Francis Daehoon LEE: Executive Director of ARENA, Lecturer in Peace Studies at SungKongHoe University

Margaret SIT Tsui: MAINS Director & ARENA Fellow, East China Normal University

Melani BUDIANTA: ARENA Fellow, Professor in Department of English, American Studies and Literary Studies Program at the University of Indonesia

and other interested ARENA Fellows

Programme Officer:
Alex jong Lee

Background:

Cultivating mutual understanding and development vis-à-vis “race” in Asia is crucial in an increasingly “globalized,” “multi-cultural” Asia. Arguably the biggest obstacles to such progress, however, are ever-changing oppressions, which continually challenge us in new and diverse ways. Specifically, the economic, military and cultural hegemony of “the West” in Asia remains significant.

In Asia, the West—and specifically “America”—has come to embody all that is good and bad about “Western” influence. To some, America is framed as the enemy imperialist, globalizer, and oppressor. What is less acknowledged, though, is how in popular usage the very term, American, to paraphrase David R. Roediger, often presumes “whiteness” (and maleness)—a line of thinking that blissfully ignores the fact that the “average American” is increasingly Black, Latino, Asian, or non-white.

While the global economic system is a class system, it is also a racial system, according to George Lipsitz. Race is not the only factor governing these things but it is never not a factor, never not in play, says Richard Dyer who says the invisibility of whiteness as a racial position in white (which is to say dominant) discourse is to be at peace with its ubiquity. In fact, for most of the time white people speak about nothing but white people, it’s just that we couch it in terms of “people” in general. At the level of racial representation, in other words, whites are not of a certain race; they’re just the human race. Therefore, when talking about racism in the West, one must also talk about whiteness.

Whiteness is everywhere in global culture though it is very hard to see, to paraphrase Dyer. Therefore, in order to better understand race relations in the West is to understand whiteness’ critical role within it. He explains the notion of whiteness succinctly. According to him, the invisibility of whiteness as a racial position in white (which is to say dominant) discourse is “to be at peace with its ubiquity. In fact for most of the time white people speak about nothing but white people, it’s just that we couch it in terms of ‘people’ in general.  At the level of racial representation, in other words, whites are not of a certain race; they’re just the human race.” Although a biological myth, notions of race and whiteness continue to have very real political and social consequences. Historicizing whiteness is important, in this respect.

Race as it is conceptualized in the West may not be discussed as much in Asia because their histories of racial/ethnic demarcation are distinct. Another reason, however, may be because most “native Asians” in their respective countries enjoy majority racial citizenship status. Talking about race and whiteness are perhaps more prominent within Western academic circles primarily because minority groups (“people of color”) have been forced to re-examine how their own racializations in the U.S. (i.e. “non-white” equaling unequal access to “American” nationality and its privileges) are inextricably tied to their oppressions. Their context is different compared to that of native Asians, though their mutual oppressor is arguably the same.

At the same time, internal battles among different Asian nations and “races” add complexity to simple interpretations of power in Asia as mere manifestations of Western racism, imperialism and hegemony. Asia is a region rife with differences and diverse ethnic and racial groups—as well as its own unique conflicts. Teresa S. Encarnacion and Eduardo C. Tadem support this claim by citing the predominance of ethnicity (or race, though they do not call it that) within the different separatist trends in Asia and how the socio-political and economic domination of minority ethnic groups by the ruling one—whether it’s repression, marginalization, or subordination of Tibetans by Chinese, East Timorese by Indonesians, non-Burmese people by Burmese, Irianese by Javanese, Moros by Hispanised Filipinos, or Malay-Muslims by Thais—has exacerbated such conflicts. Other relevant examples include the case of Okinawans, Japanese Brazilians (dekasegis), and Korean Japanese by native Japanese, Shiites by Sunni Pakistanis, Tamils by Sinhala Sri Lankans, and Taiwan aborigines by a Han-Chinese majority.

But historically, Western colonial, imperial powers have failed to recognize this diversity and contradiction, instead choosing to lump all Asians together as one collective race (before “Oriental” and now “Asian”) to the effect of subjugating them.
 

“Race and Hegemony in Asia: Reframing Race, Racism and Diasporic Identity in Asia” will utilize a comparative, analytical approach in chronicling the shared experiences of “Asian Diaspora members” and native Asians, two distinct but mutually connected communities. In addition, it will discover the implications of putting race at the forefront by historicizing its role in Asia. Finally, it will provide alternative theories for combating racism and similar oppressions by challenging traditional theories that explain power through simple binaries (i.e. the East/the West, white/black, racist/non-racist), instead of recognizing how race, gender, sexuality, class, nationality, and religion are almost always interconnected and rarely mutually exclusive.