial identity for Japanese
Americans in Hawai`i, one must have an understanding of the history of the islands.
The children of these
white missionaries began sugar plantations, which would create a white
oligarchy and change the racial and ethnic make-up of the islands forever. Due
to the introduction of European diseases Native Hawaiians were unable to supply
a large enough labor force, so plantation owners used their economic wealth and
political power to bring in laborers from China, Japan and other Asian
countries. Plantation owners segregated their housing by ethnic group because
each group was given different wages and there was fear that these groups would
unite and demand equal wages. In order to distinguish the various ethnic groups
from one another, they instated a system of differently shaped identification
badges (Kinzer, 2006; Okamura, 2008; Miyares, 2008). Through their use of segregation and
classification, plantation owners created two boundaries; the first was racial,
between the Asian plantation workers and the white plantation owners which was
reinforced by a large power differential, it drew a firm line between “us” and
“them” (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007). The
second boundary was along ethnic lines and was reinforced by residential space;
because ethnic groups were segregated in ethnically dense housing it reinforced
ethnic divisions despite the small power differential between the groups
(Cornell and Hartmann, 2007)
The first two generations of Asian laborers on the plantation maintained
separate social institutions (often promoted by the plantation owners), such as
houses of worship and very small amounts of outmarriage. By the third
generation this began to change, the small power differential between the
laborers resulted in the formation of a laborer culture, or “local”
culture—although it would not totally erase the ethnic boundaries that had been
established through segregation (Cornell and Hartman, 2007; Miyares, 2008). What resulted from this “local”
awareness was a stronger understanding of the laborers’ position and status
within the larger culture of Hawai`i, as well as the challenges and
discrimination they faced (Cornell and Hartman, 2007).
By
1905 the Japanese population, with their large numbers (159,000 arrived between
1868 and 1907) had become had become competition for the resident white
population (Okamura, 2000; Takaki, 1982). This resulted in an anti-Japanese
sentiment that took hold of the islands in the early 1900s and remained in
effect through World War II. In the
1930s the question of “The Japanese Problem” was raised and concerns over
Japanese loyalties flamed anti-Japanese sentiment. This discrimination became part of the daily
experience of the Japanese, reinforcing the boundary between not just powerful
whites, but also other “local” groups (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007). Although
there was discussion of deporting or interning Japanese Americans during World
War II, the citizenry of Hawai`i was not behind the movement, and many local
Japanese even enlisted and served overseas.
When
they returned Japanese veterans refused to remain second-class citizens as
their parents were. These veterans were largely responsible for the “Democratic
Revolution” of 1954 when the Democratic Party gained control of both houses of
the territorial legislature from the Republican white oligarchy for the first
time since their overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy (Okamura, 2000). It was
this entry into politics which ultimately paved their path to the middle class by
placing decreasing the power differential between whites and the Japanese. Japanese
Americans did not join the middle class en masse until the 1970s. Currently, Japanese, along
with Chinese and Koreans are at the top of the SES ladder. These groups have a
high rate of intermarriage and intermarriage with whites, their boundaries being
blurred by the now small power differential between them.
Through this discussion of identity formation
one is able to identify how construction occurred within the critical areas and
how these arenas have continued to influence formation. It is also possible to
see how these arenas overlap in their affect on racial identity formation, such
as the labor markets and residential space. It was not any arena in particular
which formed Japanese racial identity, but rather the combination. This is also
evident in Afrikaner identity.
The history of the
Afrikaners begins with the colonization of the southern tip of South Africa ,
the Cape of Good Hope, by Dutch, German and French settlers who described
themselves as “Boers”. These colonizers began to move inland in an attempt to
expand, interacting with assorted African people and in the process created a racial
boundary between themselves and Africans; a strong sense of “us” versus “them”
(Cornell and Hartman, 2007). One aspect
which was central to this boundary was a judgment of worth—the idea that
Europeans were “fundamentally different from” and superior to Africans, the
Boers often enslaved Africans as well (Cornell and Hartman, 2007:137).
After the British
gained control of the Cape and the political arena in 1806 they began to reorganize
Boer political and social institutions. They forced schools to teach English
rather than Afrikaans and used English proficiency tests to exclude the Boer
population for full civic participation, which reinforced the boundaries
between the English and Boer/Afrikaner groups. Animosity between the groups was
furthered by the ideological divide between the British’s liberal policies
toward black Africans and the racist ideology of the Boer/Afrikaners. These
cultural and ideological differences would ultimately lead to exodus of 12,000
Afrikaners from the Cape seeking a life outside of British rule (Cornell and
Hartman, 2007).
This migration resulted in two violent interactions, the
Battle of Blood and The Boer War, both of which contributed for the formation
of the Republic of South Africa (Cornell and Hartman, 2007). Another result of
The Boer War was a more unified and nationalistic Afrikaner racial identity and
in 1948 the National Party was voted in, giving Afrikaners political power
which they used to enact apartheid. Apartheid was a rigid government enforced
system of racial separation based on the racial boundaries created by the
Boer/Afrikaner colonizers and supported by their white supremacist ideology. It
established segregated residential spaces, social institutions and maintained
boundaries through maintained of a large power differential (Cornell and
Hartman, 2007).
The fall of Apartheid has found the power differential
has shifted. Although in a color based system one would think that the
boundaries between whites in South Africa would have blended, but this has not
been the case. The English still hold the majority economic wealth which
allowed them to maintain power, while Afrikaners, now competing in a more
integrated job market, have found the power differential to be increasing in
comparison to other whites and decreasing in comparison to Africans, Coloreds
and Indians (Cornell and Hartman, 2007).
By viewing racial formation through
a historical lens it is possible to see how combinations of critical arenas are
involved in the construction of a group racial identity; allowing one to see
exactly how multidimensional identity formation is. Although racial identity construction
of Japanese in Hawai`i and Afrikaners in South Africa occurs within the same critical
arenas of politics, labor markets, residential space, social institutions,
culture and daily experience, one is able to see how the formation of the two
groups has been distinct to each.
REFERENCES
Cornell, Stephen and Douglas Hartmann. 2007. Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a
Changing World. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
Kinzer, Stephen. 2006. Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawai`i to Iraq. New York: Times Books.
Miyares, I. 2008. “EXPRESSING LOCAL CULTURE IN HAWAI`I.” Geographical Review. 98(4), 513-531.
Okamura, J. 1994. “Why There Are No Asian-Americans in Hawai`i: The Continuing Significance of Local Identity.” Social Process in Hawaii. 35:161-178.
_____. 2000. “Race Relations in Hawai`i during World War II: The Non-internment of Japanese Americans.” Amerasia Journal. 26(2):117-141
______. 2008. "Ethnicity and Inequality in Hawai'i." Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Takaki, Ronald. 1982. “An Entering Wedge: The origins of the sugar plantation and a multi-ethnic working class in Hawaii.” Labor History. 23(1):32-46.
Kinzer, Stephen. 2006. Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawai`i to Iraq. New York: Times Books.
Miyares, I. 2008. “EXPRESSING LOCAL CULTURE IN HAWAI`I.” Geographical Review. 98(4), 513-531.
Okamura, J. 1994. “Why There Are No Asian-Americans in Hawai`i: The Continuing Significance of Local Identity.” Social Process in Hawaii. 35:161-178.
_____. 2000. “Race Relations in Hawai`i during World War II: The Non-internment of Japanese Americans.” Amerasia Journal. 26(2):117-141
______. 2008. "Ethnicity and Inequality in Hawai'i." Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Takaki, Ronald. 1982. “An Entering Wedge: The origins of the sugar plantation and a multi-ethnic working class in Hawaii.” Labor History. 23(1):32-46.
No comments:
Post a Comment