Model minorities versus Black (reverse) racists: Blacks, Asian Americans, & South Philadelphia High

Model minorities versus Black (reverse) racists: Blacks, Asian Americans, & South Philadelphia High

Tamara K. Nopper

December 18, 2009

As a resident of Philadelphia and an Asian American concerned with and engaged in research and writing about Black-Asian relations, I have been following Asian American students’ recent boycott of South Philadelphia High School after almost 30 of them were purportedly physically attacked by a group of Black and Asian students on December 3, 2009. The whole situation makes me sad.  Yet I’m concerned with how Black people are being implicated by some of the media reporting and political support for the students.  Specifically, I am concerned with how some are taking advantage of the situation to promote the all too popular and white supremacist charge of Black reverse racism, even when some of the alleged perpetrators have been identified as Asian American.  In the following I explore the image of Black reverse racism and how some non-Blacks have used this to marshal support for their causes.  I also consider how the Asian American students at South Philadelphia High are being depicted by some of the media and supporters as model minorities in opposition to Black criminals and reverse racists. 

With a record like this, who needs a “wise Latina”?

With a record like this, who needs a “wise Latina”?

Tamara K. Nopper

July 21, 2009

Much has been made about the racist questioning of Sonia Sotomayor during her confirmation hearings that, if all goes well for her supporters, will result in her being the third woman and first Latino/a United States Supreme Court justice. Many of us have been disgusted by the racist nature of the questions that have been directed at Sotomayor, especially by white Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who appeared hell-bent on making Sotomayor pay for describing herself as a “wise Latina.”  In her defense, a broad array of Sotomayor supporters have demanded that we pay less attention to her race and focus more on her record. 

And what is this record?  While Sotomayor, is, to be fair, certainly being strategic as most nominees in her position would be, there are some lingering questions about where she stands.  First, we don’t know much about what, politically, is Sotomayor’s position regarding a woman’s right to abortion, a question she has been able to sidestep throughout her testimony.  Second, let’s look at the record that white Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, one of her most ardent supporters during the hearings, emphasized during his testimony.  As Schumer testified on July 13, 2009:

First, as we will hear in the next few days, Judge Sotomayor puts rule of law above everything else. Given her extensive and even-handed record, I am not sure how any member of this panel can sit here today and seriously suggest that she comes to the bench with a personal agenda. Unlike Justice Alito, she does not come to the bench with a record number of dissents.

Instead, her record shows that she is in the mainstream:

- She has agreed with your Republican colleagues 95 percent of the time;

- She has ruled for the government in 83 percent of immigration cases;

- She has ruled for the government in 92 percent of criminal cases;

- She has denied race claims in 83 percent of cases;

- She has split evenly in a variety of employment cases.

While I have not combed through Sotomayor’s legal decisions and writings as both her supporters and opponents have, Sotomayor did not balk at Schumer’s characterization of her record.  Noticeably, with a few exceptions, neither did progressive writers and websites that have come to Sotomayor’s defense.  Few have commented on what appears to be her highly questionable record as it pertains to social justice.  While we can expect little from judges in general toward this goal, I find it hard to believe that hardly a mention has been made among progressives of Sotomayor denying race claims in 83 percent of the cases. 

Also noticeable is that Sotomayor, as a Latina, has been able to escape the progressive vitriol among those who question the political morality of African Americans. Whereas Black public officials receive a level of scrutiny and ridicule among the left that no other racial group does—how many times have we heard non-Blacks calling Clarence Thomas and Colin Powell an “Uncle Tom” or purposefully butchering and playing with Condoleezza Rice’s name to signify political rejection of their conservatism—Sotomayor has not been subjected to such racial scrutiny and ridicule among progressives.  I’m not interested in having non-Latino/as take the same liberties with Sotomayor that non-Blacks take with African American public officials, but the lack of similar treatment is identifiable.

Instead, many progressives who purport to be interested in racial justice have pushed for us to see Sotomayor as someone with a record, and not simply a race.  Well, if Schumer’s defense of Sotomayor is correct, with a record like this, who needs a “wise Latina” to be a Supreme Court justice?  Are some of us that desperate (or perhaps the word is eager) to have a Latino/a Supreme Court justice?  Is Sotomayor the Latino/a we’ve “been waiting for”?  Or is it that we are so quick to rely on our racial protectionism when evaluating who deserves our political support? 

Obamas’ marriage & the quest for legitimacy

February 1, 2009

 

The election of Barack Obama to the U.S. presidency has been accompanied by non-stop reminders of the love between Barack Obama and Michelle Obama and the social significance of the marriage for American racial and gender politics.  In short, the relationship is supposed to prove to African Americans and non-African Americans alike that there are 1) Black men and Black women who love each other and have “healthy” marriages and happy nuclear families; 2) that a Black man can love a (relatively dark-skinned) Black woman; 3) that “love” and marriage is “possible” for Black women; and 4) that a relatively dark-skinned woman can be a “good mother.”  Such discourse can be found on the airwaves, television commentary, magazines, websites, and the popular buttons worn by many African American women that show the first couple or first family. 

 

Embedded in the discussions is a celebration of President Obama’s choice of a relatively dark-skinned, not-so-skinny, highly-educated, and professionally accomplished Black woman.  When B. Obama’s Blackness was first being widely debated (before he won the primary), I heard many people defend him by pointing out that he was “willing” to marry a dark-skinned Black woman from the south side of Chicago rather than marry outside of his race or an immigrant or biracial Black woman.  For some who are critical of B. Obama, his marriage to M. Obama is treated as a calculated political decision in order to woo Black voters.  In other words, some suspect that Obama purposefully married a dark-skinned, south side Chicago Black woman to be “down.” 

Obama and Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders

December 13, 2008 

There has been little discussion among mainstream media about Obama’s election and Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders (AAPIs).  While I can’t provide a detailed analysis of AAPI party politics or voting patterns, I want to provide an account of a community forum held in Philadelphia’s Chinatown that I attended in mid-October.  Sponsored by Pennsylvania Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders for Obama, the event featured NYC Councilman John Liu and two Asian American politicians from California: Congressman Mike Honda, Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee and Chair of the Asian American Congressional Caucus, and Dr. Judy Chu.  In attendance were several of the old guard Chinatown “community leaders” and a diverse group of AAPIs involved in local and regional politics, with translation provided for the former. 

Three issues stood out.  First, despite the tendency to perceive AAPIs as unconcerned or unwilling to talk about race, the topic was addressed many times at the event.  This was unsurprising since the event was held to bring together a specific racial group.  Also unsurprising but nevertheless troubling was how race was talked about.  The rhetoric was consistent with most AAPI’s uneasiness dealing with racial hierarchies as well as Obama’s emphasis on being “NJB.”  As described to me by one of my African American students at the University of Pennsylvania, some Black students there categorize other Black students as either “JB” or “NJB”: “just Black” or “not just Black,” with the latter being those who identify as African or Caribbean.

 

The story behind the story: reflections on past writings

December 4, 2008

For those interested, you can read two of my academic publications here; they are “The 1992 Los Angeles Riots and the Asian American Abandonment Narrative as Political Fiction” and “Why Black Immigrants Matter: Re-focusing the Discussion on Racism and Immigration Enforcement.” 

There are always stories behind what we write.  With both of these articles, I found data that was rarely ever used but relatively easy to access.  In the case of the Los Angeles Riots article, I rarely saw in print any mention of how the federal government publicly responded to the riots.  While the 1992 Los Angeles Riots is indeed a watershed moment in the articulation of post-civil rights discourse, state organization (police, military, and funding), and Asian American identity politics and activism, research and popular writings did not present much data about how then president George H.W. Bush responded. 

One day I began searching on the internet, putting in keywords such as “Bush and the 1992 Los Angeles Riots.”  What came up were Bush’s public library and several speeches he gave immediately following the events in the greater Los Angeles area.  My article examines 17 of these speeches.  A general weakness of the article is that in one section, I draw from military documents without being critical enough of official state accounts regarding the political in-fighting between then police chief Daryl Gates and military officials.  While this in-fighting may explain some of the LAPD’s response, in-fighting does not necessarily explain why some groups are rescued and others are not—in-fighting is often suspended to assuage white suffering.  Despite this limitation, I do, however, attempt to reframe the notion of Asian Americans as sacrificed than what is typically presented in most Asian Americanist work on the riots. 

Obama’s ‘race speech’ as neoslave narrative

Obama’s ‘race speech’ as neoslave narrative

 

By Tamara K. Nopper

 

October 15, 2008

 

This presentation was given at the panel “No country for old white men: A panel discussion on race and the election” sponsored by the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) and held at the Temple University Law School on October 15, 2008. 

 

***********************************

 

In a phone interview with Anna Deavere Smith and Thulani Davis, scholar, activist, and former political prisoner Angela Y. Davis remarks: “I was saying to my students just the other day that if in 1970, when I was in jail…I don’t think it would have been possible at that time to convince me that I would be absolutely opposed to a Black candidate.”  The specific candidate that Davis was referring to was Clarence Thomas and her comments would be published in the book based on the 1992 play Fires in the Mirror.  Referring to the spectacle of the 1991 Thomas-Anita Hill hearings, she concludes, “This is a very complicated situation, but I have no problems aligning myself politically against Clarence Thomas.  I am very passionate about that.  But at the same time, we have to think about the racism that made the Thomas-Hill hearings possible.”  

 

Although both the ideological diversity among, and the unparalleled scrutiny of Black political figures is as old as Callie House’s struggle for ex-slave reparations, the relevance of Davis’s comment for the current presidential election is nevertheless striking.  It shows that we’ve been here before: the vexing situation of condemning the racist and sexist tactics overwhelmingly unleashed on Black candidates by a white court of public appeal while simultaneously attempting to raise criticisms about, and perhaps even absolute opposition to Black candidates.  And yet, this “here” is somewhat different because for the first time in U.S. history we may actually have, despite Toni Morrison’s quip about Bill Clinton, our first Black president. 

 

The enthusiasm for a first Black president has made it difficult to publicly raise critical questions about Obama’s political investments without appearing unsympathetic to the grand legacy of Black striving and political mobilization and the very real concerns people have about the state of current affairs.  At the risk of appearing insensitive, I want to critically interrogate Obama’s famous “race speech” “A More Perfect Union.”  Specifically, I want to briefly discuss how Obama’s speech is an example of a neoslave narrative and consider the political implications of his rhetoric.