Contemporary Asian America (third edition)

A Multidisciplinary Reader

Min Zhou, Anthony C. Ocampo

• Publisher: NYU Press
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781479822782
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Asian American Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

Who are Asian Americans? Moving beyond popular stereotypes of the “model minority” or “forever foreigner,” most Americans know surprisingly little of the nation’s fastest growing minority population. Since the 1960s, when different Asian immigrant groups came together under the “Asian American” umbrella, they have tirelessly carved out their presence in the labor market, education, politics, and pop culture. Many times, they have done so in the face of racism, discrimination, sexism, homophobia, and socioeconomic disadvantage. Today, contemporary Asian America has emerged as an incredibly diverse population, with each segment of the community facing its unique challenges.

When Contemporary Asian America was first published in 2000, it exposed its readers to the formation and development of Asian American studies as an academic field of study, from its inception as part of the ethnic consciousness movement of the 1960s to the systematic inquiry into more contemporary theoretical and practical issues facing Asian America at the century’s end. It was the first volume to integrate a broad range of interdisciplinary research and approaches from a social science perspective to assess the effects of immigration, community development, and socialization on Asian American communities. This updated third edition discusses the impact of September 11 on Asian American identity and citizenship; the continued influence of globalization on past and present waves of immigration; and the intersection of race, gender, sexuality, and class on the experiences of Asian immigrants and their children. The volume also provides study questions and recommended supplementary readings and documentary films. This critical text offers a broad overview of Asian American studies and the current state of Asian America.

Part I

Claiming Visibility

The Asian American Movement

1

“On Strike!”

San Francisco State College Strike, 1968–1969: The Role of Asian American Students

KAREN UMEMOTO

The sixth of November, nineteen hundred and sixty-eight. Few thought this would mark the first day of the longest student strike in American history. Student leaders of the San Francisco State College Third World Liberation Front marched with their demands for an education more relevant and accessible to their communities. Their tenacity engaged the university, the police, and politicians in a five-month battle giving birth to the first School of Ethnic Studies in the nation. Batons were swung and blood was shed in the heat of conflict. But this violence was only symptomatic of the challenge made by activists to fundamental tenets of dominant culture as manifested in the university. African American, Asian American, Chicano, Latino, and Native American students called for ethnic studies and open admissions under the slogan of self-determination. They fought for the right to determine their own futures. They believed that they could shape the course of history and define a “new consciousness.” For Asian American students in particular, this also marked a “shedding of silence” and an affirmation of identity.

The strike took place against the backdrop of nationwide Third World movements that had a profound impact on the culture and ideology of America. Never before had a convergence of struggles—civil rights, antiwar, women, student, and oppressed nationality—so sharply redefined the social norms of our society. Originating from the call for basic rights, protestors moved on to demand power and self-determination. When the state resisted, activists held to their convictions “by any means necessary.” Though these movements did not produce major changes in the economic or political structure, they strongly affected popular ideology and social relations. They also resulted in the formation of mass organizations and produced a cadre of activists who would continue to pursue their ideals.

The San Francisco State strike was a microcosm of this struggle over cultural hegemony. The focus of the strike was a redefinition of education, which in turn was linked to a larger redefinition of American society. Activists believed that education should be “relevant” and serve the needs of their communities, not the corporations. The redefinition of education evolved from the early 1960s when students initiated programs to broaden the college curriculum and challenge admission standards. They supported the hiring and retention of minority faculty. They demanded power in the institution. When they were met with resistance, activists organized a campus-wide movement with community support for their demands. They built organizations, planned strategies and tactics, and published educational literature. Their activities were rooted in and also shaped more egalitarian relationships based on mutual respect. While this doctrine was not always fully understood nor always put into practice, it was the beginning of a new set of values and beliefs, a “New World Consciousness.”

The emergence of this alternative vision is important to study today for several reasons. First, by understanding the beginnings of this vision, today’s generation of students can revive certain “counterhegemonic” concepts that have been usurped and redefined by those in power. For example, campus administrators have revamped the concept of “self-determination” to the more benign ones of “diversity” and “cultural pluralism.” Thus, the right of a group to decision-making power over institutions affecting their lives has been gutted to the level of “student input” by campus administrators.

Second, studying the strike can deepen our understanding of the process through which ideological currents develop among oppressed groups. Organizers are constantly trying to “raise political consciousness” among the people. But in what ways do the nature of the conflict, methods of organizing, strategy and tactics, propaganda and agitation, and historical factors influence mass consciousness within these movements?

This study analyzes the growth of political consciousness among Asian American students during the San Francisco State strike. I investigate the development of the strike in four stages from 1964 to 1969, defined according to dominant concepts within the movement: (1) 1964–1966—end of the civil rights era marked by the ideals of “racial harmony” and “participatory democracy”; (2) 1966–1967—implementation of programs under the banner of “serve the people” and “self-determination”; (3) fall 1968/winter 1969—struggle “by any means necessary”; and (4) spring/summer 1969—repression of protest and continued “commitment to the community.” These concepts signify trends in ideological development and provide a means of understanding the strike as a seed of a revolutionary transformation in America.

1964–1966: “Racial Harmony” and “Participatory Democracy” and the Civil Rights Era

The civil rights era profoundly impacted the racial ideology of the nation, particularly Third World youth. The dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr. and unsung heroes inspired actions for equality, dignity, and self-respect. The African American movement clearly revealed the deep-rooted, institutionalized nature of racial oppression. Although protests resulted in reforms limited to the legal arena, their impact was felt in all other sectors of society.

Many Asian American students who were later to become active in the strike were moved by the protests. One Pilipino activist, R. Q., volunteered for a federal program on the East Coast:

When I was in VISTA and worked in a black neighborhood. . . . They had riots in New Haven. . . . I came back to State College in ’67, and the black students were at the forefront in wanting programs. . . . I think the black students and the Black Movement of the sixties made a major impact. They laid the groundwork, which made it a lot easier for us.1

The civil rights movement reshaped popular thinking about one’s role in society. One student, B. I., described the impact on him:

It had a very heavy impact because I found that to have anyone listen to you, you had to be forceful, expressing yourself, not being quiet. If you know you are in the right, you have every right to speak up and organize your people to a just cause. So that brought home to me the necessity of organized action, and to verbalize your feelings about what is going on.2

The protests forced President Kennedy to publicly support civil rights. His entrance into the historic March on Washington in 1963 lent federal legitimacy to the idea of racial harmony through integration. The enacting of legislation provided legal sanction for racial equality. Kennedy’s slogan of a “New Frontier” also encouraged youth to participate in American democracy and transform society. This idealism contributed to formations of Students for a Democratic Society and Third World student organizations nationwide.3 Faith in democracy led to initial acceptance of nonviolent protest and to the reform-oriented goals within mass movements.

This idealism manifested itself in experimentation in all aspects of life. What was called “counterculture” was indeed a reshaping of traditional goals, values, and behavior. One activist, I. C., explained this shift:

There was all this emphasis on doing things for other people, such as the Peace Corps. All those ideas were instilled in us . . . “doing something, giving back to society.” You couldn’t just live for yourself. And I think that influenced my participation in the strike more than anything.4

Prior to 1963, student activism at San Francisco State centered around these themes. Students joined a 1960 walk to San Quentin prison against capital punishment, protested at the 1960 House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) hearings, established an outdoor free speech area, joined the 1962 Freedom Rides, and organized lunch counter sit-ins at a local Mel’s Drive-In. But 1963–1964 also saw the assassination of Medgar Evers, the murder of four black children in an Alabama church bombing, the murder of three Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) workers, and preparation for an escalation in the war in Vietnam. These and other conflicts provided the context for a growing student movement.

Meanwhile, the slogan of racial harmony clashed with the reality of racial conflict. Asian Americans faced discrimination, especially in the areas of education, employment, and housing. A. S. described going to school in Stockton, California:

I went to Franklin because of where I lived. But Edison was . . . [a] minority school, our kissing cousin school—many Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, Mexicans, and Blacks. Franklin had more poor Whites. . . . You were told where to go. . . . There was a strict code that was enforced.5

For J. M., a growing awareness of racism caused conflicts within herself which altered life goals:

I was going with a white man whom I met at Berkeley, whom I eventually married. And so I don’t know how to explain this to you, it seems very disorganized and very chaotic, but at the same time I was aspiring to be White, wanting a white child, wanting to marry a white man, I was simultaneously being impacted by all of these events that were challenging me as an Asian woman.6

B. I. was like the vast majority of students at San Francisco State who came from the ranks of the working class. He was a farmworker while in high school:

I spent some time in Fairfield, stoop labor, so I knew what they were saying about the low wages, and the twelve to fourteen-hour day. . . . I learned later on that Pilipinos were involved in organizing the first farmworkers’ strike. And that made me very proud. . . .7

Several strike activists were with the US armed forces in Asia and faced racial hostilities. E. D. C., who became involved with Pilipinos in the strike, described an instance where he was used to “play an agent enemy, in other words, a gook or whatever.”8

Although it is difficult to determine if those who understood racism were more disposed to strike involvement or if their involvement sensitized them to racial issues or both, it is clear that racial cleavages were at the center of the Asian American experience.

Student-Initiated Programs

The period 1964 to 1966 saw the development of student-run programs to address racial issues and other social concerns. These programs functioned within the university as alternative schools or “counterhegemonic sites” through which many students developed ideas running counter to prevailing paradigms.

The initial programs included the Fillmore Tutorial, the Community Involvement Program, the Experimental College, and the Work-Study Program. They were initiated with Associated Student government monies under its president, Tom Ramsey, a socialist, who wanted to use the $400,000 budget for community work.9

The Fillmore Tutorial was an African American–initiated program that tutored youth in the Fillmore District of San Francisco. The Community Involvement Program was an outgrowth of this. Students organized community activities including graphic arts workshops, a housing and job co-op, and support activities for the National Farmworkers Association and the Delano strike.10

The Experimental College offered alternative courses on topics including “Perspective on Revolution,” “Urban Action,” and “Competition and Violence.” One outgrowth was the Work-Study Program, which was later renamed the Community Services Institute in 1968. A 1966 statement declared that education should be redefined to be relevant to community needs, to equip people to control their lives, and to teach that knowledge came from work in the community.11

These programs became increasingly popular. By fall 1966, the college had approximately fifteen courses with three hundred students; by spring 1967, there were sixty courses with eight hundred students;12 and by fall 1968, nine experimental colleges existed in the ei...