The views and opinions expressed on this site and blog posts (excluding comments on blog posts left by others) are entirely my own and do not represent those of any employer or organization with whom I am currently or previously have been associated.
Academic Version: Applying my personal experiences and academic research as a professor of Sociology and Asian American Studies to provide a more complete understanding of political, economic, and cultural issues and current events related to American race relations, and Asia/Asian America in particular.
Plain English: Trying to put my Ph.D. to good use.
As I’ve written about before, Toyota is preparing to compete in NASCAR’s premier series, the Sprint Nextel Cup. This year, as a reflection of the recent success of Japanese automakers and the difficulties of U.S. automakers in general, Toyota also expects to surpass General Motors to become the #1 global automaker in sales. Within this context, as the New York Times reports, the chorus of anti-Toyota critics is rising:
While Toyota scrambles to prepare its Camrys and build its race shops for the Nextel Cup circuit, competitors are accusing the company of raiding teams for talent and raising the costs of operation by offering drastically higher salaries. It is a departure from the universal welcome bestowed upon Dodge when it announced it was re-entering the Cup series in 2001 after a 16-year absence. Its parent company, DaimlerChrysler, was based in Germany, but Dodge was viewed as an American-born brand. . . .
Since announcing a year ago that it would join the Nextel Cup competition, the company has seen a debate escalate in this insular sport over what is considered American-made in today’s global economy. As Toyota drivers are quick to point out, Camrys are built in the United States, the Ford Fusion is produced in Mexico and the Chevrolet Monte Carlo comes from Canada. . . . Toyota has yet to compete in its first points race, and it is already on the defensive.
In my earlier post to which I linked at the top of this entry, I mentioned that while U.S. automakers are laying off workers and closing factories, many Japanese automakers, particularly Toyota, are instead, opening up more factories and hiring more American workers. So the question comes back to, who qualifies as being American? Are you American just because you were born here? Are you automatically American just because you’re White?
Or can you also be a “legitimate” American if you contribute to the success and strength of American society and in Toyota’s case, employ tens of thousands of American workers, but your original ancestry happens to be Asian?
Ultimately, this anti-Toyota backlash is based not just on racial prejudice, but also on a concept that is very familiar to sociologists like myself — economic competition. That is, when people (or in this case companies) feel economically threatened, their anger will almost always lead to ethnic hostility. History shows time and time again that when White workers feel economically insecure, the first people they blame are “minorities” for driving down wages, taking “their” jobs, or forcing companies to move factories or outsource overseas.
The same thing is happening here, folks. American automakers are reeling from their own failures and difficulties so they’re blaming anybody they can think of. Just like they did in the early 1980s with the first wave of “Japan-Bashing,” so too are they doing that now with the backlash against Toyota’s involvement in NASCAR. It’s almost like clockwork . . .
In recent years, it’s no surprise that American culture and American-style capitalism have pervaded many areas of Chinese society. Has this “invasion” gone too far? This is the question being asked right now as many Chinese are pressuring managers of the Forbidden City in Beijing to close a Starbucks cafe that’s located inside its walls because of complaints that it tramples on Chinese tradition and culture:
The Forbidden City, built in 1420, is a 178-acre complex of villas, chapels and gardens that was home to 24 emperors before the end of imperial rule in 1911. It is China’s top tourist attraction, drawing some 7 million visitors a year. . . . A news anchor for China Central Television has led an online campaign to remove Starbucks, which opened in the palace in 2000 at the invitation of its managers, who are under pressure to raise money to maintain the vast complex.
The anchorman, Rui Chenggang, wrote in a CCTV blog that Starbucks’ presence “undermined the Forbidden City’s solemnity and trampled over Chinese culture.” Starbucks defended the operation of its palace outlet. “Starbucks appreciates the deep history and culture of the Forbidden City and has operated in a respectful manner that fits within the environment,” the company said in a written statement. . . .
Feng said the decision will be made as part of a palace renovation that already has seen one-third of its shops removed. . . . The renovation, due to last through 2020, is meant to restore the palace to its imperial-era appearance. Plans call for tearing down a five-story museum and other modern buildings that disrupt the original layout.
I suppose this sort of reaction was inevitable — the march of American capitalism into the Middle Kingdom was not going to be without conflicts. Change never occurs without resistance. In fact, this most recent development fits within an emerging movement in China that increasingly emphasizes traditional elements of Chinese history and culture. We’ll just have to wait and see to what extent this nascent movement succeeds in beating back, or at least slowing, the irresistible march of capitalism.
In this day and age, we all need a little bit more understanding of Muslims, and in particular, of Muslim Americans. Ever since 9-11, it’s no secret that they have been targets of suspicion, prejudice, paranoia, government surveillance, and misunderstanding. Salon.com reviews a book that tries to educate us on the many facets of Muslim American lives — American Islam: The Struggle for the Soul of a Religion by Paul Barrett:
Few of the American Muslims that Barrett profiles match any stereotype that Westerners are likely to harbor about Islam’s faithful. In truth, he leans a little toward the unconventional and even progressive members of the religion, but he aims to give all sides their due. What he gets across is the remarkable diversity of Islam in America, pointing out that Muslims are no more all alike than Christians are. . . .
He explains that “most American Muslims are not Arab, and most Americans of Arab descent are Christian, not Muslim. People of South Asian descent — those with roots in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Afghanistan — make up 34 percent of American Muslims … Arab-Americans constitute only 26 percent, while another 20 percent are native-born American blacks, most of whom are converts. The remaining 20 percent come from Africa, Iran, Turkey and elsewhere.”
As a group, Muslims are “more prosperous and better educated than other Americans.” Almost 60 percent of them have college degrees, compared to 27 percent of American adults overall. The median family income among Muslims is $60,000; the national median is $50,000. Eighty percent of them are registered to vote. Compared to the larger, and largely poor, Muslim populations of Western Europe . . . American Muslims show, in Barrett’s words, the traits of “a minority population successfully integrating into a larger society.”
In fact, I did not even know that most Muslim Americans are not Arab, nor that most Arab Americans are Christian, rather than Muslim. Not only that, but I’m a little embarrassed to say it’s only recently that I’ve sought to learn about the historical, cultural, and political differences between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. That just goes to show that just like we can’t assume all Asian Americans or all Latino Americans are the same, nor should we assume that about Arab Americans or Muslim Americans.
