Jekyll2020-07-29T23:09:23-04:00https://wechatproject.netlify.app/feed.xmlThe WeChat ProjectPromoting cross-generational dialogue within the Asian American community.
The Wechat Projectthewechatproject@gmail.comWhy Hard Work Is Not Enough to Succeed in America2020-07-29T22:42:55-04:002020-07-29T22:42:55-04:00https://wechatproject.netlify.app/2020/07/29/why-hard-work-is-not-enough-to-succeed-in-america<p><a href="https://wechatproject.netlify.app/2020/07/29/%E5%9C%A8%E7%BE%8E%E5%9B%BD%E4%BB%85%E5%87%AD%E5%8A%AA%E5%8A%9B%E5%B0%B1%E8%83%BD%E6%88%90%E5%8A%9F%E5%90%97-%E5%8D%8E%E4%BA%8C%E4%BB%A3%E7%BB%99%E7%88%B6%E6%AF%8D%E4%B8%80%E4%BB%A3%E7%9A%84%E4%B8%87%E5%AD%97%E9%95%BF%E6%96%87.html">Chinese version (中文版)</a></p>
<p>Growing up in a New Jersey suburb with a large Chinese American population, I was always taught that there is one key to success in America: hard work. The Chinese immigrants in my community were proof positive that the American Dream was real and that with hard work you could get anywhere. Many of them, including my parents, had come to the US with almost nothing. They struggled through graduate programs on scholarships or TA-ships or odd jobs, started from the bottom rungs of corporate ladders, furnished their own clinics and advertised their own private practices. With hard work, they graduated, received promotions, and amassed clients and patients. They told me these stories so I would remember how lucky I was to be growing up in a beautiful town with everything I could possibly want, and so I would remember that I, too, had a duty to work hard and carry their success forward.</p>
<p>These stories contained an unspoken threat: that those who didn’t work hard—those who were lazy—would not succeed in America. The homeless people bundled in layers of winter coats begging passersby for spare change in New York, the panhandlers wandering between lines of cars stalled in traffic on the George Washington Bridge, and the malingerers sitting on the stoops of run-down apartments in Newark lived in such dire straits because, so I was told, they had failed. They hadn’t worked hard enough to get a good education or good jobs or good housing. It was sad, yes, that their lives had turned out so badly, but they only had themselves to blame. Luckily, I didn’t have to end up like them if I didn’t want to. As long as I put in the work, I would succeed—just like my parents, and my friends’ parents, and my pediatrician, and the Chinese school teachers who taught us how to read and write and dance and draw.</p>
<p>I still believe the Chinese immigrants in my community worked incredibly hard to build the lives that they and their families have today. I am no less grateful to or in awe of my parents for surmounting inconceivable obstacles in the process of making a life for our family in America. And I certainly don’t know if I would have the courage or the determination to learn a different language and move to a different country with almost no money or family or support network, all to ensure that my future children would grow up with boundless opportunity. At the same time, I no longer believe that hard work is the only thing you need to succeed in America. In this essay, I want to explore why that is, and why it is so dangerous for the Chinese immigrant community to continue to believe in American meritocracy:</p>
<p>First, because, as college admissions demonstrate, America is far from meritocratic; second, because systemic racism affects much more than our college prospects; and third, and most importantly, because the forces that sustain systemic racism don’t just hurt Black Americans—they hurt Chinese Americans too, and as long as we remain unconscious of those forces, we remain complicit in our own subjugation.</p>
<h2 id="affirmative-action--the-myth-of-meritocracy"><strong>Affirmative Action & the Myth of Meritocracy</strong></h2>
<p><img src="/assets/images/uploads/wechat-harvard.jpg" alt="" title="Harvard University." /></p>
<p>College admissions offer a useful crucible through which to examine meritocracy in the US. As the Students for Fair Admissions case against Harvard has well publicized, Harvard—like many other elite universities—admits fewer Asian American applicants than applicants of other races, even though rejected Asian American applicants may have comparable, or even higher, grades and scores than admitted non–Asian American applicants. To many Chinese immigrants I know, this seems drastically unfair. Their children worked so hard in school. Their children earned perfect grades and excellent SATs without outside help, without leniency, without cheating. So aren’t they therefore deserving of admission—even <em>more</em> deserving of admission than other students?</p>
<p>Those who believe this to be true protest the students’ rejection as evidence of racial discrimination in college admissions against Asian Americans. Were America truly equal—truly meritocratic—students would be accepted or rejected on the basis of their demonstrated capabilities alone.</p>
<p>They’re not wrong: America isn’t meritocratic. In fact, college admissions typify both poles of the failure of meritocracy. The problem is that advocates for so-called “fair” admissions lump both positions together, rather than observing how they serve opposing interests. By examining them individually, we can see how these interests epitomize one of the central injustices in American society.</p>
<p>Consider two groups that, by the metric of score, are “unfairly” admitted at higher frequencies than Asian American students: legacy students and Black students. Legacy students, who are admitted to Harvard at over five times the overall acceptance rate, are predominantly white. A study conducted by the economists Peter Arcidiacono, John Kinsler, and Tyler Ransom, two of whom worked with Students for Fair Admissions, found that in the six admissions cycles between 2014 and 2019, <a href="http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf">forty-three percent of white students admitted to Harvard were legacies, recruited athletes, children of faculty or staff, or students on the Dean’s Interest List</a>, compared to only sixteen percent of Asian American, African American, and Hispanic admits combined.</p>
<p>This should come as no surprise. Harvard and other elite universities have long been overwhelmingly white, so of course the students who benefit most from legacy admissions are overwhelmingly white as well. The Harvard class of 2020, who entered their first year of college in 2016, was the first since Harvard was founded in 1636 to be “majority minority,” which is to say that <a href="https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-harvard-minorities-20170804-story.html">48.6 percent—just barely under half—of the class still comprised white students</a>. In fact, according to the sociologist Jerome Karabel, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton incorporated legacy considerations into their admissions policies during the early twentieth century <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Chosen/1Nf3FxMIEB8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover">in order to exclude Jewish students</a> and ensure their student bodies would remain predominantly white. Legacy admissions, in other words, exemplify an effort by predominantly white institutions to preserve their own power at the expense of non-white students.</p>
<p>Furthermore, legacy admissions aid students who already have a significant lead on their peers: they have one or more relatives who not only attended and completed a college degree, but attended and completed a college degree at one of the most prestigious institutions in the US. Multiple studies have shown that students who have at least one parent with a degree are <a href="http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/high_school_and_beyond/2018/02/first_generation_students_face_extra_challenges_in_high_school.html?cmp=soc-tw-shr">more likely to take challenging courses in high school and attend and graduate from college</a>. Legacy admissions therefore compound and boost a cluster of preexisting advantages—all in order to affirm and cement the presence and power of white people in elite universities.</p>
<p>What about Black students? If legacy admissions represent an attempt to safeguard privilege, then affirmative action represents an attempt to account for a lack thereof. From <em>preschool</em>—at the ages of three or four—Black children are subject to harsher punishment from their teachers. A 2014 study by the US Department of Education found that “<a href="https://ocrdata.ed.gov/Downloads/CRDC-School-Discipline-Snapshot.pdf">Black children represent eighteen percent of preschool enrollment, but <em>forty-eight percent of preschool children receiving more than one out-of-school suspension</em></a>; in comparison, white students represent forty-three percent of preschool enrollment but twenty-six percent of preschool children receiving more than one out of school suspension” (emphasis mine). These trends continue as students get older. Though Black students make up only sixteen percent of student enrollment, <a href="https://www.aclu.org/issues/juvenile-justice/school-prison-pipeline/school-prison-pipeline-infographic">they comprise thirty-one percent of student arrests, and they are suspended and expelled <em>three times more frequently</em> than white students</a>.</p>
<p>Why? The reason isn’t that Black students are more deserving of arrest, suspension, expulsion, or disciplinary action; rather, it’s because <a href="https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/03/black-boys-older">they are regularly perceived to be older and less innocent than white students of the same age</a> from as early as ten. Teachers, guidance counselors, and other school officials consequently punish them more. Multiple studies have found that Black students tend <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272775703000761">not to be encouraged to take advanced classes</a> <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327625470_Supporting_Latino_and_African-American_Students_in_Advanced_Placement_Courses_A_School_Counseling_Program's_Approach">or participate in extracurricular activities</a>, that they <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Beyond_Tracking.html?id=2v2TOQAACAAJ">are pushed into vocational programs instead of towards universities and professional careers</a>, and that they <a href="https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/PDFs/WebinarPowerPoints/1096-2409-19-1-144_4.pdf">frequently feel invalidated by their high school teachers and guidance counselors</a>. And these disadvantages are generational: while legacy students enjoy the expertise and confidence of Ivy League–educated parents and relatives throughout their educational careers, many Black undergraduates are among the first in their families to attend college. According to a 2008 study by the National Center for Education Statistics, only <a href="https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015/indicator1_5.asp">seventeen percent of Black students between the ages of six and eighteen had mothers who held a bachelor’s degree or higher</a>, compared to thirty-six percent of white students. Likewise, a 2017 report from the US Department of Education found that <a href="https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018009.pdf">Black undergraduates made up fourteen percent of all first-generation students</a>—whose parents hold a high school diploma or less—but only eleven percent of continuing generation students. (White students made up forty-nine percent of first-generation students and seventy percent of continuing generation students; Asian American students made up five and six percent, respectively.)</p>
<p>I attended public schools in my New Jersey suburb from kindergarten to twelfth grade. I enjoyed elementary and middle school and adored my teachers, who regularly encouraged me to challenge myself and gushed to my parents about how sweet and obedient I was in class. In high school, whenever it was time to pick the next year’s classes, no one batted an eye when I selected multiple Honors or Advanced Placement courses. And when I applied to college, no one raised an eyebrow when I decided I was interested in Yale. Though my parents had attended college in China and didn’t know much about the US application process, I could always count on my dad to make up extra physics problems for me to solve before a test or to explain a calculus problem I didn’t understand. Everyone around me not only believed in my ability to succeed; they expected me to succeed, and they treated me accordingly.</p>
<p>As lucky as I have been, school was in no way easy. But I cannot imagine how much harder it would have been—how much more insurmountable the goal of getting into a good college would have appeared—if my parents hadn’t been able to help me, if my teachers had refused to support me, if my guidance counselor had constantly been looking for reasons to report me for misconduct.</p>
<p>Affirmative action seeks to account for the fact that Black (and Latinx) students have to do much more than their homework in order to get accepted to college: they have to fight against forces of doubt, suspicion, and scorn coming from the very people who are supposed to be helping them learn. In other words, Black students <em>already have to work harder than</em>, <em>and in very different ways from</em>, white or Asian American students just to become viable candidates for admission to an elite university. Affirmative action therefore acts in direct opposition to the forces that keep white people in positions of power, such as legacy admissions. In fact, the economist Dennis Weisman has suggested that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/elite-schools-ivy-league-legacy-admissions-harvard-wealthier-whiter">“legacy policies may exist in a kind of equilibrium with race-conscious admissions policies”</a>—according to a model he constructed with his colleague Dong Li, the influence of legacy preferences could grow should admissions policies that account for race be axed. In a way, this makes sense: if affirmative action helps non-white people get into schools that have always been overwhelmingly white, then white people need a comparable method to defend their claim to power.</p>
<p>So yes, the existence of affirmative action, as well as the existence of legacy admissions, affirms the failure of a meritocratic college admissions policy. But to group legacy students and the beneficiaries of affirmative action together is to enact a logical fallacy. Whereas policies that privilege legacy status aim to boost established advantages and protect the places of white people in elite institutions, affirmative action policies aim to make up for established disadvantages and elevate the places of non-white people traditionally excluded from elite institutions.</p>
<p>All that said, it may still seem unfair that Asian Americans are caught in the crossfire. After all, aren’t Asian Americans non-white people traditionally excluded from elite institutions too?</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>But is the solution to erase the existing college admissions system and impose a score-based—and therefore apparently “meritocratic”—admissions system in its place?</p>
<p>Is such a system really fair when, as we have just discussed, Black (and Latinx) students are subject to forces far beyond their control in their efforts to succeed?</p>
<p>Isn’t beginning on an even playing field a necessary precondition for meritocracy? Isn’t demanding meritocracy without an even playing field really just cheating?</p>
<p>Wouldn’t a better solution, then, be to ensure that all students start out with the same opportunities—so that hard work is a genuinely meaningful measure of, and path to, success?</p>
<h2 id="systemic-racism"><strong>Systemic Racism</strong></h2>
<p>In fact, the story I have just told about Black students’ experiences in the US school system is an incomplete one. Black students—and Black people living in America generally—are subject to a staggering array of forces that make their lives not only more difficult but more dangerous. Taken together, these forces are termed “systemic racism.” The most important aspect of systemic racism to understand is that it is at work even when no single person seems to be acting in a racist way. Rather, systemic racism is baked into the infrastructure of American society. It affects every level of existence. It improves the lives of some people at the expense of the lives of many others, and Chinese Americans sit on both sides of the equation. It is therefore crucial that, as people living in America—recent immigrants or not, citizens or not—we recognize how and where systemic racism exerts its influence over our lives and our beliefs.</p>
<p>It would be impossible for me to provide an exhaustive catalogue of the invisible ways in which systemic racism works in America: such a catalogue would be many books in length. Instead, I’d like to highlight just a few of those ways in order to suggest how extensive, debilitating, and unjust systemic racism is and how important it is that we both remain aware and, when we can, fight to dismantle it.</p>
<p>Let’s start with employment. As my parents have reminded me all my life, a stable, well-paying job is foundational to safety and happiness. You need a regular paycheck to afford food and housing, to save up for retirement, and to pay for your children’s upbringing. If you manage your money well, you might one day be able to afford a bigger house in a better neighborhood, which means you’ll have access to better municipal facilities and your children will be able to attend a better public school, priming them for greater higher educational opportunities and enabling them to begin their lives with greater flexibility and financial stability. Your children will thus be in a position to climb even higher than you—with bigger houses, private schools for your grandchildren, and the capacity to financially support you in your old age. A solid job is a crucial spoke on the wheel of social mobility.</p>
<p>Getting such a job, however, is significantly more difficult for Black Americans than it is for Americans of other races. A 2013 Pew Research Center study found that <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/21/through-good-times-and-bad-black-unemployment-is-consistently-double-that-of-whites/">Black Americans have experienced <em>double the rate of unemployment</em> of white Americans over the past <em>sixty years</em></a>—no matter the state of the economy—meaning that generations of Black Americans have been affected by economic subjugation. A 2019 study published by the Economic Policy Institute corroborated the results. Education helps somewhat to close the gap: while Black Americans with a high school degree see an 8.2 percent rate of unemployment, compared to white non-Hispanic rates of 3.8 percent, a college degree decreases these rates to 3.5 percent and 2.2 percent, respectively, and an advanced degree to 2.1 percent and 1.9 percent. Even so, “<a href="https://www.epi.org/publication/labor-day-2019-racial-disparities-in-employment/">black workers with a college or advanced degree are more likely than their white counterparts to be underemployed when it comes to their skill level</a>—almost forty percent are in a job that typically does not require a college degree, compared with thirty-one percent of white college grads.”</p>
<p>Discriminatory hiring practices may have a hand in these disparities. In a 2003 National Bureau of Economic Research field experiment, researchers responded to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers with fictitious resumes assigned either “a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name.” They found that <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873">applications with “White sounding names” received fifty percent more callbacks</a>, even when the resumes were identical, even when employers marked themselves as “Equal Opportunity Employers.” The disparity exists even if resumes are improved. Although a higher quality resume with an additional year of experience, foreign language skills, and a certification degree elicits a thirty percent increase in callbacks for White names, it does not produce a statistically significant increase in callbacks for African American names—meaning that “the gap between White [<em>sic</em>] and African-Americans widens with resume quality. . . .Discrimination therefore appears to bite twice, making it harder not only for African Americans to find a job but also to improve their employability.” In other words, for Black people, acquiring the right degrees, work experiences, and skills is no guarantee for employment, much less employment that takes proper advantage of those degrees, experiences, and skills.</p>
<p>As you might imagine, the consequences of such long-term employment discrimination are devastating. Underemployment and unemployment make it difficult for Black Americans to amass savings at the same rate as other Americans. Low or no savings likewise make even small improvements in material quality of life difficult and prevent Black Americans from leaving financially meaningful assets (like <a href="https://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/leveling_the_playing_field_between_inherited_income_and_income_from_work_through_an_inheritance_tax">inheritances—which are lightly taxed compared to income</a>—and property) to their heirs, thereby trapping them in generational cycles of poverty.</p>
<p>The distribution of household wealth in the US—the total resources available to a household at a point in time, which includes income as well as savings and inheritances—serves as a useful measure of the compounded effects of these realities. According to a report by the nonpartisan Brookings Institute, the net worth of a typical white family in 2016 was $171,000—<a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining-the-black-white-wealth-gap/">nearly <em>ten times greater</em> than the net worth of a typical Black family, $17,150</a>. Disaggregating the data by age, the report finds that although “the typical young adult (18–34 years old) of either race has little wealth,” the wealth gap swells dramatically as people get older and, presumably, accumulate (or struggle to accumulate) earnings and assets: white people in the 65–74 age group could expect a median wealth of $302,500, whereas Black people in the same group could expect only $46,890. Disaggregating the data by income percentile, the report finds that the wealth gap exists “in every income group except the bottom quintile” (in which both white and Black households have a median net worth of zero). In fact, the gap expands as you climb the brackets—the median net worth of the top ten percent of Black families in 2016, $343,160, was only a fifth of the median net worth of the top ten percent of white families, $1,789,300.</p>
<p>The racial wealth gap has always existed. But these figures also reflect the toll of the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis, which widened the gap by hitting Black households harder than it hit white households. Between 2007 and 2013, Black families saw their median net worth decline by 44.3 percent, as opposed to the median decline of 26.1 percent experienced by white families. Why? One reason may be because Black people are disproportionately targeted by predatory lending practices.</p>
<p>This point requires a bit of historical backstory. As a Department of Housing and Urban Development study confirmed in 2004, homeownership has long offered a relatively secure route to wealth accumulation for low-income families in the US; indeed, housing equity may be a low-income family’s main or even only source of wealth. In 1934, in the thick of the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the National Housing Act in an attempt to bolster the housing industry and improve the economy by helping more Americans become homeowners. The act created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), an agency within the Department of Housing and Urban Development that was meant to <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Federal-Housing-Administration">“insure home mortgage loans made by banks and other private lenders, thereby encouraging them to make more loans to prospective home buyers”</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Prior to the FHA, balloon mortgages (home loans with large payments due at the end of the loan period) were the norm, and prospective home buyers were required to put down 30 to 50 percent of the cost of a house in order to secure a loan. However, FHA-secured loans introduced the low-down-payment home mortgage, which reduced the amount of money needed up front to as low as 10 percent. The agency also extended the repayment period of home mortgages from 5–10 years to 20–30 years. The resulting reductions in monthly mortgage payments helped to prevent foreclosures, often made buying a home cheaper than renting, and allowed families with stable but modest incomes to qualify for a home mortgage. In addition, because government-backed loans involved less risk for lenders, interest rates on mortgages went down.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Rather than benefiting all Americans, however, these policies codified racial segregation with the express aim of [“[containing]. . . African Americans in designated residential neighborhoods as part of a broader effort to establish stable, homogenous communities of white homeowners.”](http://www.jstor.com/stable/20108708) To help financial institutions decide where to invest, the FHA developed a property valuation system. Neighborhoods were assigned a grade from “A” (most desirable) to “D” (definite rejection) on the basis of residential demographics. Those that received a “D” contained larger numbers of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5FBJyqfoLM">“relief families,” “foreign-born” people (including Chinese and other immigrants), and “Negroes.”</a> In many cities, <a href="https://hoodline.com/2014/06/a-history-of-redlining-in-san-francisco-neighborhoods">Chinatowns were among those neighborhoods that received “D” grades</a>. The FHA refused to insure mortgages in and near these neighborhoods, thus tacitly dissuading banks and other lending organizations from investing in them. At the same time, the agency subsidized the construction of subdivisions intended exclusively for white families on the condition that <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o-yD0wGxAc">“occupancy of properties except by the race for which they are intended” was prohibited</a>, believing that if Black or other non-white people purchased homes in these areas, property values throughout the rest of the subdivision would fall.</p>
<p>To be clear, <em>none of these assumptions was backed by statistical evidence</em>. The FHA designated neighborhoods with large numbers of Black and non-white residents as high-risk investments <em>not</em> on the basis of empirical proof that Black and non-white people were more likely to default on their mortgages or damage nearby property values, but exclusively through the construction of “blackness into a unique financial class” whose potential integration into white society was <em>itself</em> constitutive of risk and instability. As the lawyer John Kimble explained in a <a href="http://www.jstor.com/stable/20108708">2007 essay</a>, the conflation of race and risk “allowed the FHA to steer the current of credit, vital for the health and growth of any community, exclusively into middle- and upper-class white neighborhoods. It also ensured that integrated neighborhoods and neighborhoods of color would have virtually no access to mainstream sources of financial capital and the attendant benefits such resources could produce.” These policies—known as “redlining”—<a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2019/08/07/472617/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/">denied Black and other non-white people access to loans for homeownership, home maintenance, and mortgage refinancing</a>, thereby <a href="https://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_06_a-godeeper.htm">promoting urban disinvestment, driving out grocery stores, restaurants, and other businesses, and causing local property values to drop</a>.</p>
<p>The Fair Housing Act of 1968 made race-based lending practices illegal. But many analysts today agree that <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/">the US has yet to account for the enormous costs of redlining</a>, which the real estate brokerage Redfin has tallied <a href="https://www.redfin.com/blog/redlining-real-estate-racial-wealth-gap/">amounts to a loss of <em>over $212,000 in the personal wealth of redlined residents</em> based on comparative property value increases</a> in “greenlighted,” or higher-graded, neighborhoods alone. And no calculation can quantify the opportunities robbed of children growing up in once-redlined areas. Since public schools derive most of their funding from property taxes, falling property values have consistently siphoned funding away from predominantly Black districts, further compounding the educational difficulties I outlined earlier in this essay.</p>
<p>Most importantly, race-based lending in America never disappeared: it simply evolved. Here we return to the 2008 financial crisis. The political economist Jackie Wang argues that in the years prior, <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/carceral-capitalism">lending institutions began billing expanded access to credit as a “‘market solution” to the racial wealth gap</a>. Beginning in 1989, banks and private lenders used FICO credit scores to determine the types of loans you were eligible to receive: the lower your credit score, the riskier your loan. Because FICO does not factor race, gender, religion, marital status, or other kinds of potentially discriminatory demographic information into its score calculations, creditworthiness has been heralded as a fair and objective way to measure the risk you pose to a bank for its investment in your future. Much like race-blind “meritocratic” college admissions, however, these calculations fail to account for the consequences of systemic racism. A 2020 study found that even <a href="https://equitablegrowth.org/the-never-ending-cycle-incarceration-credit-scores-and-wealth-accumulation-in-the-united-states/">“never-incarcerated blacks, despite having more assets and less debt, have average FICO credit scores that are similar to whites who have ever been incarcerated.”</a> As Wang puts it, “Having a bad credit score is seen as a moral failing rather than merely an index of structural inequality.” The use of credit to assess loan suitability thus enables lending institutions to saddle already-struggling Black people with greater amounts of risk and debt under the guise of objectivity and equal opportunity. Bad credit, in other words, marks a holder as deserving of <em>future</em> expropriation (dispossession), rather than one who has already been victimized and expropriated in the past.</p>
<p>In the years leading up to the 2008 crisis, <a href="https://www.huduser.gov/Publications/pdf/unequal_full.pdf">banks and private lenders disproportionately offered Black and other minority borrowers subprime loans in the form of risk-adjusted mortgage rate pricing</a>. Wang notes that these mortgages “were designed such that they would almost inevitably fail”: with “free-floating interest rates that would balloon as soon as the ‘hook’ rate expired,” lenders could be guaranteed large returns on their investments <em>and</em> the eventual foreclosure and dispossession of the properties borrowers were attempting to purchase, a boon since the housing market was growing at such a rapid pace that properties were guaranteed to resell for higher values. Since borrowers with bad credit had previously been denied access to housing loans, mortgages were still considered a historically safe investment—hence why investors continued to buy up mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) as the housing market bubble grew. But because “the mortgages that formed the foundation of this financial meta-structure were designed to maximize revenue by tracking so-called ‘risky’ borrowers” into subprime loans, the entire structure collapsed as these borrowers began to default.</p>
<p>Pundits and economists blamed Black and other non-white people for their failure to pay back loans that gouged them of tens of thousands of dollars more in interest payments than conventional loans would have, rather than recognizing that these borrowers’ “risky” status was the measure lending institutions used to target them precisely in anticipation of their inability to pay. Meanwhile, these borrowers bore the brunt of the economic damage inflicted by the crisis while lending institutions enjoyed mass bailouts from the federal government. The tautological nature of the interaction between media narrative and material reality fueled the cycle of socioeconomic entrapment while enforcing widespread perceptions of Black people as lazy, financially inept, and irresponsible, priming them for further predation and dispossession. In this way, systemic racism not only governs the substantive circumstances of our lives—it seeps into our thoughts and dictates our prejudices.</p>
<p>I will stop here, though systemic racism affects many, many more sectors of society in the US than I have described, from health care to policing to incarceration. Nevertheless, I hope this brief portrait suggests just how multilayered and entrenched systemic racism is, and how many compounding factors are at work in the oppression of Black people. Each example I have given feeds into every other: redlining affects education, which affects employment, which affects wealth, which affects homeownership, which affects credit, which affects employment and education and wealth and homeownership in turn again. The point here is not that individual Black people have not surmounted these difficulties—as people across the political spectrum like to point out, a Black man did become president in 2008—but rather that the US is not the land of opportunity it bills itself to be; nor is the only condition of social mobility hard work. As Stokely Carmichael (also known as Kwame Ture) and Charles V. Hamilton wrote in <em>Black Power</em> as early as 1967:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In the face of such realities, it becomes ludicrous to condemn black people for “not showing more initiative.” Black people are not in a depressed condition because of some defect in their character. The colonial power structure clamped a boot of oppression on the neck of the black people and then, ironically, said “they are not ready for freedom.” Left solely to the good will of the oppressor, the oppressed will never be ready.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2 id="at-the-intersection-of-labor--capital"><strong>At the Intersection of Labor & Capital</strong></h2>
<p>There are two remaining questions I would like to address in brief. First: why, in the first place, does systemic racism exist? And second: what does all this have to do with the Chinese immigrant community? I touch on these points in order to explore why antiblack beliefs are harmful not only to Black people but to Asian Americans as well.</p>
<p>The short answer to these questions is that racist ideology ebbs and flows in conjunction with economic and political circumstance. That is, racist beliefs proliferate when they serve incentive structures that depend on the marginalization of certain groups of people. Racist beliefs can dwindle for similar reasons: when their diminishment (or mutation, rather) better serves certain incentive structures than their reinforcement. As the historical transformation of attitudes towards Chinese immigrants—including the recent spate of COVID-related attacks on Chinese and other East Asian people in the US—has demonstrated, movement in neither direction represents an eradication of racism. The objective of anti-racist practice should therefore be to eradicate racism, not to produce or submit to incentive structures that lead to its temporary diminishment without affecting its potential for return.</p>
<p>Over the course of American history, one incentive structure both antiblack and anti-Chinese racism have been co-opted to serve in different ways is capitalism. (I borrow here from arguments made by, among many others, political economist <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/carceral-capitalism">Jackie Wang</a>, the literary scholar <a href="https://www.dukeupress.edu/alien-capital">Iyko Day</a>, the prison abolitionist <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/213837/are-prisons-obsolete-by-angela-y-davis/">Angela Y. Davis</a>, and the historian Andrew B. Liu—in, ironically, <a href="https://goodbye.substack.com/p/about-those-letters-to-my-asian-parents">an essay</a> critiquing pieces addressed to previous generations of Chinese immigrants such as this one). Scholars disagree whether racism preceded capitalism or vice versa, but for our purposes the distinction is unimportant. The point is that racist ideology helps to maintain the existence of two classes of people necessary for capitalism to continue to function and expand: a class to be exploited as labor, and a class to be expropriated to facilitate growth.</p>
<p>Let us consider antiblackness first. Black people in the US have faced both exploitation and expropriation, beginning with their enslavement in the colonial era. The purpose of slavery, as the historian Barbara Fields has argued, was <a href="https://newleftreview.org/issues/I181/articles/barbara-jeanne-fields-slavery-race-and-ideology-in-the-united-states-of-america">not “to produce white supremacy,” but “to produce cotton or sugar or rice or tobacco”</a>: enslavement created a class of people who, dispossessed of freedom, property, and rights, were forced to provide the labor necessary to get colonial economic enterprises such as cash crop agriculture off the ground. Even better, because slave labor was unpaid and lifelong, white planters could realize far greater profits than they could with a waged or temporary workforce comprising, say, indentured servants. Racist beliefs that Africans were “naturally” or “biologically” inferior and deserved to be enslaved because they were incapable of surviving otherwise helped to narratively reinforce enslaved Africans’ lived status as a dispossessed labor class. Racist beliefs also soothed the cognitive dissonance between, on the one hand, burgeoning philosophies of social equality and the boundless opportunity of the free market, and, on the other, the necessarily unequal distinction between labor and capital.</p>
<p>The abolition of slavery under the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 created several problems for the capitalist class. Planters lost their main source of labor, and freedmen became a potential source of competition for land ownership. Luckily for the capitalist class, the Thirteenth Amendment hadn’t imposed a universal ban on slavery: it remained permissible “as a punishment for crime whereof the party have been duly convicted.” Former slave states began to replace Slave Codes with Black Codes criminalizing everything from drunkenness to “careless” handling of money. Once overwhelmingly white, prison populations now became overwhelmingly Black, and many states developed convict lease systems that forced prisoners to labor for free—<a href="https://www.versobooks.com/books/738-twice-the-work-of-free-labor">reinstituting a schema of unpaid labor that helped the South industrialize while reducing competition for land and resources</a>. At the same time, Blackness became associated with criminality to such a degree that <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/1r3tAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1">white people sometimes painted themselves black before breaking the law</a>. This association comprised (and, in fact, continues to comprise) the circular logic that both explained the increasing numbers of convicted and incarcerated Black people and helped those numbers multiply.</p>
<p>I will not gloss the entirety of American history in this way, but I hope these two drastically simplified summaries offer an inkling of insight into how antiblackness serves the needs of capital by reifying Black people’s status as a labor class and generating the rationale for their continued expropriation. Without a subjugated class, US capitalism would no longer be able to function or to grow. It is therefore in the interests of capitalists and corporations, whether they realize it or not, to restrict the material opportunities available to Black people; antiblack rhetoric is a crucial component of this crusade. We can see these same associations at work in modern-day iterations of systemic antiblack racism. Take the example of predatory loan policies I provided in the previous section. What purpose does a population of indebted people serve? Not only does debt beget debt under our current credit system; it also prevents people from amassing the capital to move into better neighborhoods, send their kids to better schools, or acquire the skills to get better jobs. An indebted population, in other words, forms a class from which labor and assets can be extracted <em>ad infinitum</em>, thereby fueling (in this particular case) the growth of financial capital—the virtual realm into which capitalists have poured their greatest expansionary efforts of late.</p>
<p>Chinese immigrants have occupied related but different positions vis-à-vis US capitalism, with the crucial distinction that anti-Chinese racism has mutated over time in reaction to foreign policy objectives and transnational tensions as well as strictly domestic conditions. As Iyko Day has observed, Asian Americans have been racialized in their (our) capacity as both labor and scapegoat: when the perceived threat they or their home countries pose exceeds their usefulness as laborers, their entry can be restricted and their immutable foreignness foregrounded and weaponized against even those who have become legal citizens. The point here is <em>not</em> that Asian Americans should therefore seek to shed their foreignness by ingratiating themselves with people in power. Rather, Asian Americans are widely read as foreign <em>because</em> their otherness better serves the interests of capital than their potential assimilation. These positions remain immiscible no matter the number of individual Asian Americans who manage to gain wealth, fame, or success.</p>
<p>Consider the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 as one early, and prominent, example of this phenomenon. Chinese laborers began to trickle into the US beginning in the 1830s as the structure of legal slavery started to deteriorate. Many settled on the West Coast, especially during the California Gold Rush of 1848, and took on jobs white laborers disdained, such as farming, cooking, and constructing the Central Pacific Railroad, often working for lower wages and in worse conditions than white laborers would accept. At first, their willingness to fill these niches was welcomed; <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/phr.2007.76.4.537">some even wondered whether Chinese laborers could replace enslaved Africans on US plantations as they had done in Cuba</a>. But as the Gold Rush petered out and the country faced a series of economic downturns in 1873 and 1877, public sentiment shifted. <a href="http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5046/%7C">White laborers accused Chinese laborers of “conspiring” with white capitalists to take away their jobs and their wages.</a> When Congress passed the Exclusion Act banning further immigration of Chinese laborers and prohibiting their naturalization as citizens, it was in explicit endorsement of these concerns.</p>
<p>Before we move on I would like to highlight a few contradictions in the logic of this narrative that, I think, usefully reveal the contours of anti-Chinese racism. First, white laborers chose to conflate Chinese laborers—who were often poorer than they were—with the white capitalist class, rather than to recognize their shared status as laborers. Second, to appease the demands of white laborers, who were effectively railing against <em>both</em> Chinese laborers <em>and</em> white capitalists, the US government punished the Chinese. Marked as irredeemably foreign and therefore “<a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/phr.2007.76.4.537">inassimilable, inferior, and immoral</a>,” Chinese immigrants took the fall so that the economic structure of capitalism could remain intact.</p>
<p>Of course, Chinese Americans have not always been subjected to the degree of violence or xenophobia those early waves of laborers faced. But even the apparent integration of Chinese immigrants into the upper echelons of American society has happened in concert with broader economic and political objectives. The historian Madeline Y. Hsu has argued that <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jamerethnhist.31.4.0012?seq=1">Cold War geopolitics helped incentivize friendlier domestic attitudes towards Chinese immigrants</a>. Such attitudes first took hold after the Communist victory in the Chinese Civil War stranded approximately five thousand “highly skilled, well-connected” students, technical trainees, diplomats, and military personnel in the US, where they had been sent for further education in 1942. Hsu writes that “a surge of sympathy, but also pragmatic concerns about letting <em>such useful individuals</em> fall into enemy [i.e., Communist] hands, led Congress to allocate a total of about ten million dollars to help the Chinese intellectuals and students complete their studies, many to the level of PhD degrees, and then move relatively smoothly into white-collar or professional employment and suburban homes” (emphasis mine). Using stopgap refugee admissions policies, the US let in a stream of Chinese intellectuals throughout the 1950s and 1960s, prioritizing “those able to contribute economically, in complete family units, thereby facilitating their integration into the American middle classes”:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In pointed contrast to the segregationist practices of the Exclusion Era, Chinese Cold War refugees were to demonstrate that America did not discriminate racially by acquiring suburban homes, middle-class and professional employment, and citizenship in the US. By becoming Americans, they illustrated both US benevolence in East Asia and its functioning multiracial democracy, all while easing conservative fears that lifting racial bars on immigration would upend domestic racial hierarchies. The success of their “disappearance” [into the American middle class] helped set the stage for the liberalized terms of the 1965 Immigration Act.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, Chinese immigrants (or more accurately in this period, refugees) found upward mobility and welcome in midcentury America because their integration was both <em>economically</em> useful (as highly educated and highly skilled professionals, rather than the working-class laborers of the nineteenth century) and <em>politically</em> expedient (as a demonstration of US capitalist and liberal democratic superiority over China and other Communist countries). The press, in turn, mobilized these refugees’ apparently self-directed, self-made success to further emphasize the inferiority of Black people: deeming Asian Americans a “model minority,” numerous articles used Chinese professionals’ socioeconomic progress as evidence that any racial minority could make it in the US as long as they worked hard enough. Black Americans’ lack of mobility was therefore no one’s fault but their own.</p>
<p>We’ve returned to the starting point of this essay, but I hope it is now clear why narratives that emphasize the equality of opportunity in America are patently false, and why calls for meritocracy in America as we know it are not only ill-conceived but rooted in injustice. Again, I am not trying to claim that individual Chinese immigrants did not work hard or did not deserve their success, or that, as individuals, we should not or do not need to continue to work hard or strive for success. I merely wish to demonstrate that the upward mobility of these mid century Chinese immigrants was facilitated by political and economic incentives outside of their control as well as their own courage, discipline, and resolve. Since the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, these incentives have continued to change with respect to developments in the domestic and world economies and in US–China relations and, in turn, have continued to affect the way Chinese immigrants are treated in the US today. For this same reason, <em>Chinese immigrants’ success can also be taken away when it becomes politically and/or economically advantageous to do so</em>. In fact, we are, right now, experiencing precisely such a rollback of rights. Consider <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-anti-asian-attacks-say-about-american-culture-during-crisis">the attacks individual Chinese and other East Asian Americans have experienced throughout the coronavirus pandemic</a>. Consider Donald Trump’s insistence that the coronavirus is a “Chinese virus,” or the fact that <a href="https://static.politico.com/80/54/2f3219384e01833b0a0ddf95181c/corona-virus-big-book-4.17.20.pdf">his advisors have repeatedly instructed him to deflect responsibility for the incredible US infection rate and death toll by blaming China for failing to contain the spread</a>. Consider <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/us/politics/china-hong-kong-trump-student-visas.html">the Chinese graduate students and researchers whose visas the federal government began to cancel</a>, <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/07/visa-rule-leaves-indian-chinese-students-panic-200709091726735.html">the many, many Chinese international students who would not have been allowed to complete their degrees because their universities moved teaching online in the fall</a>, or <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51288854">the numerous Chinese scientists who are being accused of stealing data or research for the Chinese government</a>.</p>
<p>These incidents are not isolated. They are not historically unprecedented. And most of all, they are not unrelated to efforts to claim Black lives. The same forces that profit off of the continued subjugation of Black people—the same forces that teach us that Black people are uneducated, unfeeling, and criminal—profit off the perception that Chinese immigrants are obedient, hard-working, and alien. The same forces that teach us to look down on Black people for their inability to succeed in America exploit Chinese immigrants for their silent labor. The same forces that disproportionately murder Black people alternately welcome and reject Chinese immigrants according to geopolitical and economic convenience.</p>
<p>Systemic racism robs us of the ability to determine the trajectories of our own lives. Its continued existence is neither accidental nor meaningless. It is a tool that has helped the people in power stay in power century after century, and for that reason it is impossible to dismiss or ignore or work around—because whether or not we choose to pay attention, whether or not we choose to care, systemic racism continues to shape our thoughts, direct our actions, and influence everything from <a href="https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/sp_faq/what-is-the-bamboo-ceiling-in-the-silicon-valley-tech-industry/">the extent to which we are allowed to succeed</a> and <a href="https://news.umich.edu/police-sixth-leading-cause-of-death-for-young-black-men/">the frequency with which we die</a>. This knowledge should horrify us, but it should also galvanize us. Because the fight against systemic racism <em>is</em> the fight for equal opportunity: it is the fight for justice.</p>The Wechat Projectthewechatproject@gmail.comGrowing up in a New Jersey suburb with a large Chinese American population, I was always taught that there is one key to success in America: hard work. The Chinese immigrants in my community were proof positive that the American Dream was real and that with hard work you could get anywhere. Many of them, including my parents, had come to the US with almost nothing. They struggled through graduate programs on scholarships or TA-ships or odd jobs, started from the bottom rungs of corporate ladders, furnished their own clinics and advertised their own private practices. With hard work, they graduated, received promotions, and amassed clients and patients. They told me these stories so I would remember how lucky I was to be growing up in a beautiful town with everything I could possibly want, and so I would remember that I, too, had a duty to work hard and carry their success forward.在美国仅凭努力就能成功吗?华二代给父母一代的万字长文2020-07-29T22:21:34-04:002020-07-29T22:21:34-04:00https://wechatproject.netlify.app/2020/07/29/%E5%9C%A8%E7%BE%8E%E5%9B%BD%E4%BB%85%E5%87%AD%E5%8A%AA%E5%8A%9B%E5%B0%B1%E8%83%BD%E6%88%90%E5%8A%9F%E5%90%97%3F%E5%8D%8E%E4%BA%8C%E4%BB%A3%E7%BB%99%E7%88%B6%E6%AF%8D%E4%B8%80%E4%BB%A3%E7%9A%84%E4%B8%87%E5%AD%97%E9%95%BF%E6%96%87<p><a href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/hvFSPf6oSWL1D1smX79Bow">在微信上查看 (View on WeChat)</a></p>
<p>英文版 (English version)</p>
<p>我在新泽西郊区一个聚集了很多华裔的社区长大,从小到大一直被教导,在美国成功有一个关键因素:努力。我所在社区的华人移民就是明证——美国梦是真实的,只要努力,你就能无往不胜。他们中的很多人,包括我父母,来美国时几乎一无所有。他们靠奖学金,做助教,打零工辛苦读完研究生院,他们从公司底层做起,他们自己安置诊所,给自己的私人诊所打广告。通过努力,他们拿到学位,得到晋升,积累客户和病人。他们给我讲这些故事,让我记住我是多么幸运,能在一个环境优美的小镇长大,拥有我想要的一切,并让我记住,我,也有责任努力,把他们的成功发扬光大。</p>
<p>这些故事隐含着一个威胁性的警示:那些不努力工作的人,那些懒惰的人,在美国不会成功。我听说,纽约城里裹着层层冬衣向路人乞讨零钱的无家可归者,在乔治·华盛顿大桥拥堵的车流间徘徊的乞丐,还有坐在纽瓦克破旧公寓门槛上的酒鬼,他们之所以生活在如此悲惨的境地是因为他们失败了。他们不够努力,没有得到好的教育,没有好工作好房子。是的,他们的生活如此糟糕,这很可悲,但他们只能怪自己。幸运的是,我不会落得他们那样的结局,除非我自己愿意。只要我努力,我就会成功——就像我的父母,我朋友的父母,我的儿科医生,还有教我们读书写字跳舞画画的中文学校老师一样成功。</p>
<p>我仍然相信,我们社区的华裔移民为成就他们和家人今天的生活,付出了难以置信的努力。我对我的父母充满感激和敬佩,他们克服了难以想象的困难,才有了我们一家在美国这样的生活。我不知道我自己有没有勇气和决心在身无分文,无亲无故的情况下,去学一门新的语言,搬到一个完全不同的国家,所有这些都是为了确保我的孩子在成长中能有无限的机会。尽管如此,我并不认同努力是在美国取得成功的唯一条件。在这篇文章中,我想探究个中的原因,还有为什么华裔社区继续相信美国的精英主义是多么危险:</p>
<p>首先因为,从大学录取可以看出,美国远非英才制;其次,因为系统性种族主义影响的远不止我们能进哪所大学;第三,也是最重要的,因为支撑系统性种族主义的势力不仅伤害美国黑人,也伤害了美国华裔,只要我们没有对这些势力保持清醒的意识,我们就仍然在跟他们同流合污,继续做压迫自己的帮凶。</p>
<p><img src="https://mmbiz.qpic.cn/mmbiz_png/EH4iajVPibGdial0ibEdfd1c9M6o5utibP8BSv6oFttsOIlvdSr1Q57Fov9rIIG4zFaTWNSDIcBb8C7y1yhflt7P6qQ/640?wx_fmt=png&tp=webp&wxfrom=5&wx_lazy=1&wx_co=1" alt="" /></p>
<h2 id="平权法案与精英主义的神话"><strong>平权法案与精英主义的神话</strong></h2>
<p>我们不妨用大学录取这个实用的例证,来检验一下美国的精英制是成功还是失败。“学生公平录取组织”(Students for Fair Admissions)在对哈佛的指控中宣称,哈佛大学和许多其他精英大学一样,录取的亚裔申请者比其他种族的申请者要少,尽管被拒绝的亚裔申请者的成绩和分数可能跟被录取的非亚裔美国人申请人相当,甚至更高。对我认识的许多华裔来说,这看起来极不公平。他们的孩子在学校学习很努力。他们的孩子在没有外界帮助,不求放宽标准,不作弊的情况下成绩完美,SAT拿到高分。所以他们不应该被录取吗?难道他们不比其他学生更应该被录取吗?</p>
<p>那些相信这种观点的人发出抗议,他们把被拒当成证据,试图证明大学录取中存在针对亚裔的种族歧视。如果美国真的平等真的是精英制的话,录取或是拒绝学生,应该只看他们所展露出的能力。</p>
<p>他们没有错:美国并非精英制。事实上,大学录取从两个对立面(注:照顾校友子弟受惠者和平权法案受益者)体现了唯才是论的不可行和失败。问题在于,所谓“公平”录取的倡导者们把这两项政策混为一谈,却不看两者如何为对立阶层的利益服务。分开探讨,我们可以看出这些利益集中体现出美国社会不公的一个核心方面。</p>
<p>先看看这样两个群体,以分数为衡量标准,被“不公平”录取的几率比亚裔学生高:校友子弟关系生和黑人学生。校友子弟主要是白人,他们的录取率超过哈佛总体录取率的五倍。经济学家Peter Arcidiacono、John Kinsler和Tyler Ransom进行的一项研究发现,在2014年至2019年的六个招生周期中,哈佛大学录取的白人学生中有43%是校友子弟、运动特长生、教工子女,或者是在院长的特别名单上的(1),相比之下亚裔、非裔和西班牙裔加在一起只有16%。</p>
<p><img src="https://mmbiz.qpic.cn/mmbiz_jpg/EH4iajVPibGdiaDwoCaTIG7dRiawn5PjMVLwe7NCpDNxl6vST5IDf8qsjTvhQHibNWA4wZ25KspHs3gutS7Hv7OZgow/640?wx_fmt=jpeg&tp=webp&wxfrom=5&wx_lazy=1&wx_co=1" alt="" /></p>
<p><em>哈佛大学图书馆。</em></p>
<p>这并不奇怪。哈佛和其他精英大学长期以来都由白人占绝大多数,因此从校友子弟录取中获益最多的学生当然也主要是白人。2016年,哈佛2020届入学的第一年,是哈佛大学自1636年成立以来头一次“少数族裔占多数”的一届,也就是说,这一届略低于半数也就是48.6%的学生仍然是白人(2)。事实上,社会学家Jerome Karabel指出,哈佛、耶鲁和普林斯顿大学在20世纪初的招生政策中纳入了校友亲属考虑,目的是排除犹太学生(3),以确保他们的学生以白人为主体。换言之,照顾校友子弟的录取政策就是以白人为主的大学为维护自己的权力而牺牲非白人学生所付出的努力的例证。</p>
<p>此外,照顾校友子弟的录取帮助了那些已经领先在起跑线上的学生:校友关系生有至少一个亲属不仅上过大学并完成了学位,而且上过美国最著名的某个大学并拿到学位。多项研究表明,父母至少有一方拥有学位的学生更有可能在高中选择难度大的课程,更有可能上大学,更有可能从大学毕业(4)。因此照顾校友子弟的招生制度综合并助长了一系列既有优势,所有这些都是为了确保和巩固白人在精英大学拥有的位置和权力。</p>
<p>那黑人学生呢?如果照顾校友子弟的录取政策代表的是对维护特权的一种尝试,那么平权法案考虑的则是给没有特权的人以保护。从学前班开始, 大约三四岁左右,黑人儿童就会受到老师更严厉的惩罚。美国教育部2014年的一项研究发现,“黑人儿童占学龄前儿童进入学前教育(幼儿园)人数的18%,但进入幼儿园的儿童中有48%不止一次被停学(5);相比之下,白人学生占学龄前儿童上幼儿园人数的43%,他们中的26%受到一次以上的停学处分”。随着学生年龄的增长,这种趋势仍在继续。虽然黑人学生只占注册人数的16%,但他们占被捕学生人数的31%,而且他们被停学和开除的频率是白人学生的三倍(6)。</p>
<p>为什么?原因并不在于黑人学生被逮捕、停学、开除或处分都因他们罪有应得,而是因为,早在十岁左右开始,黑人学生就经常被视为比同龄白人学生年纪更大、不像同龄白人学生那样无辜(7), 结果教师、学校顾问和其他管理人员对他们的惩罚更多。多项研究发现,黑人学生往往不会受到鼓励选修高级课程或参加课外活动(8),他们被推着上职业课程,而不是上大学走专业路子(9),他们往往得不到高中老师和学校顾问的认可(10)。这些劣势是代代相传的:一边是大学校友子弟在整个受教育过程和职业生涯中一直得益于来自他们常春藤大学毕业的父母和亲属的专业知识和信心,另一边是许多黑人大学生是家族中第一个上大学的。根据国家教育统计中心2008年的一项研究,在6岁至18岁的黑人学生中,只有17%的学生的母亲拥有学士或以上学位,而白人学生则有36%。美国教育部2017年的一份报告发现,黑人大学生占第一代大学生(指父母只有高中文凭或更低学历)的14%,但在非第一代大学生中仅占11%(11)。(白人学生占第一代学生的49%,占非第一代大学生的70%;亚裔美国学生占第一代学生的5%,非第一代的6%。)</p>
<p>我从幼儿园到十二年级上的都是新泽西郊区公立学校。我的小学和初中过得很愉快,我崇拜我的老师,他们经常鼓励我挑战自我,并常常赞不绝口地跟我父母夸奖我在课堂上是多么可爱和听话。上高中时,每当我要选下一年的课程时,没有人会因为我选择好几门荣誉课或高级课程而眨一下眼睛。到了申请大学时,也没有人因为我对耶鲁感兴趣而挑起眉毛。虽然我的父母大学是在中国上的,他们对美国的申请程序不太了解,但我父亲总会在我考试前给我出一些额外的物理题,或者给我讲解一道我不懂的微积分。我周围的人不仅相信我有能力成功,他们也预料到我会成功,他们也相应地对待我。</p>
<p>尽管我很幸运,但功课并非那么容易。如果父母不能帮助我,如果老师拒绝支持我,如果学校顾问一直对我吹毛求疵,我无法想象上学要有多难,进入一所好大学的目标会变得更加遥不可及。</p>
<p>平权法案试图顾及这样一个事实,就是黑人(和拉丁裔)学生要比完成课业付出更多努力才有可能被大学录取:他们必须跟那些本应帮助他们学习,却怀疑、蔑视和不信任他们的人做斗争。换而言之,黑人学生已经不得不比白人或亚裔美国学生更加努力,那是跟白人或亚裔美国学生截然不同方式的努力,才能有机会申请精英大学。因此,平权法案是直接与那些维护白人权势的力量比如照顾校友子弟的录取政策对抗的。事实上,经济学家Dennis Weisman曾提出,“照顾校友子弟政策可能与考虑种族因素的招生政策存在某种平衡关系”(12)——根据他与同事Dong Li建立的模型,如果取消考虑种族因素的招生政策,校友子弟优先录取的影响可能会扩大。在某种程度上,这是说得通的:如果平权法案帮助非白人进入一直以白人为主的学校,那么白人需要一种相应的方法来捍卫他们对权势的拥有。</p>
<p><img src="https://mmbiz.qpic.cn/mmbiz_jpg/EH4iajVPibGdiaDwoCaTIG7dRiawn5PjMVLwIlzH9PObAHYgDze2LQfRicPjCq6H6ia7qfQW2xUf3wrK1ujGlrjCa9dg/640?wx_fmt=jpeg&tp=webp&wxfrom=5&wx_lazy=1&wx_co=1" alt="" /></p>
<p>也就是说,平权法案和照顾校友子弟录取政策的存在,坐实了大学只看成绩的“择优录取”招生政策的失败。但是,<strong>把照顾校友子弟政策和平权政策的受益者归为一类,实则走入逻辑误区。给校友身份以特权的政策旨在加强既有的优势,保护白人在精英机构中的地位,而平权法案则是为了弥补现存的劣势,提高传统上被排除在精英机构之外的非白人的地位。</strong></p>
<p>\
说了这么多,亚裔美国人被夹在交火的两方中间似乎太冤枉。毕竟,亚裔美国人不也是传统上被排斥在精英机构之外的非白人吗?</p>
<p>对。</p>
<p>但是,解决的办法是不是要取消现有的大学招生制度,代之以一种以分数为基础,因而显然是“唯成绩论”的招生制度呢?</p>
<p>想想我们刚刚探讨了黑人(和拉丁裔)学生在努力奔向成功的路上受到他们无法控制的势力的磕绊, 这样的制度真的公平吗?</p>
<p>在一个公平的环境中开始竞争不正是精英制的必要前提吗?在没有公平竞争环境下追求精英主义,难道真的不是作弊吗?</p>
<p><img src="https://mmbiz.qpic.cn/mmbiz_jpg/EH4iajVPibGdiaDwoCaTIG7dRiawn5PjMVLwPZ9VpFCdwwicYIzT7knqLdjnK6KOkgQw9l9Flg1fDKuC208lX2iccygA/640?wx_fmt=jpeg&tp=webp&wxfrom=5&wx_lazy=1&wx_co=1" alt="" /></p>
<p>那么,难道赋予所有学生同样的机会——让努力工作成为真正意义上的衡量成功的标准和通往成功的途径,不是更好的方案吗?</p>
<h2 id="系统性种族主义"><strong>系统性种族主义</strong></h2>
<p>事实上,我上面讲述的黑人学生在美国学校体系中的经历并没有反应出叙事的每个方面。跟生活在美国的黑人通常经历的一样,黑人学生受到一股股令人震惊的势力的影响,这些势力不仅使他们的生活更加艰难,而且让他们的处境倍加危险。综合起来,这些势力被称为“系统性种族主义”。怎样理解系统性种族主义?它最重要的特征就是,系统性种族主义时时发作,哪怕没有任何个人在以貌似种族主义的方式行事。甚至,系统性种族主义已经渗透到美国社会的基础结构中,它影响着社会生活的各个层面,它以牺牲一部分人的利益为代价,让其他一些人得益,而美国华人在等式的两端都有份。因此,至关重要的是,无论生活在美国的人们是不是近期移民,是不是公民,我们都要了解系统性种族主义是以哪种方式,在哪些方面影响了我们的生活和信念。</p>
<p>我不太可能列出一个完整详细的清单,尽数系统性种族主义在美国是如何以各种悄无声息的方式发作的:因为这样一个清单篇幅就太长了。相反,我想指出系统性种族主义存在的几种方式,以说明它的广泛性、伤害度和不公正性。我还要强调至关重要的一点,就是我们既要对系统性种族主义保持醒警,又要在力所能及的范围内进行抗争,努力去消除它。</p>
<p><img src="https://mmbiz.qpic.cn/mmbiz_jpg/EH4iajVPibGdiaDwoCaTIG7dRiawn5PjMVLwxvMicRpvMgywHodFjELIPktcRFt3aAKcbwnz6sLU62TgmvkqwBibSqXg/640?wx_fmt=jpeg&tp=webp&wxfrom=5&wx_lazy=1&wx_co=1" alt="" /></p>
<p>让我们先从就业说起。我的父母从我很小开始就一直提醒我,一份稳定、高薪的工作是安全和幸福的基础。你需要一份固定的薪水来支付食物和住房费用,为退休存足够的钱,并支付养育孩子的费用。如果你管理好自己的财务,也许有一天能在一个更好的社区买得起更大的房子,这意味着你可以享用到更好的市政设施,你的孩子也可以上更好的公立学校,他们打好基础将来获得更好的高等教育机会,并且能使他们在进入社会开始自己的生活时,具有更大的灵活性和经济保障。因此,你的子女将有条件在社会阶层中比你爬得高——他们会有更大的房子,能把下一代送进私立学校,并有能力在你年迈时为你提供经济上的支持。一份稳定的工作是社会流动得以实现的关键条件。</p>
<p>然而,对于美国黑人来说,得到这样一份工作要比其他种族的美国人困难得多。皮尤研究中心(Pew Research Center)2013年的一项研究发现,在过去60年里,美国黑人的失业率是白人的两倍(13),在经济形势好时如此,在经济形势不好时亦如此。也就是说,一代又一代的美国黑人都受到经济压迫的影响。美国经济政策研究所(Economic Policy Institute)发布的一项2019年的研究报告证实了上述结论。教育在一定程度上有助于缩小这一差距:虽然拥有高中学历的美国黑人失业率为8.2%,而非西班牙裔白人失业率为3.8%,如拥有大学学历,上述两组人群的失业率分别降至3.5%和2.2%,如果拥有研究生学历,则上述两组人群的失业率分别降至2.1%和1.9%。即便如此,“拥有大学或研究生学历的黑人员工比拥有同等学历的白人员工更有可能找不到与他们的技能水平相匹配的职位(14),这类黑人中近40%的人所从事的工作通常不需要大学学位,而同类情况在白人大学毕业生中只有31%。”</p>
<p>歧视性的招工制度可能是造成这些差异的原因之一。在2003年国家经济研究局的一次实地实验中,研究人员回应波士顿和芝加哥报纸上的招聘广告,他们虚构了简历,使用的求职者名字“一个听起来很像非裔美国人的名字,还有一个像白人的名字”。他们发现,有“白人名字”的求职者收到的回电率要高出50%(15),简历是一样的,而且招聘方自称是“机会均等的雇主”。对简历内容做了改进后,这种差距依然存在。一份更高质量的简历,再增加一年的工作经验、外语技能和认证学位,使那些有“白人姓名”的简历得到的回电率提高30%,但是使用“非裔美国人名字”的简历所得到的回电率并没有显著增加。这意味着“白人和非裔美国人之间的差距随着简历质量的提高而加大……歧视似乎是双倍的,使得非裔美国人更难找到工作,而且也使得他们在提高就业能力上面临更大的困难。”换句话说,对黑人来说,获得合适的学位、工作经验和技能并不能保证就业,更别说能找到充分利用这些学位、经验和技能的职位了。</p>
<p>可以想象,这种长期的就业歧视造成的后果是灾难性的。就业不足和失业使得美国黑人很难像其他美国人一样积累财富。低储蓄或没有储蓄同样会使物质生活质量的微小改善难上加难,并阻碍了他们将有经济意义的资产(比如遗产和不动产,与收入相比,遗产课税较轻)(16)留给后代,从而使他们陷入一代又一代的贫困之中。</p>
<p>美国家庭财富的分配——即一个家庭在某个时间点上可获得的全部资源,包括收入、储蓄和遗产继承,是衡量就业歧视和代际贫困等状况带来的综合影响的一个有意义的标准。根据无党派的布鲁金斯学会(Brookings Institute)的一份报告,一个典型的白人家庭在2016年的净资产为171,000美元,几乎是典型黑人家庭所持有的17,150美元的10倍(17)。将数据按年龄分类后,该报告发现,尽管“两个种族中典型的年轻人(18-34岁)几乎都没有财富”,但随着人们年纪增长,大概累积(或艰难积累)了收入和资产,不同人群的财富差距会急剧扩大:65-74岁年龄段的白人预期财富中值为302,500美元,而同一年龄组黑人的预期财富中值只有46,890美元。如将这些数据按收入百分位数分类,报告发现所有收入组别都存在财富鸿沟,只有“最底层的五分之一家庭除外”(因为这个组别的白人和黑人家庭的平均净资产均为零)。事实上,财富档次越高,财富鸿沟越大——2016年最富有的10%的黑人家庭的平均净资产为343,160美元,仅为最富有的10%的白人家庭的平均净资产(1,789,300美元)的五分之一。</p>
<p>种族间的贫富差距一直存在,但这些数字也反映了2008年次贷危机造成的灾难。次贷危机对黑人家庭的打击比对白人家庭的打击更大,从而扩大了这一差距。2007年至2013年间,黑人家庭的平均净资产值下降了44.3%,而白人家庭的平均净资产值下降26.1%。为什么?其中一个原因可能是,黑人不成比例地成为掠夺性贷款的靶子。</p>
<p><img src="https://mmbiz.qpic.cn/mmbiz_jpg/EH4iajVPibGdiaDwoCaTIG7dRiawn5PjMVLwMfBPAqV3vuxzwFBcOictQ5egcdccZkjf9ChUP9eN1Cghl0BQcpiaetiaQ/640?wx_fmt=jpeg&tp=webp&wxfrom=5&wx_lazy=1&wx_co=1" alt="" /></p>
<p>\
理解这一点需要一些历史背景。正如住房和城市发展部(Department of Housing and Urban Development)2004年的研究证实的那样,拥有住房长期以来为美国低收入家庭提供了一条相对稳定的积累财富途径;事实上,住房产权可能是低收入家庭的主要甚至唯一财富来源。在大萧条最为严重的1934年,富兰克林·D·罗斯福总统签署了《国家住房法》,试图通过帮助更多的美国人拥有住房来刺激住房产业和改善经济。该法案设立了联邦住房管理局(FHA),这是住房和城市发展部下属的一个机构,旨在“为银行和其他私人贷款人提供的住房抵押贷款提供保险,从而鼓励他们向潜在的购房者提供更多贷款”(18):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>在美国联邦住房管理局(FHA)之前,气球式抵押贷款(即还款期结束时有大额到期债务需要偿付的住房贷款)是一种常态,而且要求潜在的购房者用现金支付30%至50%的房价以获得贷款。然而,由美国联邦住房管理局提供担保的贷款引入了低首付住房抵押贷款,将购房时所需资金减少到10%。该机构还将住房抵押贷款的偿还期从5-10年延长到20-30年。由此导致的每月按揭付款额减少有助于防止止赎拍卖,通常使买房比租房便宜,并使收入稳定但收入不高的家庭有资格取得住房抵押贷款。此外,由于政府担保的贷款对放贷人的风险较小,抵押贷款利率也下降了</p>
</blockquote>
<p>然而,这些政策并没有惠及所有美国人,而是将种族隔离的做法编入法典,明文规定其目的是“[遏制]……非裔美国人居住在指定的社区,这是为建立稳定、同质的白人业主社区的更广泛努力的一部分”(19)。为了帮助金融机构决定投资地点,联邦住房管理局开发了一套房地产估价系统。根据居住人口统计数据,社区被分为“A级”(最受欢迎)到“D级”(明确拒绝)。那些得到“D级”评定的社区中有更多的“救济家庭”、“外国出生”的人(包括华人、其他移民)和黑人(20)。在许多城市,中国城是那些获得“D”级的社区之一(21)。联邦住房管理局拒绝为这些社区及其附近地区的抵押贷款提供保险,从而心照不宣地阻止银行和其他贷款机构对这些社区进行投资。同时,该机构还对专为白人家庭建造的住宅小区提供补贴,条件是“除该房产原来锁定居住的种族以外,禁止其他人入住”(22)。这个机构认为,如果黑人或其他非白人在这些地区购买住房,该地区所有房产的市值将下降。</p>
<p>需要说明的是,这些(房子将贬值的)假设都没有得到统计证据的支持。美国联邦住房管理局(FHA)将拥有大量黑人和非白人居民的社区定为高风险投资(地区),这并不是基于现有数据(即黑人和非白人拖欠抵押贷款或损害附近房价的概率更高),而仅仅是通过将黑皮肤臆断成一个独特的金融类别,将黑人融入白人社会这样的事情发生的概率本身定义为风险和不稳定因素。正如律师John Kimble在2007年的一篇文章(23)中所解释的那样,将种族和风险混为一谈“使得联邦住房管理局能够控制信贷的流向,将信贷专门注入中产阶级和上流社会的白人社区,而信贷对任何社区的健康和发展都至关重要。它还确保了多种族社区和有色人种社区实际上无法获得来源于主流的金融资本,以及这些资源可能产生的附带利益。” 这些被称为“红线”的政策剥夺了黑人和其他非白人族裔获得购房贷款、房屋维修和抵押贷款再融资的机会(24),从而促进了市区投资的减少,驱逐了杂货店、餐馆和其他企业,并导致当地房地产价值下降(25)。</p>
<p>1968年的《公平住房法》规定,基于种族的借贷行为是非法的。但现在许多分析师都认为,美国尚未全面查明红线借贷行为所造成的巨大损失(26)。据房地产经纪公司Redfin统计,仅根据“绿灯区”或更高端社区的房价相对增长计算,红线居民的个人财富损失超过21.2万美元(27)。而且,没有任何方法可以计算出在曾经被划红线地区长大的孩子们因为被机会被剥夺所承受的损失。由于公立学校的大部分资金来源于房产税,下跌的房价不断地从黑人聚居区抽走资金,进一步加剧了我在前面概述的教育困境</p>
<p>最重要的是,基于种族的借贷制度在美国从未消失:它只是在不断演变。让我们回到2008年的金融危机。政治经济学家Jackie Wang认为,在之前的几年里,贷款机构开始将扩大信贷渠道作为解决种族财富差距的“市场解决方案” (28)。从1989年开始,银行和私人贷款人使用FICO信用评分来确定你有资格获得的贷款类型:你的信用评分越低,给你贷款风险就越大。由于FICO不将种族、性别、宗教、婚姻状况或其他类型的潜在歧视性人口统计信息纳入其分数计算中,因此,信誉度被誉为银行对你的未来进行投资而承受的风险系数的一种公平、客观的衡量方法。这在很大程度上就像所谓不分种族的“择优录取”大学入学政策一样。但是,这些计算没有考虑到系统性种族主义的后果。2020年的一项研究发现,即使是从未被监禁过的黑人,尽管拥有更多的资产和背负更少的债务,他们的FICO平均信用分数也与曾经被监禁过的白人相似(29)。”正如王所说,“信用分数不好被视为道德败坏,而不仅仅是一种结构性不平等的指标。”借信用分数来评估贷款的适当性,使得贷款机构能够打着客观和平等机会的幌子,让已经陷入困境的黑人负担更多的风险和债务。换言之,不良信用是给一个人打上“应该在未来被没收(剥夺)财产”的标记,而不是把他们认定为遭受过伤害和欺压的人。</p>
<p><img src="https://mmbiz.qpic.cn/mmbiz_jpg/EH4iajVPibGdiaDwoCaTIG7dRiawn5PjMVLwb7yWcyWdoMHMpByTQZ5nB5ianHeoFboe5wLnGuHLdCgdG0oBwhyRjibA/640?wx_fmt=jpeg&tp=webp&wxfrom=5&wx_lazy=1&wx_co=1" alt="" /></p>
<p>在2008年危机之前的几年里,银行和私人贷款机构不成比例地以向黑人和其他少数族裔借款人提供次级贷款,这些贷款的形式是根据风险级别而浮动抵押贷款利率和定价(30)。王指出,这些抵押贷款“的设计结构会导致几乎不可避免的最终失败”:“一旦‘上钩’利率到期,自由浮动利率就会迅速膨胀,” 放贷人则保证可以获得巨额投资回报,而且最终取消抵押品赎回权,并卖掉借款人试图购买的房产,这对放贷人是利好,因为房地产市场正以如此之快的速度增长,房地产保证能以更高价格转售。由于信用不良的借款人此前被拒绝获得住房贷款,抵押贷款仍被视为史上(最)安全的投资,因此,随着房地产市场泡沫的扩大,投资者继续购买抵押贷款支持的有价证券(MBSs)和债务抵押债券(CDOs)。但因为“作为这种金融元结构之基础的抵押贷款,其设计目标是要追踪所谓的“有风险的”借款人而使进入次级贷款的回报金额最大化,因而整个融资结构随着借款者开始违约而土崩瓦解。</p>
<p>权威人士和经济学家指责黑人和其他非白人还款违约,但这些贷款让借款人比传统贷款要多支付数万美元的利息。这些专家没有认识到,这些借款人的 “风险 “状况正是贷款机构在预计他们无力偿还债务的情况下用来锁定他们的措施。与此同时,这些借款人首当其冲地承受了危机造成的经济损失,而贷款机构则享受到了联邦政府的大规模救助。媒体叙事与客观现实之间联动互证的反复循环关系,促成了社会经济陷阱的循环往复,同时也强化了人们对黑人懒惰、经济上无能和不负责任的普遍看法。这些偏见让黑人陷入进一步遭受掠夺和被剥夺财产的境地。由此,系统性种族主义不仅支配着我们生活其中的客观环境,它还渗透到我们的思想中,导致我们的偏见。</p>
<p>我暂且到此为止,但是系统性种族主义影响到美国社会的许多方面,远超我所描述,从医疗保健到警察执法、监狱制度。尽管如此,我希望这一简短描述能说明系统性种族主义在众多层次上存在且根深蒂固,并且黑人正在承受着众多因素的重重压迫。我所举的每一个例子都相互印证:<strong>红线区划影响教育,教育影响就业,就业影响财富,财富影响房产所有权,房产所有权影响信用,信用进而影响就业、教育,反过来又影响财富和房产,循环往复</strong>。这里的重点不是说个别黑人没有克服这些困难——就像所有政治派别的人都喜欢指出的那样,有一位黑人在2008年就任总统——而是说,美国并不是它所宣称的充满机会之地;社会流动的唯一条件也不是努力工作。Stokely Carmichael(也称为Kwame Ture)和Charles V.Hamilton早在1967年就在《黑色力量》一书中写道:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>面对这样的现实,谴责黑人“没有表现出更多的主动性”就变得很无稽可笑了,黑人所处的困境并不是因为性格上的某些缺陷。殖民地的权力结构把压迫的靴子踏在黑人的脖子上,然后讽刺地说:“他们还没有准备好接受自由。” 如果仅仅听凭压迫者的善意,被压迫者永远不会准备好。</p>
</blockquote>
<h2 id="在劳力与资本的交汇处"><strong>在劳力与资本的交汇处</strong></h2>
<p>还有两个问题我想简单地谈谈。第一,为什么存在系统性种族主义?第二,这一切和华人移民群体有什么关系?讨论这些问题有助于理解和探讨为什么反对黑人不仅有害于黑人,而且也有害于亚裔美国人。</p>
<p>对这些问题的简单回答是,种族主义意识形态的消长与经济和政治环境有关。也就是说,当种族主义信仰成为靠边缘化某些群体而成就的激励机制的一部分时,种族主义信仰就会泛滥。种族主义信仰也会因为类似的原因而减少:当它们的减少(或者更确切地说是它们的变异)比它们的加强能更好地服务于某些激励结构时。正如对待华人移民态度的历史性转变,包括最近在美国针对华人和其他东亚人的COVID-19相关攻击事件的增加所表明的那样,<strong>不朝这两个方向任何一方的发展代表着种族主义的根除</strong>。因此,反种族主义行动的目标应该是消除种族主义,而不是制造或服从于导致种族主义暂时减少却不能影响其死灰复燃潜力的激励机制。</p>
<p><img src="https://mmbiz.qpic.cn/mmbiz_jpg/EH4iajVPibGdiaDwoCaTIG7dRiawn5PjMVLwp2EicXFnY24zUEtrUV23AplKIiaicXeRkN5skpL9eIrzqrWvvOvX9Ebmw/640?wx_fmt=jpeg&tp=webp&wxfrom=5&wx_lazy=1&wx_co=1" alt="" /></p>
<p>\
在美国历史上,无论是反黑还是反华的种族主义,都以不同的方式共同作用于一个激励机制,那就是资本主义。(在这里,我借用了政治经济学家Jackie Wang(31)、文学学者Iyko Day(32)、监狱废奴主义者Angela Y. Davis(33)等人的观点。我还借用了历史学家Andy Liu在一篇批评像本文这样针对前几代华人移民的文章(34)中的观点,这很有讽刺意味。)。对于种族主义是否先于资本主义或者反之,学者之间存在分歧,但就我们的目的而言,这种分歧并不重要。关键在于,种族主义意识形态有助于维持让资本主义继续发挥作用和扩张所必需的两类人的存在:一类是受到剥削的劳动力阶层,另一类是被无偿征用以促进增长的。</p>
<p>让我们先看一下反对黑人主义。美国黑人从殖民时代被奴役开始,就面临着被剥削和征用。正如历史学家Barbara Fields所言,奴隶制的目的不是“制造白人至上”,而是“生产棉花、糖、大米或烟草”(35):奴隶制度造就了一个被剥夺了自由、财产和权利的群体,这个群体被迫提供必要的劳动力,使殖民地的经济企业如经济作物农业得以起步。更妙的是,由于奴隶劳动是无报酬的、终身的,白人种植园主可以获得比使用有薪或临时劳动力(比如契约仆人)更大的利润。认为非裔 “天生 “或 “生理上 “低劣,因无法生存而理应被奴役的种族主义信念,有助于从叙事上强化被奴役的非裔作为被剥夺的劳动阶级的地位。种族主义信仰也缓解了两种思想的认知失调——一方面,新兴的社会公平理念深入人心,自由市场带来无限机会,另一方面,劳动力和资本之间存在着必然的不平等。</p>
<p>1865年《第十三修正案》废除奴隶制给资本阶层带来了几个问题。种植园主失去了他们主要的劳动力来源,自由人又成为他们争夺土地所有权的潜在对手。对资本阶层来说,幸运的是,《第十三修正案》并没有对奴隶制实行普遍的禁止:“作为对那些已被正式定罪的罪人的惩罚”,使用奴隶仍然是允许的。以前实行奴隶制的州开始用“黑色法典”取代“奴隶法典”,从酗酒到“粗心”处理钱财,都可以定罪。曾经白人居多的监狱人口现在变成了绝大多数黑人,许多州制定了囚犯租赁制度,强迫囚犯免费劳动,重新建立了一种无酬劳动模式,帮助南方工业化,同时减少了对土地和资源的竞争(36)。与此同时,把黑人与犯罪行为联系在一起,以至于有白人在触犯法律之前把自己涂成黑色(37)。这种联系构织了(事实上在持续构织)逻辑谬误式的循环推理,所以它既解释了为什么被定罪和被监禁的黑人人数不断增加,同时又促使这个人数成倍增长。</p>
<p>我不会用这种方式来诠释整个美国历史,但我希望这两个经过大幅度简化的总结能为反黑主义怎样满足了资本需求提供一点启示。反黑将黑人作为劳工阶级的地位具体化,并为他们继续被征用制造了理由。因此,限制黑人可获得的物质机会符合资本家和公司的利益,无论他们是否意识到这一点;反黑化言论是这个体系的关键组成部分。我们可以看到这样的联系作用于当今系统性反黑人种族主义的反复出现。以我在上一节中提供的掠夺性贷款政策为例,(让)一大批人负债累累的目的何在?在我们目前的信用体系下,债务不仅会引发更多债务,而且还会阻止人们积累资金、搬到更好的社区和送孩子去更好的学校,获得更好工作的技能。换句话说,负债人口形成了这样一个阶层,这一阶层的劳动力和资产可以无限地被资本利用提取,从而推动(在这种特殊情况下)金融资本的增长,金融资本是资本家在近代倾注了最大努力进行扩张的虚拟领域。</p>
<p><img src="https://mmbiz.qpic.cn/mmbiz_jpg/EH4iajVPibGdiaDwoCaTIG7dRiawn5PjMVLwBXJqsHthnWIU7qZQ09SecT6ZKUlkJ6Nibg18u5ctdlDUOlfwK5ibZcibw/640?wx_fmt=jpeg&tp=webp&wxfrom=5&wx_lazy=1&wx_co=1" alt="" /></p>
<p>相对于美国资本主义,华人移民占据了相关但又不同的地位,一个关键的区别是,反华种族主义随着时间的推移发生了变化,迎合了对外交政策目标和跨国紧张局势以及严格的国内局势的变化。正如Iyko Day所观察到的那样,亚裔美国人作为劳工和替罪羊的身份被种族化了:当他们自身或他们的母国所被臆想出来的威胁超过了他们作为劳工的作用时,他们的入境可以受到限制,他们永恒的外来性甚至可以用来对付那些已经成为合法公民的人。这里的重点并不是说亚裔美国人应该通过讨好当权者来摆脱他们的“外国性”。相反,亚裔美国人被普遍认为是外国人,因为他们的另类性比他们(可能会发生的)被同化更符合资本的利益。不管有多少亚裔美国人成功地获得了财富、名声或成就,以这样的地位,仍然是不可能混合进美国这盘色拉里面的。</p>
<p>不妨把1882年的《排华法案》当作这一现象的最早期和最突出的例子。自19世纪30年代,随着合法奴隶制结构开始恶化,中国劳工开始陆续涌入美国。许多人定居在西海岸,尤其是在1848年的加利福尼亚淘金热期间,他们从事白人劳工鄙视的工作,如农业、烹饪和修建”中太平洋铁路”,他们的工资往往比白人工人所能接受的低,工作条件也差很多。起初,他们愿意填补这些空缺的意愿受到欢迎;有些人甚至想知道,中国劳工是否能像在古巴那样,在美国种植园取代被奴役的非洲人(38)。但随着淘金热逐渐消退,1873年和1877年,美国面临一系列经济衰退,公众情绪发生了转变。白人劳工指责中国劳工与白人资本家“合谋”,夺走他们的工作和工资(39)。当国会通过了《排华法案》,禁止中国劳工进一步移民,禁止他们入籍为公民,他们对这些担忧的明确支持不言而喻。</p>
<p>在我们继续之前,我想强调一下这个叙述中一些逻辑上的矛盾之处,这些矛盾有益于揭示反华种族主义的轮廓。首先,白人劳工选择将通常比他们穷的华人劳工与白人资本阶层混为一谈,而不承认他们和华人劳工作为劳动者的共同身份。其次,白人劳工实际上同时反对华人劳工和白人资本阶层,但美国政府为了满足白人资本阶层的要求,去惩罚华人。华人移民被标记为不可救药的外国人,因此是“不可模仿、低人一等、不道德”的(40),华人移民背了黑锅,这样才能保持资本主义的经济结构的完整。</p>
<p>诚然,美国华人并不总是受到早期劳工所面临的那种程度的暴力或仇外心理影响。但即便是华裔移民明显地融入美国上层社会,那也是跟更广泛的经济和政治目标相呼应的。历史学家徐元音(Madeline Y.Hsu)认为,冷战时期的地缘政治有助于激发(美国)国内对华人移民更友好的态度(41)。这种态度最早是在中国内战共产党胜利后,在美国滞留了大约5000名“高技能、人脉广”的学生、技术实习生、外交官和军事人员,他们于1942年被送到美国接受进一步教育。徐写道:“由于同情的高涨,以及对让这些有用的人落入敌人手中的现实性担忧,国会拨出总额约1000万美元的资金,帮助中国知识分子和学生完成学业,其中许多人达到博士学位水平,然后相对平稳地进入白领或专业工作岗位,入住郊区住宅。” 在整个1950年代和1960年代,美国采用权宜之计(基于短期行为)的难民收容政策,让大批中国知识分子进入美国,优先考虑“有能力在经济上作出贡献的人,以完整的家庭为单位,从而促进他们融入美国中产阶级”:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>与排斥时代的种族隔离主义做法形成鲜明对比的是,中国冷战时期的难民在美国获得郊区住宅、中产和专业性工作以及公民身份,以证明美国没有种族歧视。通过成为美国人,他们展示了美国在东亚的仁慈和其多族裔民主的运作,同时也缓解了保守派对取消移民种族限制会颠覆国内种族等级制度的担忧。他们的成功“失踪”(融入美国中产阶级)为1965年《移民法》的自由化条款奠定了基础。</p>
</blockquote>
<p>换言之,华人移民(在那个时期更确切地说是难民)在中世纪的美国找到了向上流动通道并受到欢迎,因为他们的融合在经济上是有利的(作为受过高等教育和高技能的专业人士,而不是十九世纪劳动阶层的劳工),在政治上堪称权宜之计(作为美国资本主义和自由民主对中国和其他同样体制的国家的优越性的一种表现)。反过来,媒体宣传这些难民的自主和自我奋斗的成功,进一步强调了黑人的低劣:认为亚裔美国人是“模范少数民族”,许多文章把华裔专业人士的社会经济进步作为证据,证明只要努力工作,任何少数族裔都可以在美国成功。因此,美国黑人缺乏的(向上的)流动能力不是任何人的错,而是他们自己的错。</p>
<p>我们回到了本文的出发点,而我希望现在我们可以看清楚,为什么强调美国机会平等的说辞明显是错误的,以及为什么在美国如我们所知的那种要求唯才论的呼声不仅是不明智的,而且是根植于不公之中。而且,我并不是要说华裔移民没有努力工作或他们不配取得成功,或者作为个人,我们不应该或不需要继续努力工作争取成功。我只想证明,这些中世纪华人移民的向上流动,除了与他们自己的勇气、自律和决心有关,还受到他们掌控之外的政治和经济激励机制的推动。 自1965年《移民与国籍法》通过以来,这些激励措施随着美国国内和世界经济的发展以及中美关系的发展而不断变化,进而不断影响着当今华裔移民在美国的境遇。出于同样的原因,时逢在政治和/或经济上(对主流)有利,中国移民的成功也会被夺走。事实上,我们现在正经历着权利的倒退。想想在冠状病毒大流行期间华人和其他东亚裔美国人所经历的攻击(42)。想想唐纳德·特朗普坚称冠状病毒是“中国病毒”,还有他的顾问一再指示他,通过指责中国未能控制病毒传播,转移(他应该承担的)对美国令人难以置信的感染率和死亡人数的责任(43)。想想那些中国的研究生和研究人员,他们的签证被联邦政府取消了(44),还有很多很多中国留学生,因为他们的大学在秋天把教学转移到了网上,所以他们不能在美国完成学业(45),或是被指控为中国政府窃取数据或研究的众多华裔科学家(46)。</p>
<p><img src="https://mmbiz.qpic.cn/mmbiz_jpg/EH4iajVPibGdiaDwoCaTIG7dRiawn5PjMVLw3fyykbCjSvgaWtfLLBJia7KT9x4ZavKBeIHfP773apm8cWlF2z4RkVA/640?wx_fmt=jpeg&tp=webp&wxfrom=5&wx_lazy=1&wx_co=1" alt="" /></p>
<p>\
这些事件并不是孤立的,并不是史上前所未有的。最重要的是,这些事件与夺走黑人生命的活动并非没有关系。同样的势力从对黑人的持续征服中获利——同样的势力,教导我们黑人是没有文化的,没有感情的,有罪的——从华人移民听话、勤劳、异类的观念中获利。同样的势力,教会我们看不起黑人,因为他们的无能导致他们在美国无法成功,而这种势力利用尽了华人移民默默无声的劳动付出。同样的势力在不成比例地谋杀黑人的同时,却依据地缘政治和经济便利之需,交替地或欢迎或拒绝华人移民。</p>
<p>系统的种族主义剥夺了我们决定自己生活轨迹的能力。它的继续存在既不是偶然的,也不是没作用的。它是帮助当权者在一个又一个世纪里继续掌权的工具,因此,我们不可能忽视或回避它,因为无论我们是否选择关注,无论我们是否选择关心,系统性种族主义仍在塑造我们的思想,指导我们的行动,并影响着我们生活的方方面面——从被允许成功的程度(47)到死亡的频率(48)。这种知识应该使我们感到恐惧,但也应该激励我们。因为反对系统性种族主义的斗争是争取平等机会的斗争:这是正义的斗争。</p>
<p><img src="https://mmbiz.qpic.cn/mmbiz_jpg/EH4iajVPibGdiaDwoCaTIG7dRiawn5PjMVLwliasibbDibOEX3AnAcCXHssUhmh6D46NPibicicSMpNBfExmEDfZbkBuiaDmg/640?wx_fmt=jpeg&tp=webp&wxfrom=5&wx_lazy=1&wx_co=1" alt="" /></p>
<p><img src="https://mmbiz.qpic.cn/mmbiz_jpg/EH4iajVPibGdiaDwoCaTIG7dRiawn5PjMVLwa7ERhevExumuicvn8DOZ5EOaLjg6JW16xqPE0gtRWMzHxEqP0FVM0tw/640?wx_fmt=jpeg&tp=webp&wxfrom=5&wx_lazy=1&wx_co=1" alt="" /></p>
<p><img src="https://mmbiz.qpic.cn/mmbiz_jpg/EH4iajVPibGdiaDwoCaTIG7dRiawn5PjMVLwv5G2Ju8jMY8fWAueZibR0q2zogHwGYjzDsia9PMhtJOojaAEKAfic0puA/640?wx_fmt=jpeg&tp=webp&wxfrom=5&wx_lazy=1&wx_co=1" alt="" /></p>
<p>______</p>
<h4 id="注"><strong>注:</strong></h4>
<p>1.http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf</p>
<p>2.https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-harvard-minorities-20170804-story.html</p>
<p>3.https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Chosen/1Nf3FxMIEB8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover</p>
<p>4.http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/high_school_and_beyond/2018/02/first_generation_students_face_extra_challenges_in_high_school.html?cmp=soc-tw-shr</p>
<p>5.https://ocrdata.ed.gov/Downloads/CRDC-School-Discipline-Snapshot.pdf</p>
<p>6.https://www.aclu.org/issues/juvenile-justice/school-prison-pipeline/school-prison-pipeline-infographic</p>
<p>7.https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/03/black-boys-older</p>
<p>8.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327625470_Supporting_Latino_and_African-American_Students_in_Advanced_Placement_Courses_A_School_Counseling_Program’s_Approach</p>
<p>9.https://books.google.com/books/about/Beyond_Tracking.html?id=2v2TOQAACAAJ</p>
<p>10.https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/PDFs/WebinarPowerPoints/1096-2409-19-1-144_4.pdf</p>
<p>11.https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018009.pdf</p>
<p>12.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/elite-schools-ivy-league-legacy-admissions-harvard-wealthier-whiter</p>
<p>13.https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/21/through-good-times-and-bad-black-unemployment-is-consistently-double-that-of-whites/</p>
<p>14.https://www.epi.org/publication/labor-day-2019-racial-disparities-in-employment/</p>
<p>15.https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873</p>
<p>16.https://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/leveling_the_playing_field_between_inherited_income_and_income_from_work_through_an_inheritance_tax</p>
<p>17.https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining-the-black-white-wealth-gap/</p>
<p>18.https://www.britannica.com/topic/Federal-Housing-Administration</p>
<p>19.http://www.jstor.com/stable/20108708</p>
<p>20.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5FBJyqfoLM</p>
<p>21.https://hoodline.com/2014/06/a-history-of-redlining-in-san-francisco-neighborhoods</p>
<p>22.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o-yD0wGxAc</p>
<p>23.http://www.jstor.com/stable/20108708</p>
<p>24.https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2019/08/07/472617/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/</p>
<p>25.https://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_06_a-godeeper.htm</p>
<p>26.https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/</p>
<p>27.https://www.redfin.com/blog/redlining-real-estate-racial-wealth-gap/</p>
<p>28.https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/carceral-capitalism</p>
<p>29.https://equitablegrowth.org/the-never-ending-cycle-incarceration-credit-scores-and-wealth-accumulation-in-the-united-states/</p>
<p>30.https://www.huduser.gov/Publications/pdf/unequal_full.pdf</p>
<p>31.https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/carceral-capitalism</p>
<p>32.https://www.dukeupress.edu/alien-capital</p>
<p>33.https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/213837/are-prisons-obsolete-by-angela-y-davis/</p>
<p>34.https://goodbye.substack.com/p/about-those-letters-to-my-asian-parents</p>
<p>35.https://newleftreview.org/issues/I181/articles/barbara-jeanne-fields-slavery-race-and-ideology-in-the-united-states-of-america</p>
<p>36.https://www.versobooks.com/books/738-twice-the-work-of-free-labor</p>
<p>37.https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/1r3tAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1</p>
<p>38.https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/phr.2007.76.4.537</p>
<p>39.http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5046/%7C</p>
<p>40.https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/phr.2007.76.4.537</p>
<p>41.https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jamerethnhist.31.4.0012?seq=1</p>
<p>42.https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-anti-asian-attacks-say-about-american-culture-during-crisis</p>
<p>43.https://static.politico.com/80/54/2f3219384e01833b0a0ddf95181c/corona-virus-big-book-4.17.20.pdf</p>
<p>44.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/us/politics/china-hong-kong-trump-student-visas.html</p>
<p>45.https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51288854</p>
<p>46.https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/07/visa-rule-leaves-indian-chinese-students-panic-200709091726735.html</p>
<p>47.https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/sp_faq/what-is-the-bamboo-ceiling-in-the-silicon-valley-tech-industry/</p>
<p>48.https://news.umich.edu/police-sixth-leading-cause-of-death-for-young-black-men/</p>The Wechat Projectthewechatproject@gmail.com理想的社会人人生而平等,个体努力是通向成功的唯一条件;在英才制模式下,大学录取和社会各界选拔人才只看成绩和才能,不分肤色和背景,就像马丁路德金梦想的那样。然而在美国,现实与梦想之间还有一段遥远的路程要走。面对系统性种族主义,华二代大学生态度鲜明,并开启了跟父母一代的对话。今天的文章从华人父母最关心的大学录取政策谈起,回顾历史,剖析政策,资料翔实,论证清晰,为两代人之间进一步对话提供了良好范例。A Daughter’s Duty: Experiencing Homophobia as a Chinese-American Woman2020-07-19T18:32:44-04:002020-07-19T18:32:44-04:00https://wechatproject.netlify.app/2020/07/19/a-daughter%E2%80%99s-duty-experiencing-homophobia-as-a-chinese-american-woman<p>Despite being born in North America, I am still incredibly connected to my Chinese culture. I am both Chinese and American and I do not minimize either identity.I do not go to China often, but whenever I do, I feel like a foreigner wearing the wrong skin. One time, on a trip to China to visit relatives, my mother decided to meet up with one of her old university friends. At the time, the One Child Policy was in effect, but this family friend had two children. Her eldest was a girl, like me. Her youngest was a boy. She paid a fee to be allowed to have another child. As my mother had her hands full with just raising me, teasingly, she commented that having two children must be impossibly tiring. The response made me regret the cosmic accident of my sex. <em>I wished to only have one child. But my firstborn was a girl, so I had no choice.</em> She turned to her daughter and said, “I hope this one does not have to go through all that pain, and has lots of sons.” The message rings clear: girls are deadweight to families, to society.</p>
<p>Girls can soften the edges of our misfortune through heterosexual marriage. As a young Chinese girl, the more traditional parts of my culture tells me that my value exists only if I marry a man. This is tangled with the principle of filial piety: family duty is to carry on the family name. A child must obey the wishes of their family as a child is in the world because of their family, so they owe them a debt that can never be repaid. Women who love other women? Basically spitting in the face of an antiquated tradition that believes we need men to provide for us, and more so to achieve a whole, happy family.</p>
<p>None of my white classmates could ever put me neatly in a box; it did not stop them from trying. <em>The Chinese kids keep to themselves, the Chinese kids only speak in Chinese so we can’t understand, the Chinese kids say homophobic things in class.</em> Much of their rhetoric was stereotypes. But honestly? For many of them, who cares if they were true? Who cares if we only speak in Chinese? Their ideas about China’s unprogressive nature were steeped in the white gaze. Since I did not want to side with the ill-informed white liberals, I found myself saying nothing when the Chinese kids did say homophobic things, thinking I was doing the right thing by standing with my Chinese peers. What broke me was when my white classmates saw me as “just another one of the Chinese kids”, homophobia included.</p>
<p>I was a dual outsider. I was an outsider to my Chinese peers because I was queer. I was an outsider to my so-called-progressive white friends because of my ties to Chinese values. Without any support networks, I looked towards queer online influencers for guidance. They provided me with affirmations that being gay was indeed okay. All of them were white, however. None of them knew how to deal with the Chinese immigrant expectation of having a canonical family full of sons.</p>
<p>Disheartened about the lack of queer media representation from immigrant and Asian queers, I decided I would be the trailblazer. I gave talks about my identity at my all-girls high school for Pride month. Insidiously, during a month meant to celebrate me, other queer people and our intersections, the Chinese international students outed me online. Through cyberspace and a chain of WeChat messages, it reached my mother and I was robbed of a chance to tell her myself. Everything private became public. My identity became dinner table fodder. I had Chinese aunties who did not know me assuming that I would take advantage of their daughters. My invitations to the sleepovers always seemed to get lost in the mail. It was not just the abstract concepts — queerness and Chinese filial piety — at odds, but I was a walking contradiction.</p>
<p>During my mother’s lectures when I was growing up, especially when I made a mistake, she would bring up the fact that she moved to North America for me. Not as leverage, but as the truth. She did. So I never wanted to do anything that made it so I was a burden. In my mind, queerness was a burden, something that prevented me from being the perfect Chinese daughter; I believed that being true to who I was equaled failing my parents and their sacrifices.</p>
<p>My mother’s bone to pick was not really with my sexuality. What made her mad was my sodden public image rubbing off on her. Losing face in the Chinese community is a slow death spread by word of mouth. Her main complaint was that she would never be able to post wedding photos if there were two brides. Her over-achieving daughter that once was on track to making her proud became nothing but a ghost on her online trail.</p>
<p>My mother came to my room one night, her face screwed shut as if in physical pain. Her phone was in her hand aglow, probably from reading messages on her social media. She asked me if I could be attracted to men, and grow up to have my own nuclear family, even if just for her sake. I said yes. I was reminded of how I never had toys as a child. In fits of grief, I told my mother she did not love me. I was not aware of her empty bank account. Now, she tells me that I do not love her because of something I cannot control. All history, even family history, repeats. I was taught family love is unconditional and I must stick by the family’s side even if it hurts. It was my sexuality or my family. Did I value my happiness or my mother’s happiness more? The constant double life of acting the perfect Chinese daughter exhausted me and I stopped choosing her.</p>
<p>I do not bother bringing up my sexuality to the family anymore. I date women in secret. People tell me I should try to get my family to come around, but I am tired. Instead of looking at my failed pleas for acceptance like trying to reconnect with family, I started looking at it like trying to earn my existence with people who never wanted me for my true self. It makes silence easier. If no one from my family gets a wedding invitation, they only have themselves to blame.</p>
<p>Looking for solace, I sought out friends in LGBTQIA+ Youth Councils and went to Pride events around my city. I made friends, queer and allies, who listened to me explain the unique intersections within my identity. The warmth drowned out the ice. There is safety in posting anonymously about sexuality on the internet: I do not know them, they do not know me and if they leave, I never expected transient online friends to stay in the first place. Eventually, I did get to know other members of the queer community in real life and it exceeded all expectations. They feel like family.</p>
<p>Collectivist cultures keep family ties alive. What people forget sometimes is that within a collectivist society are individuals that need to matter just as much as the unit. After my public outing, I became the sore-thumb to an otherwise traditional, un-westernized Chinese family. I am not going to apologize for who I am anymore just to prevent someone else from losing face. I am not going to look for acceptance at the hands of a blood family that will not accept me. I love my family. But I also love myself, and I have been on the backburner for too long. I will wait. Not forever though. I have so much life to live outside waiting for acceptance.</p>The Wechat Projectthewechatproject@gmail.comMy mother’s bone to pick was not really with my sexuality. What made her mad was my sodden public image rubbing off on her. Losing face in the Chinese community is a slow death spread by word of mouth. Her main complaint was that she would never be able to post wedding photos if there were two brides. Her over-achieving daughter that once was on track to making her proud became nothing but a ghost on her online trail.女儿的责任:一位华裔女同性恋者的心声2020-07-19T18:19:34-04:002020-07-19T18:19:34-04:00https://wechatproject.netlify.app/2020/07/19/%E5%A5%B3%E5%84%BF%E7%9A%84%E8%B4%A3%E4%BB%BB:%E4%B8%80%E4%BD%8D%E5%8D%8E%E8%A3%94%E5%A5%B3%E5%90%8C%E6%80%A7%E6%81%8B%E8%80%85%E7%9A%84%E5%BF%83%E5%A3%B0<p>虽然我出生在北美,但我跟中国文化依然有着不可思议的联系。我既是华人,又是美国人——这两个身份对我都很重要。<strong>中国我不常去,但每当我去的时候,都感觉到自己像个生错了肤色的外国人。</strong></p>
<p>在一次去中国探亲的旅行中,我妈妈决定和她的一个大学同学见面。那时候中国实行独生子女政策,但这个朋友家有两个孩子。老大跟我一样是个女孩,老二是男孩。她交了罚款才生下第二胎。而我妈妈光是把我养大就忙得不可开交,所以她深有感慨地开玩笑说,生两个孩子一定是累到不行了。</p>
<p>她这个朋友的回答让我对我的性别这个随机事件感到遗憾,她说“我也希望只生一个,可我第一胎生了个女孩,所以我别无选择。” 她又转身对她女儿说:”希望这个女儿不用经历那么多痛苦,能生几个儿子。”</p>
<p><strong>她的意思很明确:女孩无论对家庭还是对社会来说,都是个负担,没什么价值。</strong></p>
<p>女孩可以通过跟异性结婚来缓和这样的局面。而我作为一个年轻的华裔女性,文化中比较传统的那一面告诉我,嫁给一个男生,我才有价值。<strong>这种想法也跟孝道缠在一起:家庭责任就是传宗接代。</strong>孩子应该顺从家人的意愿,孩子是因为父母才存在于这个世界上的,所以欠家人的债是一辈子也偿还不了的。</p>
<p><img src="https://mmbiz.qpic.cn/mmbiz_jpg/ja3qtofys6coQwA4RxiaGrFRkjkgN02tfQn6UYZgz27phia9oIhEAtgEGS1dMsnhdJsxfNpsMGbFzq404S3JJg4w/640?wx_fmt=jpeg&tp=webp&wxfrom=5&wx_lazy=1&wx_co=1" alt="" />\
华人同志组织在美国参与游行</p>
<p><strong>爱上其他女人?那基本上就是在唾弃一个因循守旧的传统</strong>——我们需要男人来养活,那样才能成就一个完整的幸福的家庭。</p>
<p>白人同学没有一个把我完整地套进一个模式里,但这并不影响他们一次又一次地试图那样去做:<strong>华人孩子不爱跟人交流;华人孩子故意讲中文让我们听不懂;华人孩子在课堂上说恐同的话。</strong></p>
<p>他们的很多言论都带有成见,对于他们中的很多人来说,谁会在乎他们口中所说是不是真相呢?谁会真的在乎我们讲中文?他们眼中的中国在本质上不够进步,他们把一些个例概括成结论了。因为我不想跟那些信息闭塞的白人自由主义者站在一边,所以当华人孩子们真的在说恐同的话时,我自己什么也没说,我以为我和华人朋友们站在一起是正确的。可当我的白人同学把我看成”只是另一个华人孩子 “,当然也会恐同。</p>
<p><strong>我受伤了。</strong></p>
<p><strong>对两边来说我都是局外人。对我的华裔朋友们来说,我是个局外人,因为我是个酷儿;因为我跟中国价值观的关联,所以对那些号称进步派白人朋友来说,我也是个局外人。</strong></p>
<p>在没有任何人脉支持的情况下,我向酷儿网络寻求指导。他们对我给予肯定,告诉我做一名同性恋者是可以的。当然,他们都是白人。<strong>只是,他们中没有谁知道怎么样应对华裔移民家庭中那种正统的对子孙满堂的期望。</strong></p>
<p>媒体上几乎没有移民或亚裔的酷儿形象,让我非常沮丧,我下决心要做一个开拓者。我在学校的”骄傲月”活动中发表了关于我性取向的演讲。阴险的是,在这个原本应该让我和其他同性恋者为我们的独特身份感到自豪的月份里,<strong>有中国留学生在网上揭发了我。</strong></p>
<p><strong>消息通过网络和一连串的微信转发传到了我妈妈那里,剥夺了我亲口告诉妈妈的机会。</strong>所有的隐私都公开了。我的性取向成了人们茶余饭后的谈资。有不认识我的阿姨想当然地认为我会占她们女儿的便宜。我发给朋友们来家里过夜(sleepover)的邀请似乎总是在传递中丢失。<strong>同性恋和中国的孝道这些抽象的概念之间产生了矛盾——我就是一个活生生的矛盾体。</strong></p>
<p>在我长大的过程中,特别是每当我犯了错,妈妈会给我讲大道理,她会提到她是为了我才移民到北美这个事实——这是事实,她并不是把这件事当作筹码来说的。她确实是为了我才移民北美的,所以我从来不想做任何让她有负担的事情。<strong>在我看来,同性恋是一种负担,阻碍我成为完美的女儿;同时我也意识到,忠于自己就等于辜负了我的爸爸妈妈和他们为我所做的牺牲。</strong></p>
<p><img src="https://mmbiz.qpic.cn/mmbiz_png/ja3qtofys6dSZb4qwFS7GuYJP0hSWj6pRJVmSnWSicE7VerG9VTOlu9CHTDcTXTSRrU5h2rA7N3TtC8HEJM4VUg/640?wx_fmt=png&tp=webp&wxfrom=5&wx_lazy=1&wx_co=1" alt="" /></p>
<p>我觉得妈妈指责的其实并不是我的性取向。她生气的是,我的公众形象玷污了她。<strong>人言可畏,在华人圈,丢面子就相当于在人们的流言蜚语中慢慢死去。</strong>妈妈抱怨的主要是,如果女儿跟另一个女人结婚,那她就永远不可能在网上发婚礼照片了。女儿成绩出色,原本会让她骄傲,现在却什么也不是了,在她的网络中成了幽灵一样的存在。</p>
<p>有天晚上,妈妈来到我的房间,表情很难受,好像身上哪里痛的样子。她手里的手机亮着,可能是在看社交媒体上的信息。她问我有没有可能爱上男人,成家生子,哪怕就是为了她。我说可以。我想起了小时候我总是没有玩具可玩。我那时很难过,就跟妈妈说,她不爱我。当时我并不知道她银行帐户上已经没钱了。</p>
<p><strong>现在,她用我无法掌控的事情来指责我不爱她。历史在重复,哪怕是在一个家庭里,历史也在重复。</strong>我受到的教育是,家人的爱是无条件的,哪怕遭受伤痛我也应该跟家人站在一边。是坚持我的性取向,还是要我的家人?我是不是把自己的幸福看得比妈妈的幸福更重要?我不断扮演着完美的华人家女儿,而这样的双重生活让我疲惫不堪——我不再选择妈妈了。</p>
<p>我索性不再跟家人提起我的性取向。我偷偷地约见女友。有人跟我说,应该努力争取让家人回心转意,但是我心灰意冷了。我渴求让家人接受却没能达成心愿,我没有再努力去修复跟家人的关系,相反,我深感自己一直试图在从来不愿接受真实的我的人面前赢得我的存在。这样想来,沉默不语更容易一些。如果我家人没有得到邀请参加我的婚礼,那是他们自己的问题。</p>
<p>为了寻求安慰,我在LGBTQIA和青年委员会中寻找知音,我还参加了我所在城市的骄傲活动。我结识了一些朋友,他们中有同性恋者,也有盟友,<strong>他们倾听我对自己身份和性取向认同的解释,身为亚裔同性恋女生,多重交织的身份让我的经历独特又复杂。</strong></p>
<p><img src="https://mmbiz.qpic.cn/mmbiz_png/ja3qtofys6dSZb4qwFS7GuYJP0hSWj6pJrP8kqLEIqbicFrgG22l9s61aLWa4e6LQIRH0YRTAJRUqh0kWSB5tvg/640?wx_fmt=png&tp=webp&wxfrom=5&wx_lazy=1&wx_co=1" alt="" /></p>
<p>温情融化了坚冰。在网上匿名发布性取向的信息很安全,我不认识他们,他们也不认识我。他们若是离开我也没什么,原本我也没指望短暂出现的网友会一直陪伴我。最终,我确实在现实生活中认识了性少数群体的其他成员,这一切都超出了预期。我觉得他们就像家人一样。</p>
<p>集体主义文化使家庭关系更密切。但人们有时会忘记,在集体氛围内,每个个体和整个群体同等重要。在我出柜之后,我成了一个跟原本很传统、远没有西方化的华人家庭格格不入的存在。我不会再为了不让别人丢面子而为自己的性取向内疚。我不会再向一个跟我有血缘关系却不认可我的家庭乞求被接受的机会。</p>
<p><strong>我爱我的家人。我也爱我自己,我冷落自己太久了。我会等待,但不是直到永远。在期待着被接受的日子以外,我还要活出自己多彩的人生。</strong></p>The Wechat Projectthewechatproject@gmail.com虽然我出生在北美,但我跟中国文化依然有着不可思议的联系。我既是华人,又是美国人——这两个身份对我都很重要。**中国我不常去,但每当我去的时候,都感觉到自己像个生错了肤色的外国人。**Announcing the WeChat Project2020-06-08T07:00:00-04:002020-06-08T07:00:00-04:00https://wechatproject.netlify.app/announcements/2020/06/08/announcing-the-wechat-project<p><a href="/announcements/2020/05/31/announcing-the-wechat-project-cn.html">Chinese version(中文版)</a></p>
<p>Hello!</p>
<p>This is Eileen Huang and Kalos Chu. You may know Eileen as an accidentally infamous figure on WeChat, and Kalos as the winner of his 7th grade class spelling bee—or, if those don’t ring bells, then probably from the open letters we wrote to the Chinese American community.</p>
<p>We never expected for the letters to explode as they did. The letters have received hundreds of thousands of reads on WeChat, and we’ve heard from journalists, authors, winners of the Civil Courage Prize—but most importantly, from children and their parents. From second-generation Chinese Americans like us, inspired to have these critical discussions for the first time, to first-generation Chinese Americans like our parents, astonished that we actually have something to say.</p>
<p>Not all of the comments were positive. Ranging from “I think you are misguided” to “you are being controlled by the CCP,” there were plenty of people who disagreed with us—and we’re okay with that. In fact, we’re excited about it! Disagreement is a symptom of healthy, democratic discourse, and this was always our primary goal: to get the conversation started, yes, between parents and their children, but also across the entire Chinese American community.</p>
<p>For much of our own lives, we’ve been okay with the conversation never happening to begin with, with limiting dinner table topics to the weather or school or whether the tofu was salty enough. But since these letters have come out, since we’ve heard countless stories of families discussing issues of race and identity and our shared Chinese American history, it’s clear that the conversation has, indeed, begun.</p>
<p>And the thing is, we don’t want the conversation to stop.</p>
<p>To that end, we’re starting “The WeChat Project”—a partnership with Chinese American where we’ll be releasing new articles about conversations we want to start. Given the moment we find ourselves in, these articles will begin with topics like police brutality or mass incarceration, but will eventually include topics like mental health, queer identity, and educational achievement. We’ll publish these articles here, on Chinese American.</p>
<p>And since the core of our project is to facilitate conversation, we’re committed to making sure every article has a direct, accurate, and accessible English/Chinese translation. We also recognize that, for it to be a conversation, we can’t be the only ones speaking. To that end, we’ll be soliciting responses from the community after every article. You must, however, be signed up for the email newsletter in order to respond.</p>
<p>You may think that we’re privileged, ignorant, uninformed, and entitled. We would, obviously, vehemently disagree. But even if we are all of those things, even if we don’t eat enough and play too many video games and never remember to sit up straight, we’re still your children, and we still want to talk to you. It is our hope that you choose not only to respond, but also to do the much harder thing—to listen.</p>
<p>With love,</p>
<p>Kalos Chu (kaloschu@college.harvard.edu)
Eileen Huang (eileen.huang@yale.edu)</p>The Wechat Projectthewechatproject@gmail.comWe’re starting “The WeChat Project”—a partnership with Chinese American where we’ll be releasing new articles about conversations we want to start. Given the moment we find ourselves in, these articles will begin with topics like police brutality or mass incarceration, but will eventually include topics like mental health, queer identity, and educational achievement.“我们和非裔站在一起”,耶鲁华裔学生写给爸妈和华人社区的公开信2020-05-31T18:14:51-04:002020-05-31T18:14:51-04:00https://wechatproject.netlify.app/2020/05/31/%E2%80%9C%E6%88%91%E4%BB%AC%E5%92%8C%E9%9D%9E%E8%A3%94%E7%AB%99%E5%9C%A8%E4%B8%80%E8%B5%B7%E2%80%9D,%E8%80%B6%E9%B2%81%E5%8D%8E%E8%A3%94%E5%AD%A6%E7%94%9F%E5%86%99%E7%BB%99%E7%88%B8%E5%A6%88%E5%92%8C%E5%8D%8E%E4%BA%BA%E7%A4%BE%E5%8C%BA%E7%9A%84%E5%85%AC%E5%BC%80%E4%BF%A1<p>致美国华人社区:</p>
<p>我叫黄艾琳(Eileen Huang), 是耶鲁大学英语系大三学生。PBS的最新纪录片《亚裔美国人》播出以后,有人约我就美国华裔历史写一篇观后感,或者写一首诗也行。可是,我发现在这个时候很难作诗。我不想只关注我自己族裔的历史和故事,而不去了解和认识所有被边缘化的少数族群经历的挑战,痛苦和创伤(其中也包括我们自己族裔的遭遇),哪怕是在今天。鉴于明尼苏达州的抗议活动是由白人警官和亚裔警官谋杀黑人乔治·弗洛伊德(George Floyd)引发的(编者注:Derek Chauvin已被当地检察官以三级谋杀和二级杀人罪起诉),我特别想谈谈亚裔美国人社区中盛行的对非裔的歧视和敌视态度。如果我们不认真反省,这种态度会给我们所有人招来暴力。</p>
<p>“我们和非裔站在一起”,耶鲁华裔学生写给爸妈和华人社区的公开信</p>
<p>我们亚裔美国人中长期以来一直普遍存在着敌视(或歧视)黑人的言论和成见。我从小就听到亲朋好友(甚至我的父母),对黑人社区微妙的、有时明显是种族主义的谈论:他们在不好的社区长大;他们造成了太多的犯罪;我希望你千万不要跟黑人交朋友,不要卷入黑人运动中。</p>
<p>他们的意思很明确:我们是模范少数族裔——医生、律师,听话,安分守已,有成就。我们跟其他有色人种不相干;我们甚至会站在美国白人一边贬低那些人。我周围的亚裔美国人,包括我自己,都不愿意,有时甚至拒绝参加有关非裔美国人所面临的种族暴力的讨论,哪怕他们被白人至上主义者追杀,哪怕他们在自己的社区被无情地枪杀,哪怕他们在光天化日之下被谋杀,哪怕他们的孩子因为携带玩具枪或偷口香糖而惹来杀身之祸时;甚至当他们的母亲满含悲伤出现在电视上,乞求和哭诉,渴望伸张正义时;甚至当“敌视黑人”的现实与我们自身所遭受“系统性种族主义”如此紧密地关联在一起的时候。</p>
<p>我们亚裔美国人宁愿相信我们会幸免于种族歧视。毕竟,我们中的许多人生活在富裕的社区,把孩子送到顶尖的大学,从事舒适的专业工作。正如诗人Cathy Park Hong所写,我们相信我们是“下一个……被同化的人”,我们会获得白人所拥有的特权,会从因为肤色导致的所有负担中解脱出来。</p>
<p>然而,我们在这个国家的生存一直是有条件的。十九世纪当中国劳工初来美国时,他们被私刑处死,《排华法案》禁止他们参与政治和社会活动。《排华法案》是美国历史上唯一的明确针对某一种族群体的联邦法案。当早期的亚裔移民,如Bhagat Singh Thind,试图申请公民身份时,所有亚裔美国人都被剥夺了法律人格权,而直到1965年,法律人格权只能授予“自由白人”。当珍珠港被炸时,日裔美国人被围捕、拷打并拘禁在集中营。当冷战达到顶峰时,被怀疑是共产主义者的华裔美国人受到联邦特工的恐吓。很多家庭失去了工作、生意和生计。当新冠病毒袭击美国时,亚裔美国人遭到攻击、唾弃和骚扰。我们被指责为“病毒携带者”;我本人最近就被指是“吃蝙蝠的人”。我们误以为自己在这个国家表现出色,直到有人提醒我们,我们不能太舒服——我们永远不会真正属于这里。</p>
<p>这里有一个故事可以证明(我们不属于这里):1982年6月19日,当底特律的汽车工业因来自日本的竞争而每况愈下时,27岁的华裔陈果仁(Vincent Chin)走进一家酒吧,庆祝即将到来的婚礼。被解雇的白人汽车工人Ronald Ebens和他的继子Michael Nitz也在场。陈果仁离开酒吧时,那对父子跟踪他,把他逼到一个麦当劳的停车场,然后用金属棒球棒猛击他,直到他的头颅开裂。他们对陈果仁说:“正是因为你这个婊子养的,我们才失业。” 后来,这个谋杀案传开,在美华人义愤填膺,要求判Ebens和Nitz有罪。谋杀陈果仁的凶手们只被指控犯有二级谋杀罪,罚款3000美元,没有坐牢。郡法官Charles Kaufman说:“这两个人不是该被送进监狱的那类人“。那么谁该被送进监狱呢?</p>
<p>观看《亚裔美国人》时,我被陈果仁的妈妈Lily的视频片段深深地困扰。她是一个小个子华裔女人,长得像我的奶奶,或者我的妈妈,姨妈姑妈。在镜头前,她的脸皱巴巴的;她哀求和哭泣的声音可怜得像动物一样,“我要为我的儿子伸张正义。”在陈妈妈的所有镜头中,都有杰西·杰克逊(Jesse Jackson)等非裔民权活动人士围绕在她身边。他们保护她,不让新闻记者消费她的悲伤。后来,他们跟华裔活动家一起走上街头,高举标语呼吁结束种族暴力。</p>
<p>虽然我们无法将亚裔美国人面临的挑战与非裔美国人遭受的野蛮暴行相比,但我们今天拥有的一切都归功于他们。正是因为非裔美国人发起的民权运动,亚裔美国人才不再被称为东亚病夫;正是因为非裔美国人呼吁结束种族主义的住房政策,我们才得以和白人住在同一个社区;正是因为非裔美国人反对种族主义归化法,亚裔美国人才获得了公民身份,并得到了法律的正式承认。正是因为非裔美国人的社会活动,陈果仁这样的故事才被人们记住。我们之所以有坦然地成为“模范少数民族”的自由,并不是因为我们比别人更好或因为我们努力,而是靠其他被边缘化群体多年的斗争和支持得来的。</p>
<p>2020年5月25日,非裔乔治·弗洛伊德被指控在明尼阿波利斯的一家杂货店使用20美元假钞购买香烟。对此,白人警官Derek Chauvin赶来,他抓住弗洛伊德,用膝盖卡住他的脖子上长达八分钟。在随后网上流传的视频中,你能看到,在三四分钟的时间里,弗洛伊德为自己的生命哀求(视频看到他流着血),他说自己已经无法呼吸。乔文继续用膝盖压迫他。与此同时,视频显示,在背景中,一名亚裔警官Tou Thao就站在Chauvin一边旁观。只是旁观, 什么都没说,任由弗洛伊德慢慢地停止挣扎。</p>
<p>我看到,我周围的亚裔美国人也保持着同样的沉默。我对华裔社区尤其感到失望,他们对谋杀美国黑人所持有的沉默让我感到震惊。在明尼阿波利斯,有那么多有色人种的活动家联合起来支持抗议者的同时,也有那么多美国华人选择了对这次抗议“置身事外”。同一群华人曾经在新冠流行期间大声疾呼反对歧视亚裔,但在谈到弗洛伊德的谋杀案(Ahmaud Arbery、Breonna Taylor、Tamir Rice、Sandra Bland、Trayvon Martin、Michael Brown, Freddie Gray,和无数其他仅仅为了生存而被杀害的美国黑人)时,他们却令人不解地保持沉默。</p>
<p>我看不出我们对电视上的黑人母亲有同情心,她们像陈果仁的妈妈Lily Chin那样,乞求为儿子伸张正义。我没看到我们中有多少人和黑人抗议者一起游行。我没有看到我们给黑人领导的组织捐款。我没有看到我们为杀害无辜黑人的白人,比如陈果仁的谋杀犯,没有受到制裁而出离愤怒。我没看到我们对非裔抗议者表示任何声援(编者注:美国华人联合会已经发表公开声明🔗并正在联合非裔、犹太裔社区领袖讨论下一步的行动。在全美抗议人群中也有亚裔面孔出现),抗议者被喷射催泪瓦斯和橡皮子弹。而就在几周前,白人新冠“抗议者”手持AR-15游行,警察连碰都没碰过他们。相反,我听到我们称他们为“渣子”、“暴徒”、“掠夺者”——和美国白人曾经给予我们的污名一样。我看到我们,比如我自己的家人,仅仅把特朗普要派国民警卫队前往明尼苏达的推特当作笑谈。</p>
<p>想象一下,如果非裔美国人不加入亚裔美国人的活动,我们会怎样。我们仍然会被称为东亚病夫。我们将生活在更加隔离的社区,就读更加隔离的学校。我们就不会被允许进入这些精英大学,不会在舒适的职业生涯中进步。我们会是非法移民。我们,和其他人,都不会记得陈果仁这样的故事。</p>
<p>我呼吁所有美国华人观看《亚裔美国人》这样的作品,认真反思我们自己的历史,也反思我们与其他少数民族的共同历史——我们的觉醒和自由与非裔美国人、美洲原住民、西班牙裔美国人等的自由是如何交织在一起的。我们不可能生活在历史之外。乔治·弗洛伊德的遭遇曾经发生在19世纪的中国劳工和陈果仁身上,并且将继续发生在我们和所有少数族裔身上,除非我们不再保持沉默。沉默从未保护过、也永远不会保护我们。</p>
<p>我们华裔的历史不只有一大串听话的医生、律师和工程师;我们的历史中更有革命者、活动家、斗士,尤其是幸存者。我经常想起日裔集中营幸存者Yuri Kochiyama,他后来成为著名的民权活动家,并与马尔科姆·X(Malcolm X)等非裔活动家建立了密切关系。她曾说,“我们都是彼此的一部分”。</p>
<p>我拒绝以牺牲他人为代价来呼吁对我们自己社区的种族公正。贬低或压制其他少数群体的正义根本不是正义。白人至上主义几百年来一直在威胁我们所有社区。在这个许多享有特权的少数族裔都站在白人至上立场上的时候,我要问:你和谁站在一起?</p>The Wechat Projectthewechatproject@gmail.com我叫黄艾琳(Eileen Huang), 是耶鲁大学英语系大三学生。PBS的最新纪录片《亚裔美国人》播出以后,有人约我就美国华裔历史写一篇观后感,或者写一首诗也行。可是,我发现在这个时候很难作诗。我不想只关注我自己族裔的历史和故事,而不去了解和认识所有被边缘化的少数族群经历的挑战,痛苦和创伤(其中也包括我们自己族裔的遭遇),哪怕是在今天。鉴于明尼苏达州的抗议活动是由白人警官和亚裔警官谋杀黑人乔治·弗洛伊德(George Floyd)引发的(编者注:Derek Chauvin已被当地检察官以三级谋杀和二级杀人罪起诉),我特别想谈谈亚裔美国人社区中盛行的对非裔的歧视和敌视态度。如果我们不认真反省,这种态度会给我们所有人招来暴力。A Letter from a Yale Student to the Chinese American Community2020-05-31T17:44:42-04:002020-05-31T17:44:42-04:00https://wechatproject.netlify.app/2020/05/31/a-letter-from-a-yale-student-to-the-chinese-american-community<p><a href="https://chineseamerican.org/p/31574">中文版(Chinese Version)</a></p>
<p><a href="https://medium.com/@blacklivesmatter0604/%EC%98%88%EC%9D%BC-%ED%95%99%EC%83%9D%EB%93%A4%EC%9D%B4-%EB%B6%80%EB%AA%A8%EB%8B%98%EB%93%A4%EA%B3%BC-%EC%A4%91%EA%B5%AD%EA%B3%84-%EB%AF%B8%EA%B5%AD%EC%9D%B8-%EA%B3%B5%EB%8F%99%EC%B2%B4%EC%97%90%EA%B2%8C-%EB%B3%B4%EB%82%B4%EB%8A%94-%EA%B3%B5%EA%B0%9C-%EC%84%9C%ED%95%9C-fa3477405c8d">한국어판(Korean Version)</a></p>
<p><a href="https://medium.com/@blacklivesmatter0604/%EC%98%88%EC%9D%BC-%ED%95%99%EC%83%9D%EB%93%A4%EC%9D%B4-%EB%B6%80%EB%AA%A8%EB%8B%98%EB%93%A4%EA%B3%BC-%EC%A4%91%EA%B5%AD%EA%B3%84-%EB%AF%B8%EA%B5%AD%EC%9D%B8-%EA%B3%B5%EB%8F%99%EC%B2%B4%EC%97%90%EA%B2%8C-%EB%B3%B4%EB%82%B4%EB%8A%94-%EA%B3%B5%EA%B0%9C-%EC%84%9C%ED%95%9C-fa3477405c8d"></a>Content warning: White supremacy, racial stereotypes, violence</p>
<p>To the Chinese American Community:</p>
<p>My name is Eileen Huang, and I am a junior at Yale University studying English. I was asked to write a reflection, maybe even a poem, on Chinese American history after watching Asian Americans, the new documentary on PBS. However, I find it hard to write poems at a time like this. I refuse to focus on our history, our stories, and our people without acknowledging the challenges, pain, and trauma experienced by marginalized people—ourselves included—even today. In light of protests in Minnesota, which were sparked by the murder of George Floyd at the hands of racist White and Asian police officers, I specifically want to address the rampant anti-Blackness in the Asian American community that, if unchecked, can bring violence to us all.</p>
<p>We Asian Americans have long perpetuated anti-Black statements and stereotypes. I grew up hearing relatives, family friends, and even my parents make subtle, even explicitly racist comments about the Black community: They grow up in bad neighborhoods. They cause so much crime. I would rather you not be friends with Black people. I would rather you not be involved in Black activism.</p>
<p>The message was clear: We are the model minority—doctors, lawyers, quiet and obedient overachievers. We have little to do with other people of color; we will even side with White Americans to degrade them. The Asian Americans around me, myself included, were reluctant—and sometimes even refused—to participate in conversations on the violent racism faced by Black Americans—even when they were hunted by White supremacists, even when they were mercilessly shot in their own neighborhoods, even when they were murdered in broad daylight, even when their children were slaughtered for carrying toy guns or stealing gum, even when their grieving mothers appeared on television, begging and crying for justice. Even when anti-Blackness is so closely aligned to our own oppression under structural racism.</p>
<p>We Asian Americans like to think of ourselves as exempt from racism. After all, many of us live in affluent neighborhoods, send our children to selective universities, and work comfortable, professional jobs. As the poet Cathy Park Hong writes, we believe that we are “next in line … to disappear,” to gain the privileges that White people have, to be freed from all the burdens that come with existing in a body of color.</p>
<p>However, our survival in this country has always been conditional. When Chinese laborers came in the 1800s, they were lynched and barred from political and social participation by the Chinese Exclusion Act—the only federal law in American history to explicitly target a racial group. When early Asian immigrants, such as Bhagat Singh Thind, attempted to apply for citizenship, all Asian Americans were denied the right to legal personhood—which was only granted to “free white persons“—until 1965. When Pearl Harbor was bombed, Japanese Americans were rounded up, tortured, and detained in concentration camps. When the Cold War reached its peak, Chinese Americans suspected of being Communists were terrorized by federal agents. Families lost their jobs, businesses, and livelihoods. When COVID-19 hit the US, Asian Americans were assaulted, spat on, and harassed. We were accused of being “virus carriers”; I was recently called a “bat-eater.” We are made to feel like we have excelled in this country until we are reminded that we cannot get too comfortable—that we will never truly belong.</p>
<p>Here’s a story of not belonging: On June 19, 1982, as Detroit’s auto industry was deteriorating from Japanese competition, Vincent Chin, a 27-year-old Chinese American, entered a bar to celebrate his upcoming wedding. Ronald Ebens, a laid-off White autoworker, and his stepson, Michael Nitz, were there as well. They followed Chin as he left the bar and cornered him in a McDonald’s parking lot, where they proceeded to bludgeon him with a metal baseball bat until his head cracked open. “It’s because of you motherf––ers that we are out of work,” they had said to Chin. Later, as news of the murder got out, Chinese Americans were outraged, calling for Ebens and Nitz’s conviction. Chin’s killers were only charged for second-degree murder, receiving only charges of $3,000—and no jail time. “These weren’t the kind of men you send to jail,” County Judge Charles Kaufman said. Then who is?</p>
<p>Watching Asian Americans, I was haunted by the video clips of Chin’s mother, Lily. She is a small Chinese woman who looks like my grandmother, or my mother, or an aunt. Her face crumples in front of the cameras; she pleads and cries, in a voice almost animal-like, “I want justice for my son.” Yet, in all of Lily’s footage, she is surrounded by Black civil rights activists, such as Jesse Jackson. They guard her from news reporters that try to film her grief. Later, they march in the streets with Chinese American activists, holding signs calling for an end to racist violence.</p>
<p>Though we cannot compare the challenges faced by Asian Americans to the far more violent atrocities suffered by Black Americans, we owe everything to them. It is because of the work of Black Americans—who spearheaded the civil rights movement—that Asian Americans are no longer called “Orientals” or “Chinamen.” It is because of Black Americans, who called for an end to racist housing policies, that we are even allowed to live in the same neighborhoods as White people. It is because of Black Americans, who pushed back against racist naturalization laws, that Asian Americans have gained official citizenship and are officially recognized under the law. It is because of Black activism that stories like Vincent Chin’s are even remembered. We did not gain the freedom to become comfortable “model minorities” by virtue of being better or hard-working, but from years of struggle and support from other marginalized communities.</p>
<p>On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a Black man, was accused of using a counterfeit 20-dollar bill at a deli in Minneapolis. In response, Derek Chauvin, a White police officer, tackled Floyd and knelt on his neck for seven minutes. In videos that will later circulate online, for three minutes, in a pool of his own blood, Floyd is seen pleading for his life, stating that he can no longer breathe. Instead, Chauvin continues to kneel. And kneel. Meanwhile, in the background, Tou Thao, an Asian American police officer, is seen standing by the murder, merely watching. And watching. And saying nothing as Floyd slowly stops struggling.</p>
<p>I see this same kind of silence from Asian Americans around me. I am especially disappointed in the Chinese American community, whose silence on the murder of Black Americans has been deafening. While so many activists of color are banding together to support protesters in Minneapolis, so many Chinese Americans have chosen to “stay out” of this disobedience. The same Chinese Americans who spoke out so vocally on anti-Asian racism from COVID-19 are suspiciously quiet when it comes to Floyd’s murder (as well as Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray and countless other Black Americans who were killed merely for existing). I do not see us sharing sympathy for Black mothers who appear on television, begging, like Lily Chin, to see justice for their sons. I do not see us marching with Black protesters. I do not see us donating to Black-led organizations.</p>
<p>I do not see our outrage as White murderers, such as Vincent Chin’s killers, receive no jail time for killing innocent Black Americans. I do not see us extending any solidarity toward the Black protesters who have been sprayed with tear gas and rubber bullets—only a couple weeks after White COVID-19 “protesters,” armed with AR-15s, were barely even touched by policemen. Instead, I see us calling them “thugs,” “rioters,” “looters”—the same epithets that White Americans once called us. I see us, such as members of my own family, merely laughing off President Trump’s tweet about sending the National Guard to Minnesota, as if it were a joke and not a deadly threat.</p>
<p>I imagine where we would be if Black Americans did not participate in Asian American activism. We would still be called Orientals. We would live in even more segregated neighborhoods and attend even more segregated schools. We would not be allowed to attend these elite colleges, advance in our comfortable careers. We would be illegal aliens. We—and everyone else—would not remember stories like Vincent Chin’s.</p>
<p>I urge all Chinese Americans to watch media such as Asian Americans, to seriously reflect not only on our own history, but also on our shared history with other minorities—how our liberation is intertwined with liberation for Black Americans, Native Americans, Latinx Americans, and more. We are not exempt from history. What has happened to George Floyd has happened to Chinese miners in the 1800s and Vincent Chin, and will continue to happen to us and all minorities unless we let go of our silence, which has never protected us, and never will.</p>
<p>Our history is not only a lineage of obedient doctors, lawyers, and engineers. It is also a history of disrupters, activists, fighters, and, above all, survivors. I think often of Yuri Kochiyama, a Japanese American survivor of internment camps who later became a prominent civil rights activist, and who developed close relationships with Black activists, such as Malcolm X. “We are all part of one another,” she once said.</p>
<p>I urge you all to donate to the activist organizations listed below. I refuse to call for the racial justice of our own community at the expense of others. Justice that degrades or subordinates other minorities is not justice at all. At a time when many privileged minorities are siding with White supremacy—which has terrorized all of our communities for centuries—I want to ask: Whose side are you on?</p>The Wechat Projectthewechatproject@gmail.comMy name is Eileen Huang, and I am a junior at Yale University studying English. I was asked to write a reflection, maybe even a poem, on Chinese American history after watching Asian Americans, the new documentary on PBS. However, I find it hard to write poems at a time like this. I refuse to focus on our history, our stories, and our people without acknowledging the challenges, pain, and trauma experienced by marginalized people—ourselves included—even today. In light of protests in Minnesota, which were sparked by the murder of George Floyd at the hands of racist White and Asian police officers, I specifically want to address the rampant anti-Blackness in the Asian American community that, if unchecked, can bring violence to us all.华裔二代大学生开启跟父母一代的对话:请倾听我们的心声2020-05-31T16:00:00-04:002020-05-31T16:00:00-04:00https://wechatproject.netlify.app/announcements/2020/05/31/announcing-the-wechat-project-cn<p><a href="/announcements/2020/06/08/announcing-the-wechat-project.html">英文版(English version)</a></p>
<p>大家好,</p>
<p>这篇文章是黄艾琳和朱锟向您发出的邀请。您可能已经知道我们,可能在微信上偶然听到引起一些人反感的艾琳,或者通过七年级拼词大赛认识了朱锟。或许,您是因为读过我们最近写给华人社区的公开信而知道了我们两人。</p>
<p><a href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MjM5NDE1NTc4Nw==&mid=2655647555&idx=1&sn=7d2a7031bec78d247bf8a5283ba043b9&chksm=bd314b278a46c2314ffe528f26711940fb7968967393c1b02fb1f0a87c4411195e0c8b4a780c&scene=21">《“我们和非裔站在一起”,耶鲁华裔学生写给爸妈和华人社区的公开信》</a></p>
<p><a href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MjM5NDE1NTc4Nw==&mid=2655647744&idx=1&sn=ae9512c7614f46815801b3a975b5c39f&chksm=bd3144648a46cd72a85bf375dd9ace428df65c85bc2fca63a9c39430903c47745d9ade933084&scene=21">《响应耶鲁女孩,哈佛大学生也有话对爸妈和华人社区说》</a></p>
<p>这两封信引起的反响是我们根本没有预料到的。在微信公众号上,两封信短短几天内就产生了几万到二十几万的阅读量。我们获得了很多记者、作家的支持,甚至得到了公民勇气奖获得者的支持,但最重要的是,我们得到了我们的家人,众多我们的同龄人和他们的父母的回应。</p>
<p>当然,并非所有的回复都是正面的。有人评论说“我觉得你被误导了”,甚至有人说我们“被外国 势力控制了“,很多人不同意我们的看法,但是没关系,我们从心底里欢迎大家说出不同的看法!存在分歧意味着我们之间享有健康、民主的对话,这正是我们最想看到的——开始交流与沟通。这是父母和孩子之间敞开心扉的对话,这也是整个华人社区内的交流。</p>
<p>从小到大,我们好像都没有跟父母认真讨论过这些问题。餐桌上的话题无非就是最近天气怎么样,在学校开不开心,今天的豆腐咸不咸这样的家常话。但是现在,这两封信发表了,我们听到无数个家庭在谈论种族和身份问题,谈论华裔的历史。显然,华二代跟一代的对话已经开始了。</p>
<p>重要的是,我们不想让这场对话停下来。</p>
<p>为此,我们和同学们携手创办“心声”栏目——与《美国华人》微信公众号及其网站合作(The WeChat Project ), 我们将定期发表文章,开启我们渴望已久的两代人之间的对话。考虑到我们正处于特殊时刻,初期,我们会讨论诸如警察暴行或大规模监禁之类的话题,以这些热议的话题为开端,以后还会跟大家一起探讨跟我们切身相关的心理健康、性少数群体、教育成就等话题。文章在《美国华人》发表的同时,每周也会以电子邮件的形式发送。</p>
<p>我们项目的宗旨是促进两代人之间的对话,因此,我们将致力于确保每篇文章都有一个直接、准确、易懂的中英文翻译。我们也认识到,要想真的进行一场对话,那说话的人不应该只有我们。为此,每一篇文章发表后,我们会向大家征求意见。但是,您要先但是,您必须先注册加入电子邮件消息发送名单,才能回复。</p>
<p>您可能认为我们养尊处优、无知和享有某种特权。而我们,当然会表示强烈反对。但我们想让您知道,即使我们真的如您所说,即使我们总是不好好吃饭,总是玩电子游戏,总也记不住要坐直身体,我们仍然是您的孩子,我们仍然想和您交流。我们希望您不仅能回应我们,而且也能做到更难做的一步——倾听我们的心声。</p>
<p>爱你们的孩子,</p>
<p>朱锟 Kalos Chu</p>
<p>kaloschu@college.harvard.edu</p>
<p>黄艾琳 Eileen Huang</p>
<p>eileen.huang@yale.edu</p>The Wechat Projectthewechatproject@gmail.com为此,我们和同学们携手创办“心声”栏目——与《美国华人》微信公众号及其网站合作(The WeChat Project ), 我们将定期发表文章,开启我们渴望已久的两代人之间的对话。考虑到我们正处于特殊时刻,初期,我们会讨论诸如警察暴行或大规模监禁之类的话题,以这些热议的话题为开端,以后还会跟大家一起探讨跟我们切身相关的心理健康、性少数群体、教育成就等话题。文章在《美国华人》发表的同时,每周也会以电子邮件的形式发送。