Angelo Ancheta is a well-known scholar specialised in the issues about racial discrimination and immigrants' rights. He wrote "Race, Rights and the Asian American Experience", dealing with the establishment of civil-right laws based on the black/white model of race, marginalising other groups and especially Asian Americans.
Indeed, the very way, the Latino or Asian American identity were built is pretty different from the way Black identity was. Chapter 3, entitled 'Looking Like the Enemy' is focused on the way Asian American identity was mostly shaped by the different domestic laws and how it led to, what he called, the 'outsider racialization' of Asians and Asian Americans.
For the record, the principle of racialization is based on the assignment to individuals and groups of a particular racial identity and social status. It takes place thanks to the establishment of a series of political processes shaping identitites, constructing racial meanings, placing individuals and groups into positions of dominant or dominated. Ancheta developed the principle of an 'outsider racialization' that he defines as "the social construction of Asian Americans born outsiders". The idea implied by the outsider racialization lays on the principle of Foreignness. So, basically, any Asian American (or other non-white) is a foreigner. This process is based on essentialism. It led to a simple construction: all foreigners and immigrants are considered to be Asian Americans, Arabs or Latinos, and, all Asian Americans (seen as "foreign competitors"), Arabs (seen as "terrorists") and Latinos (seen as "illegal aliens") are considered to be immigrants or foreigners regardless of citizenship. So, it is pretty obvious that the process is based on stereotypes and prejudices.
Outsider Racialization is divided into two forms :
- "Immigrant racialization" means that no matter citizenship status, any Asian American will be considered as an immigrant
- "Foreigner racialization" is placing all Asian American in the category of foreigner. Ancheta divides this category into three distinct ones :
- Foreign visitors : Tourists
- Foreign competitors : Asians running buisinesses are becoming 'powerful' as foreign and domestic inverstors. This economic issue is perceived as a threat for white Americans.
- Foreign enemies : During war times, any Asian being perceived as a foreigner from the rival countries is becoming the enemy whithin the US. This can lead to violences.
Click here : Vincent Chin -- Competitor
So, to sum up, if you look like an Asian, no matter if you are an American citizen, you will be racialized as an outsider, not really American.
The legal system also spreads a central idea : Asian people are not able to assimilate. It made it something permanent, universal and almost biological that Asian American is refusing to assimilate the US society by keeping their traditions and cultures. This led to the marginalization of Asian Americans. This process was also fed by the Yellow Peril Rethoric that stated that the growing number of Asian in the western soils would led to the death of the western civilization, which would be replaced by the Asian one.
This establishement of racialization by the society is mostly due to the legal system and the medias that are spreading the idea that the society must be divided into two rival groups : Americans v. Foreigners considering every single Asian guy as a foreigner given that, by looking like Asian he is bearing the physical feature of his ancestry, features that will never fit the US society. So, being an Asian American is not enough to be a true American. Citizenship is determined by race.
To do so, a series of domestic laws were established in order to discourage Asians and other non-desirable immigrants from settling permanently in the United States.
In 1906, The Naturalization Act, stated that any white or person of African nativity or descent could be eligible to naturalize. Meaning that, Asians and other non-desirable immigrants could not apply to the naturalization process. So Aliens, were ineligible for citizenship.
By being unable to become a citizen and thanks to The Alien land laws in 1913 and later The Alien land Bill in 1923 (preventing the US-born children to hold land for their 'Alien' parents) they were prevented from owning proprety on the US soil. Asian immigrants did not enjoy the same rights as white citizens when it came to owning lands.
Some other laws aimed at the exclusion of Asian Americans from the society and caused discrimination based on race and citizenship.
In 1854, in The People of The State of California v. George Hall, the Californian Supreme Court established that Chinese Americans and immigrants had no right to testify against white citizens.
In 1986, The Immigration Reform and Control Act turned the employers to immigration agents by forcing them to check any applicant's immigrant status, no matter the citizenship, under civil penalties. By doing that, the government promoted race-based discriminations in the extent that minority groups such as Latinos and Asian Americans by being racialized as outsiders are the one who are more likely to pose problems when it came to immigrant status because, racial profiling would cause them to be perceive as the one being undocumented immigrants. This law also allowed the employers to favour citizens over non-citizens. Knowing that the whole Asian (and other non-white) group (citizens or not) was perceived as foreigners, it means that, the law was actually granting employers the right to favour white citizens over non-whites. This 'checking' process was later extended to healthcare, education, social services and governmental benefit program, hardening the access to these services.
The legal system, based on a historical background, also favours the racialization of Asian Americans as enemies.
Wars helped to reinforce the foreign racialization of Asian Americans. Let's take two examples, World War II and the Vietnamese war.
During WWII, Japanese and Japanese Americans were marginalized and demonized to the extent of being forced into concentration camps (around 110,000 Japanese Americans were sent there, 2/3 being US citizens) their loyalty was questionned, some lost their lives, they lost their properties... In the name of National security, the US government flouted the Constitutional rights of Japanese Americans.
Click here : Korematsu v. The USA
Vietnamese (and Japanese too) are perceived as enemies today as a consequence of war. It is a kind of grudge from white citizens toward any person looking like Asian, looking like the enemy !
This very racialization as enemy had led to the rise of a 'Patriotic racism' meaning that white citizens attacked Asian Americans thinking that they are "defending their country". All the conflicts with Japan, China, Korea, Vietnam participated in the rise of aggressions and hostility against Asian and Asian Americans, which is still happening today.
Moreover, the policies by making "war on illegal immigration" led to the consideration of immigrants as illegal invaders, criminals, almost war opponents, which increased the fear and hatred among white citizen toward any person racialized as immigrant, in other words, non-whites.
In 1996, The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act mandated the building of metal fencing near San Diego, along the US-Mexico border. The borders became concrete and extended inside the US with the rise of border patrol agents and the developement of the racial profiling in order to arrest and deport as many as undocumented immigrants as possible.
In short, we saw that, the political system (domestic and federal) has its responsibily in the very process of racialization of Asian Americans as immigrants or foreigners and consequently, in the rise of several forms of discriminations and exclusions of this minority group (and others). By subtly allowing racial and citizenship discrimination, the governement(s) led to the marginalization of Asian American and the consideration of these people as enemies (according to the political situation) by white citizens.
***************************************************************************
When I heard about the Yellow peril and the way Japanese Americans were treated during WWII I couldn't help but think about the Red Scare when once again, the US government did not hesitate to flout the citizens' constitutional rights and feed the fear among people in the name of National Security. It is something very American to consider war time as a time when the Government has every rights to overstep the very rights of a certain groups.
In my opinion, the different policies supposed to manage diversity are putting people in ethnic boxes and are defining the individual needs and rights by virtue of these boxes. In other words, the public policy was shaped according to the ethnic boxes, granting different rights and treatments to the citizens in accordance with their being "true citizens".
What is the point of doing this according to you guyz ?
One of the common arguments to justify the discrimination against a specific group is to state that the individuals are refusing to assimilate. Do you think that this statement is true, that, by keeping some of their traditions the individuals of a group refuse to assimilate ? What do you even think about this very principle of assimilation ?
To finish, I'd like to share with you a quotation by Tariq Modood, a journalist who is writing for The Guardian, he wrote something about multiculturalism in The UK that we can, in my opinion, completely apply to The US (and other countries) : "It is white reticence, not minority separatism, that is an obstacle to an inclusive national identity; without overcoming this, multicultural nation-building is difficult."
To finish, I'd like to share with you a quotation by Tariq Modood, a journalist who is writing for The Guardian, he wrote something about multiculturalism in The UK that we can, in my opinion, completely apply to The US (and other countries) : "It is white reticence, not minority separatism, that is an obstacle to an inclusive national identity; without overcoming this, multicultural nation-building is difficult."
***************************************************************************
Why do you think that the Europeans (English, French, German...) are more likely to assimilate than Asians, Arabs or Latinos ?
In what extent do you think that these policies helped establishing stereotypes ?
***************************************************************************
Sources :
Chapter 3, Looking Like the Enemy, from Race, Rights and the Asian American Experience by A. Acheto
Inès's notes from British Culture and Society class !
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/illegal_immigration_reform_and_immigration_responsibility_act
~Rabia Betül Kubilay
~Rabia Betül Kubilay
~Inès Chafiaa Allag
Thank you Betül and Ines for this lovely presentation!
ReplyDeleteLooking Like Enemy by Angelo Ancheta focuses on the subordination of Asian Americans and how they are racialized in terms of foreigners and immigrants. İnes and Betül talked about what racialization really means and we said that it is assigning a group or individual a racial identity or social status. It a question of power about who will have the power to determine the place of others. Harsh treatment of Asian Americans results from two general concepts: First one is Asian Americans are eager to keep their traditional values and the second one is Asian Americans refuse to assimilate. The so called melting pot cannot lure the Asian Americans and that creates the problem for the government. Looking Asian contradicts with looking American.
The term outside racialization is important in this article. It has 2 dimensions: immigrant racialization and foreign racialization. Foreign racialization has 3 sub-categories which are foreign visitor, foreign enemy and foreign competitor. Foreign visitor is harmless; the term is used for tourists. Foreign enemy is a term that shaped through history. For me foreign competitor stereotypical term is the most dangerous one for Asian Americans. Vincent Chin was the victim of this category. He was the victim of economic antagonism by the two white men who killed him. He was labeled as a Japanese competitor in automobile industry even though he was not a Japanese. (Ancheta, 66).
When I read about Vincent Chin, I remembered the murder of African American boy; Emmet Till. Emmett Till talked, even whispered, to a white women at the candy store. The women told her husband about what Emmett Till did. The husband Roy Brant and his half-brother J.W. Milam forced Emmett Till to get out of the his own house and get into their car. Then, the little boy found dead in the river. J.W Milam said that black men did not know their place and space. For them white space was the protected space. Emmett Till violated this by talking to the white women and by having a white girlfriend. Both Vincent Chin and Emmett Till were the victims of racial hate crimes and they were not protected against the brutal violence. They were both thought to trespass the protected space of the whites. If both Chin and Till were white, their actions wouldn't be counted as an insult and they wouldn't be the targets of the hate crimes.
Another point is that during the presentation, Betül and Ines mentioned the conditions of being a refugee and how hard it is to have a life in a foreign land. I can give an example about an incident concerning a refugee in Turkey which was witnessed by one of my friends. She was doing an internship in a foundation that is aimed at helping refugees. One day they had a Syrian refugee who ran out of possibilities to have a life in Turkey and who was very much desperate. He could not have a job because no one accepted him. Then, one day they found his dead body in one of the foundation's rooms. It is very hard to be a refugee when you don't have help and opportunities to restart your life. They are craving for hope and the last thing they want to encounter is being labeled as threat, invader or competitor.
Bige YILMAZ
Hi Bige--I love how you introduce the concept of "protected space" in your response. Where did you learn about this?
DeleteHi Jennifer,
DeleteI have a personal interest in race and ethinicity. Last semester, when I was doing a research on Emmett Till, I learned about the term protected white sphere.
Thank you ladies for your presentation.
ReplyDeleteI think that, colourblindness and being an outsider are somehow very close to each other. Although colourblindness is based on skin tones, it's main reason is the stereotypical thoughts.. Just like being an outsider. About the treatment to them, I see no difference between. It doesn't matter whether you have different skin tone or different eye shape. As long as you're not like the REST- you're different, you're being considered as a threat.
According to Ancheta, Asian Americans were the ones whom suffered outsider racialization at the highest level. Moreover, according to the text, they got attacked by the Americans in order to protect their land. However, what they did was just the opposite of it.
I also want to add something about the boxing issue thing- I called it 'thing' because I think that it's only a reminder to the immigrants to make them never forget where they're from, who they are. NOT REAL AMERICANS. That is why, it was given the tag 'ethnic'. There's nothing different between the aggresive americans and the goverment and the No.1 evidence of it is the boxing issue. With the boxing issue, they're saying that ' you're from China etc. We can understand it by your physical appearance and this box is here for you to always remember who you are.'- In a literal way of course.
When I read this text, I somehow remember the book called 'Hunger' and the 'paper sons'. It's shame for Americans to threat the people who were trying really hard to live in their country.
Kardelen İpek
Your response reminds of the one the key elements of how identity functions for non-white people in the USA: your identity is how you perceive yourself AND how other perceive you. It's an issue that many white, straight, male persons with money never have to think about.
DeleteDear Betül and Ines, thanks for the presentation.
ReplyDeleteI believe when we do not know the historical background of contemporary issues, we become inclined to make prejudices as well. I strongly believe in a Turkish motto about having an idea should be based on having knowledge. Without having information, ideas faint and turn into blurred concepts according to me.
I remember when we were dealing with Huntington text, I ran into videos which try to justify discriminatory and assimilation based acts. Since visual media is very powerful I questioned the possibility of peaceful existence of two different cultures together in one country without challenging the unity. The videos and their claims seemed really strong at first sight. However when I focused on the real history of fragmented and finally collapsed countries because of the struggle between two or several distinct cultures with each other, I realized again that the cause of the collapse was the economically powerful, thus dominant culture’s pushing the oppressed culture towards its annihilation.
In the same way, history which includes the real “stories” of the members of the society provides us with the necessary information for our having an idea about the causes and effects of racist actions. Vincent Chin was really a sad story but when the following effects are taken into consideration, it sounds promising because it resulted in the creation of organized Asian Pacific American coalitions in the society which can raise their voices easier and louder. So, both raising a higher voice and getting positive results with counteractions against these kinds of subversive actions seem more possible.
Your presentation included different categorizations whose characteristics and definitions have changed according to different circumstances. This was beneficial for our understanding how the dominant and powerful culture plays with these definitions in order to make them serve to their own interests. Also I didn’t know in depth the legal or/and social discrimination that Asian – Americans faced, before I’ve read the required articles and before your presentation. I didn’t noticed that the categories about nationality and citizenship are so fluid and changeable according to targeted polices. So it was also beneficial for me to have an idea about how they change.
Naturalization process and the possibility of some groups to apply to this process forms another side of the assimilation I guess. It’s surprising to know how some people willingly accept to be assimilated in order to comply with the dominant culture. I don’t quite understand how some people see Japanese as people who steal white American’s jobs because job opportunities are closely related to ability, hard-work and sacrifice. Since we live in a world where most of the countries base their economies on market system, job opportunities are also base on efficiency. Consequently, if an employee does not meet the expectations of the system, most probably he/she will face with losing his/her job. So, considering the economic machine of governments, one cannot talk about “stealing jobs”. I mean I’m not supporting the capitalist systems throughout the world, but it is another story to be discussed
Again, I really enjoyed focusing on Asian Americans, the history of immigration (Immigration Acts and their effects as well) and,
Thanks for the presentation
Deniz
Well, of course, most of those people who accuse others of "stealing our jobs" are responding emotionally, and not rationally or intellectually. It's an emotional, psychological response to a perceived threat from an "outsider." Maybe a lesson or two in economics would help, but I think these issues go much deeper in the psyche of mainstream America which has been conditioned over time to have specific responses to perceived racial threats...
DeleteThank you Ines and Betül for this great presentation, you certainly did a great job!
ReplyDeleteIn the blog post on the topic one-drop one-hate rule I posed the question who is the real American and who determines it? I asked it in a racial sense, referring to African-Americans’ cases. But now, I see that it has other dimensions and citizenship is one of them. Who determines the qualifications to be a citizen of the United States? Is loyalty to American norms and economic contribution to the nation enough or does it ask for other requirements too? Ancheta argues that one of the most important aspects of becoming an American citizen is looking like one. You need to look like an American: white and Anglo-Saxon. Once you look like an American everything gets much easier. Your success in assimilating into the culture or your ability to integrate with other citizens are not important unless you are white and American. In the blog post, there is the question: Why do you think that the Europeans are more likely to assimilate than Asians, Arabs or Latinos? I think it is merely about the appearance. Europeans look more like Americans and since they do not have very rigid cultures or different religions; they are seen as more suitable to assimilate and live in America. They are not seen as threats because they will not disturb the image of the U.S. society. However, Arabs, Latinos and Asians are considered to be ineligible to citizenship. The strongest justifications for this are their appearance and their cultures. So I certainly agree with the title: being a citizen in America is not enough to be American. You need to look like one rather than trying to be one; which is impossible.
Quota system is a way of establishing discrimination and creating national hierarchy. Some countries are favored and some, especially Asians are disfavored in the system. The U.S. Congress presented such restrictions on immigration by using national security matter as an excuse. They pointed their fingers at specific nations and built distrust to them; through seeing these nations as threats, competitors or unassimmilating burdens who steal opportunities from “real” Americans. Ancheta claims that in the course of history stereotypical identities are stick to especially three nations. She says “Popular discourse has equated negative categories of foreigners or immigrant with racial groups living in the United States: ‘illegal alien’ is equated with Latino, ‘terrorist is equated with Arab; ‘foreign competitors’ is equated with Asian” (Ancheta, 65). These stereotypical understandings are actually popular discourse due to certain incidents in the U.S. history and people continue to target people as threats. Today, Muslims are seen as the mere threat to America because of 9/11 attacks. They are regarded as potential terrorists. But this was not the case before 9/11. This again shows how targeting changes over time and how “outsider racialization” is a social construction.
The issue of immigration and the notion of national security are parts of our lives. Today still countries pay attention to their borders and try to regulate immigration. They marginalize certain groups and claim that they do not want to make them citizens. Today, I think if you are a Muslim it is very difficult for you to take visa for the U.S. Because they look at you and try to see through whether you are a terrorist or not. Especially if you are dark-skinned Turkish men with a beard, I recommend you to go and shave and put on your best attitude before going to an interview in order not to be seen as a terrorist. This is sad, but it is actually the case today.
Yes, it is important for us to remember that laws and policies that work at the national level (and have international consequences and histories) also affect society. And, in reverse, society influences laws and policies. They are mutually constituitive.
DeleteQ: Why do you think that the Europeans (English, French, German...) are more likely to assimilate than Asians, Arabs or Latinos ?
ReplyDeleteA: Europeans such as English, French, etc. have the same origins and similar cultures with America. As we learned, America's first settlers were Europeans and that is why they have similarities. However, when we look at Asians or Arabs for example they have different cultures and backgrounds. Despite it is inconvenient to say Asians are oriental, and Arabs are belong to an arabesque culture, it is clearly accurate that they have their own way of living. I believe because the similarities among Europeans and Americans, it looks more likely for them to adapt the American values, at least they probably will face less difficulties to embrace American culture. For other nations which do not have a similar culture, accepting/getting assimilated to a different culture probably will be troublesome. I want to clarify that I am not suggesting assimilation as a necessary or an appropriate matter. In opposite, it is brutal to participate or accept because it might cause extinction of a culture which is a huge loss for humanity.
And thank you girls, it was an educational presentation.
And we should remember that there are many ways of "assimilating"--not just a straight path towards accepting one culture and leaving another behind. There are many paths in-between...
DeleteThanks for Betül and Ines for their presentation.
ReplyDeleteActually I could not understand the different law status for each race. Because whether it is Asian American or Mexican American or ‘American’ American, if a person is belong to a country, in what reason s/he choose it, law makers should look from the same perspective for everybody. However, when we think about the Asians and America’s assimilation policy, we can remember that America cannot assimilate them because of their different appearance. So in that parallel it is somehow becoming ‘acceptable’ that they do not want to live with them.
We also talked about the job issue; I think that if the country is egalitarian, there will be no problems about find jobs because everybody gets their just deserts. For this concept it comes to my mind that there is a jealousy about Japanese too, that Vincent Chin’s issue also can be an example for this jealousy. Because from my point of view, it is undeniable that Japanese are cleverer about the technology and car issues. As a result I think that whether Asian or American, they have to be respectful for each people indiscriminately.
Dilan ALGAN
In theory, the law is "blind." But, of course, as see from USA history, it is never blind...
DeleteFirst of all, thank you ladies! It was a thoughtful and great presentation.
ReplyDeleteYou gave an information about Angelo Ancheta and he talks about racial discrimination and immigrants rights. He wrote a book which is “"Race, Rights and the Asian American Experience". Angelo N. Ancheta indicates how United States civil rights laws were formed again by a black-white model of race. It is possible to see that Asian-American people struggles about their rights. It is possible to see that he focuses on social and legal theories of racial discrimination and differences in the Asian-American population. Asian-Americans are not only Japanese, Korean or Chinese.
We learnt that Asian-American or Latino identities are different than Black identity. Racialization is a behavior that to differentiate people according to their races. It signifies the extension of racial meanings to a previously racially unclassified relationship, social practice, or group. “Outsider racialization” means that you are born in U.S.A., you are still perceived as an outsider and non-citizen. I think that it is so tragic for immigrants. There are obviously two groups; they are dominants and dominated ones; Americans and Foreigners. So who is the real-American and it should be questioned because America consists of many immigrant groups and being accepted is not actually easy in U.S.A. Because there is an immigrant racialization.
For example, there is a term that I could not believe, actually I learnt it today and there are Asian-Americans and Asian-Canadians. I watched a video about that it tells the situation sarcastically but actually it is the reality.
-Ezgi Doğan
Post the video!
DeleteThank you girls, that was really interesting! I love your title!
ReplyDeleteBeing American... It sounds so easy yet it is really difficult indeed. Going to America is such a big opportunity for many people who has to leave their countries due to many different reasons. They think if they can act like "American", talk like "American", eat like "American", they can be an "American" because this is a country which is filled with opportunities. However, the real American does not only care about how you act or talk (even though they are also effective), as Ancheta also mentions, the real America cares about how you look like. If you look like "American" (which basically means white and Anglo-Saxon), it will be easier for you to live in America. The hate crimes, stereotypes and feeling of being unwanted are less if you look like "them". I think this is the main reason why the Europeans (English, French, German...) are more likely to assimilate than Asians, Arabs or Latinos. During my Erasmus, I took a class on New York and during this class, I also learn about how Italian immigrants in America split in two: the ones who are assimilated and the ones who are not. The main reason for them not to be assimilated is because they live close by and in their neighborhood, everything is in Italian; food, newspapers, shops... When we think about China town, Korea neighborhood both in Manhattan and in Queens, little Italy, Arab neighborhood, as well as Latino neighborhood mostly on the South-West Coast of the United States, we can see how close these societies are. The question is that "Do these communities live like this because they want to separate themselves from the others? Or does American society push these communities to their own areas by excluding them?". I think American society is also really effective in this neighborhood case. Since immigrants form Asia, Mexico and Middle East live in close societies, it is more difficult to assimilate them. Also for Arab Americans, the other reason may be the religion. Even though not always, Arab Americans may be Muslims. The religion is also really important to become true American: Protestant (or at least any kinds of Christianity) And Arab-Americans, Asian Americans and Latinos have close family relations. Their families are living under one roof, so passing culture from parents to children is much easier for them. Not for Latinos and Arab-Americans but for Asian Americans, even though they are white, looking like American white is impossible. What I mean by American white is whiteness according to American society (as we already know, it is really different than simply being white). If you are an Arab American and wearing hijab, post 9/11 society will never except you. It does not matter if you are white or talk like American, you have a Arab blood in your veins, so it makes you enough Arab for them to hate you. (It doesn't matter if you are an American born or not.) And the quota system, as mentioned by Ancheta, is not helping to these stereotypes about different cultures; Arabs as terrorists, Asians (women as sexy, shy, submissive while men as nerd, clever), Latinos as criminals, illegal aliens and lazy people.
Even though we live in a multicultural world, there are still some countries which believe that they will do not change and get affected by immigrants. However, it is impossible. Why? We have Internet. Duh! It is possible to see many different cultures without even leaving your room (or even bed). These cultures affect us slowly even though we do not realize it at first. However, it doesn't mean this is bad. If we can accept the good parts of different cultures while leaving out all the bad ones in ours, I think this will create a more awesome culture! So why are there so many hate in this world? I don't want to talk like Pollyanna or anything but I believe it is true. The one thing I do not believe that people are not that selfless and open-minded to see the beauty of this combination.
Ezgi ULUSOY
The issue of ethnic enclaves is a fascinating topic in the area of race and space and scholarship. Of course, people from similar backgrounds tend to group together and form strong community bonds, but if you look at the history of city planning, etc, you can see how zoning laws and regulations regarding urban space actually separate and segregate the non-white communities and reinforce ethnic enclaves. That's a very brief overview, but George Lipsitz and others have written fascinating studies on this topic...
DeleteFirst of all thanks very much to Betül and Ines for their informing and thoughtful presentation. Focusing on Anglo Ancheta's "Looking Like The Enemy" text, Asian Americans critical position. How Asian Americans are discriminated and alienated. We see in Ancheta's text that Asian Americans are much more alienated from others as it is said in the part of Naturalization Act. I think "non white citizens" i mean the ones that are not American citizens are not given chance to be citizens instead of refering them as "immigrants". At first sight the term "outsider racialization" does not give them chance to be referred as citizens. Because of the fact that "outsider racialization" term is evaluated and categorized beginning from the time they born. "Racialization" is sticked on them like an etiqutte when they born and it continues in the same way throughout their life. Social pressure is also have a role in this matter because mostly one is not able to change his/her ideas,point of view or standart of judgements as long as the whole or at least the general part of the people in the society do not change their point of view to immigrants and the immigrant's situations in the society, this arises from how difficult eliminating the prejudices and discriminating instict against the different ones i mean different ones from majority. For solving this racialization issue firstly the immigrants should have given a chance to integrate or if they prefer they should have given a chance to assimilate from the beginning of their birth they can integrate i mean they can adapt(integrate) or even maybe assimilate to the society they live even their races,ethnicities,cultures,traditions are different.
ReplyDeleteÖzge BAŞAK
Thank you ladies for your well-informed presentation.
ReplyDeleteAsian Americans and other immigrants have been made scapegoats for not being able to assimilate or refusing to be assimilated for many years. Yet how could it be their problems when the assimilation and being a real American in the United States does not depend on their lifestyle or their language but on their appearance? Discrimination, racial profiling and hatred of white citizens are always on them. Everything makes their life and assimilation process harder when living in America as being immigrants is already difficult. Europeans are more likely to be assimilated than Asian Americans, Latinos or Arabs because the hate target is not on them. At least they have more opportunity in America without racial hatred of other people in many areas of society. On the way of assimilation, the real Americans and the government put many obstacles in front of them. They are not actually aliens but they are the ones who are alienated by the United States itself.
Americans are very much concerned about Asian Americans’ increasing economic power and its effect on the United States. Most people think about the loss of U.S. jobs to Asian Americans and they consider it as a very important problem. Many Americans believe that Asians emerge as a powerful notion and it creates a major threat to America. The Government also led to the discrimination and racial profiling of Asian Americans as well as the perception of patriotic racism. The polices established stereotypes. In fact, laws reinforced existing racial profiling and made Asian Americans to be considered as undocumented immigrants. These laws affected the employment as employers consider them as foreigners, competitors or threats, they chose “the real” citizens over them. The importance should not be on their refusal of assimilation; instead, it should be on how hard it is for them to gain economic security and access to the social services in the United States.
Burcu Karatekeli
This line will stick with me all day: "The importance should not be on their refusal of assimilation; instead, it should be on how hard it is for them to gain economic security and access to the social services in the United States." Amen, sister.
DeleteThank you Betül and Inés for your fluent presentation.
ReplyDeleteForeigness is the basic principle in the 'outsider racialization' and related to this Asian Americans are considered as foreigns. In "Looking Like the Enemy" Ancheta talks about outsider racialization and she mentions to two key words I think. These are immigrant racialization and foreigner racialization. Both of them is in a way seperating the Asian Americans from the "real" Americans. If Asian Americans took American citizenship it does not make any difference and they still seen as foreigners and outsiders. So, yes it can be said that "being a U.S citizen is not enough to be American. Naturalization Act also prohibits non-white people from being an American citizen. The citizenship is determined by race and Asian Americans seen as enemies. "The law would also authorize local law enforcement and verifying officials to inform federal authorities about anyone suspected of lacking proper immigration status" (Looking Like the Enemy, pg: 79). Asian Americans being exposed to the status of immigrant, outsiders and foreigners and they have difficulties in having job (well qualified) or owning a property. We still having this discrimination and also this document is related to the "Screaming Monkeys" because in that article we see the Asian women in the society (in one part) and in Ancheta's document we clearly told given the details of how Asian Americans become as an outsider, foreigner and immigrant.
“In this country American means white. Everybody else has to hyphenate.” Toni Morrison.
Gözde İPEK
Great quote from Professor Morrison!
DeleteWonderful presentation, very well-prepared. Thank you for your time.
ReplyDeleteBefore I get to the content of the blog post, I just want to share something that got my attention. Isn’t it kind of sad that the racist propaganda drawings are usually really well-made? It is quite possible that in most cases, it’s not just some random guy drawing those but rather a very skilled artist. Yet on the other hand, the discriminatory literature is just the opposite: Badly-written, sleep-inducing, brain-shrinking and lacking in its arguments. (I haven’t watched it yet but turns out “the Birth of a Nation” is actually quite good from a technical standpoint. For some reason, visual media seems to be more suitable for racism.)
Retreating to the topic at hand, I find the justification for the discrimination of Japanese Americans really interesting here. Considering that the reason given was the hostility between the two countries during WW2, you’d think Germans would be exposed to a similar level of discrimination, if not more due to their image as evil Nazis; as if they all supported the regime. To be sure, they did have their share of problems but it’s really nowhere near that of the Japanese. (Remember, Eisenhower himself was a German American.) Furthermore, it’s not entirely impossible to find reading from the era before the American Revolution praising German settlers in the colony for their hard work. Aren’t the Japanese known for being just as hardworking, if not more?
Then again, it is rather hard to find a sort of discrimination that isn’t hypocritical to a great extent. Even when categorizing peoples, the US did not find it as weird as I do now to use different criteria depending on the target group. Some had been grouped according to their country of birth –or that of their grandparents for that matter-, some according to their race. These people tend to be really well-versed in scientific methods too, making me wonder if they just had other reasons than the “integrity” of the society and simply used it as a potentially popular form of justification. A quick glance at the internment of the Japanese American give me the idea that land might have been a bigger incentive for that particular occasion. Just some food for thought.
Or take the national security excuse, which never seems to go out of fashion (Chant with me, NSA! NSA! NSA!). Having committed no war crimes whatsoever on the US soil, these people had been treated as traitors just because. But you never know, perhaps they were only waiting for the right moment and Uncle Sam revealed and acted against their foul plot. Good on you Sam!
The anecdote on integration was a really good one. It indeed goes both ways. Regarding the case of Vincent Chin, how can one expect the average immigrant to internalize American values when the concept of foreign competitor is always there to overshadow their attempts at doing just that? Seen as an enemy just because he has to make a living like any other citizen, how can one expect him to integrate fully?
On a somewhat unrelated note, why would anyone think of and get angry over unemployment figures in a strip club of all places?
Also, South Park. South Park is always relevant:
(Sexually explicit content, I guess.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik
-Buğra Murat Altan
Murat--Check out the next Mae Ngai reading for more info on how Italians and Germans were dealt with in comparison with the Japanese during WWII. I won't spoil the fun here--read the chapter :)
DeleteRacists can be artists, too. Hitler was an artist and a writer. Birth of a Nation is technical masterpiece, but ideologically foul.
And somehow I think that strip clubs, unlike the automotive or other industries, will always survive outside the greater economic conditions. Someone may not have enough money to buy a car, but they'll have always find a buck for a beer and a topless chick. They say prostitution is the oldest profession and the only one never affected by economic slumps...ANYWAY. Lots of good stuff in this post. Thanks for sharing.
When thinking about Japanese-German name calling we tend to forget couple crucial points about American culture. Americans are highly visual and highly patriotic people, meaning anything attacking them personally incurs the wrath of the country as a whole. During World War 2 Nazi Germany committed many atrocities that bothered the world as a whole, however it did not touch the skirts of America which in turn led to the delayed entrance of America to the war.
ReplyDeleteThe reason now showed for America's entry to the war is because Germany sunk an American cruise ship full with women and children. It was a direct attack on the patriotic honor of American legacy and meant that Nazi Germany was destined to be eliminated. What you should see here is that America did not hold a huge grudge against the Germans because they did not enter the war to save the Jewish people in the first place (if that was the reason they were 2 years late in entering..). They did so to retaliate for the sunk ship.
Now on the other hand Pearl Harbor is a cold hearted and uncalled for, blood thirsty and cowardly way of attacking, according to annals of american history (I beg to differ but lets talk about it one-on-one with whoever's interested in hearing my opinions on this, without creating a huge discussion) Japanese directly attacked America and killed more American men than Germans (or the illusion of it) and they caused a bigger, A Visual tragedy in American public. Germans were called Jerry (remember tom and jerry, tom short for tommy, most common british name) but Japanese were called monkeys. This alone serves to show the difference between the amount of hate these two countries acquired.
When thinking about Vincent Chin, these 2 auto industry layouts didn't need to check his ID and find out that he was actually Chinese. He was an Asian, Japanese were Asians, thus Vincent was a Japanese. Doesn't make much sense but I am sure it did to them at the time. Losing their jobs and also losing the prospects of the ALL future jobs as well as the acquired public hate from the Pearl Harbor is an amazing combination for disaster.
I found the Vincent Chin predicament highly amusing and educating at the same time because I think with only events such as these we get to see just how efficient U.S. Supreme Court is making decisions based on highly emotional, completely un-scientific, and fully biased views of the world. Again I believe the ideal of "patriotism" is the key concept that drives these kinds of decisions, which only churns my guts..
Give it 15-20 years, with the current "that did not happen" policy going on in Germany, America will forget all about the European Front of the World War 2. Japanese on the other hand will never live it down. They will always be remembered 'fondly' by Americans. I talked about pick and choose before and it happens way too much in any American contest - which tires me out completely.. This is just one example of it... Hell Yeah Supreme Court Justices, U Da Man!
Also this is how Canada reacts to racism in light of the recent Ottawa shooting. Tell me when you see the difference.
DeleteIt is not about a country policy but a state of mind held by every single individual. And this can only happen at 2 stages, by the school education and family education. Canada=win
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9rFprD_Qf4
To better answer that question in class about why the Supreme Court made the decisions they made--in regard to Ozawa and Thind, for example--the better is: "Because they can."
DeleteI think you point about the visual power of events and the visuality of American culture in general is an extremely salient point. If you remember, in 1993 (or was it 94?), Oklahoma City was bombed by a "Middle Eastern" terrorist and while people got their panties in a twist about it for awhile, it did not have nearly the same effect as 9/11, in which the iconic center of American (NYC) and two giant and iconic towers were devastated. It was the visual power of seeing those famous buildings in America's darling city destroyed that affected the nation so deeply. We do not have national days of remembrance for Oklahoma, but we do for 9/11.
As for Germans vs. Japanese...check out the next Ngai reading.
The article, “Looking Like the Enemy” mostly focuses on the Asian identity who live in especially in America. He identified Asian identity as an outsider racialization. I think, the axis is not about white V. Black, but American V. foreigner, which means Asian people are not able to assimilate that’s why he identified Asians as a foreigner. According to him, he divided outsider racialization into two forms,which are : immigrant racialization and foreigner racialization. Also because of their biological differences, they almost seen as a foreigner even if one has a citizenship or native born and I think another important point is psychological recognition that people have about Asians. I mean, because of their biological differences (f.e- eye-shape) they seen different to others.
ReplyDeleteBesides, they refuse to assimilate because they want to keep their traditions and cultures. As I mentioned before , the term ‘orientalism’ mostly defines them. One of the example can be ‘ChinaTowns’, which shows Asians marginalization and one question comes up mind : Why do so many cities have ‘chinatown’ but none have a ‘arabtown’ or ‘Iraktown’ ? Even if in today’s world Chinatowns mostly appeared for touristic attraction for travelers, it is important for Asians who wants to keep their traditions and values. When one go there, simply see the different traditions that they have.
Irem, check out my response to Ezig U. about race and space and ethnic enclaves. To be sure, Chinatowns are the most famous and iconic of all the ethnic enclaves, however there are ethnic enclaves dominated by Middle Eastern people in the United States. For instance, the town of Glendale, in Los Angeles country, is over 40% Armenian and Armenian American....
DeleteThank you Betül and Ines for this informative presentation, that was very helpful for me to understand the text and link it to our previous discussion topics.
ReplyDeleteAs we all know, the United States was a land of opportunity for people from different countries and most of these people, who migrated to the US, were in search of a better life both for themselves and their families. The life conditions in Japan in 1860s was very hard for Japanese people, especially for peasants, so they decided to immigrate to the US hoping that they could have better working conditions and get enough wages to support their families there. The first generation of Japanese immigrants was the lucky ones in compare to the later generations in terms of finding a job because there was a labor demand in 1880s as a result of the Chinese Exclusion Act (but still we should not ignore the harsh working conditions and the hostility towards them). Between 1885 and 1924 over three hundred Japanese immigrated to Hawaii to work in fishing, agriculture and railroads and Japanese farmers harvested over ten percent of the California’s crops. Although they worked hard, the laws enacted against them in order to prevent more people to immigrate, to own a land and to become an eligible citizen (Acts of 1790, 1873, 1913, and 1924). The immigration aimed to be stopped but the population kept increasing. So people, who were born in the US, faced with discrimination and segregation even though they speak English and follow the American values just because they have Japanese descent. According to the act of 1924 Japanese people were not white and for that reason they were not eligible for citizenship but they are white (in appearance), they speak English and some of them were born in the US so what makes them not eligible for citizenship?: Their Japanese roots? That sounds like the one drop and one hate rule, right?
There is saying that “the history repeats itself” and I think it is pretty much true when we consider the different immigrant groups and the attitudes towards them. African people were once welcomed to the US when there was a need for labor force then they were not welcomed when their population increased and the people blamed them for taking white men’s jobs. The same can be said about Latino, people and Asian as we have studied in this week’s lecture. Having been born in the US, or speaking English is not enough in order to be accepted as white and in that case “white” is not just a color but a title that people of “races” could not be entitled to.
-Tansu Özakman
Well, I'm not sure the slaves brought from Africa would say that American "welcomed" them...
DeleteFirstly, I would like to say thank you for this great presentation to Betül and Inès .
ReplyDeleteSince the beginning of this course, I have been thinking what does being “American” or how American identity is created. I was really optimistic about it. In this week, I found out the answer: I saw that this identity is “only” shaped by your appearance. It does not matter whether you are legally American citizen or not. What it matters is only your appearance. Asian Americans are the best example for this situation. Even if most of them are legally American citizen, still they are not seen as American. In other words, they are seen as “foreigner” even in their home country. Even most Americans do not feel bad because of this perception that they have towards Asian Americans, because they believe that Asian Americans are “enemies” and “threat” since World War II.
Ancheto points out in her article that Asian Americans are subordinated as outsiders who are truly “American” through racialization. It means that even though Asian Americans feel themselves as truly “American”, they are not the ones who decide it. This is determined by “regular” Americans. I always thought that if someone feels themselves as “American”, then he/she must be seen as “American”, but I saw in Asian Americans issue that how you feel or express yourself does not matter.
In previous weeks, we learned racialization of space. I remember some movies in which there are Asian characters living in poverty in Chinatowns. They seem that alienated from the rest of the society and live their own lives. We associated this term generally with African Americans, but we can see the same kind of codes in this situation as well. In his text “Racialization of Space and Spatialization of Race”, Lipstz argues that people of different races in the US are relegated to different locations by housing and lending discrimination. In addition to African Americans and Latinos, Asian Americans are another example for this argument.
Moreover, I found really interesting racial triangulation theory. It demonstrates us that how race has more than one dimension and it is perceived through different aspects. It reveals the complexity of this issue again.
I try to compare the perception of being citizen in the US and Turkey. I think in Turkey, codes are much more different. If you feel and express yourself as a “Turk”, then you are a Turk. It is more about how you define yourself. I hope in the US also this perception changes and rather than excluding its own citizens as considering their appearance, it starts to give people chances to express themselves.
Yasemin Öztemür
I'm very happy that you guys are starting to understand race as more complicated than simply white people vs. black people (which is what I have a suspicion has been taught to you in some other *coughcough* classes!)
DeleteAs for the identity issues, for nonwhite (non-male, queer, poor) Americans, identity is always a combination of how you perceive yourself and how other perceive you. W.E.B. Du Bois called this "double consciousness"--the idea that as a person of color, you are always aware of how you are seen by the white American world. So, yes, identity is never as easy as just "being who you are" or "being what you feel" as an individual. Whether you like it or want it, your identity is partly shaped by how others see (or don't) see you...
In the aftermath of the Nanking Massacre (the mass rape/murder of thousands of Chinese people in the hands of the Japanese in 1937 - 1938) and Pearl Harbor, the American government and it's citizens did not think very fondly of Japan and the Japanese. To some extent, they were right. Although the Nanking Massacre did not affect the U.S. , Pearl Harbor did. People were scared, mourning the loss of their loved ones and thinking that they were next. It was a very practical policy for the U.S. to antagonize the Japanese.
ReplyDeleteThe devilish image of the Japanese, created in the eyes of the people and the government, led to events like the placement of Japanese-Americans in the U.S. into concentration camps. It was a form of self-defense. It was not a correct form of self-defense, it was quite dehumanizing to say the least. The fear of the unknown and the shock of the attacks were the main components in these series of bad decision making. I'm not, by any means, trying to justify the actions made by the American government or the general prejudice held towards the Japanese. I'm just trying to point out the reasons behind these events.
See the next Mae Ngai reading (which, of course, you will since you're presenting on it) for more on this ;)
DeleteAlso, welcome back to the forum, Kaan. Stay with us....
DeleteThank you Betül and Inés for your well-informed, fluent presentation.
ReplyDeleteWith the articles "Looking Like an Enemy" and also "Impossible subjects", we see another group that is subjected to racialization in U.S.A which is "Asian-Americans." However, we also see legal aspects of the issue and personally, it became more clear when I learn the laws and acts that the U.S government legislated in order to prevent undesirable immigrants to be citizen especially Asian-Americans.
In this week, among many things there few subjects that particularly attract my attention. The first one is racial triangulation. altough we all know that race is always a huge issue for America throughout the history but having such a thing like triangulation shows how actually "true Americans" are afraid of increasing diverse races. They are marginalized Asian because of the fear that mostly loosing their power in global market, marginalized Mexians for fear that they and usage of their language increase. It must be really complicated for both side, people who try to "exist" under all these legal and social barriers and also people who try to catogarize already racially mixed country and change or develop tactics according to current situation and BENEFİTS.
speaking of benefits the second thing in my mind comes up. Laws and acts, especially when Betül talks about laws and also when I read about laws of 1924 and followings, I really shocked how U.S government use its power under the name of "national security"(if I understand correctly). The law makers and the government are like acrobats, they always find a way for discriminate people racially and also for justfying their acts I mean they never fall down. another thing about the laws is their flexibility. they are easily changed according to politic, economic and social situations. It is kind of scary acually because according to Country's current benefits or fears, many people's lives dramatically change in the country.
finally, I think in one aspect reasons of racialization of Asian-Americans differs from other minority group. and that is loosing economic power not only in the country but also in the world. for other minority groups the reason generally is cultural and national concerns but for Asians, cultural and national concerns come after economic concerns in my opinion. And since all issue is all about power struggle in parallel with money, Asian-Americans will be the last group that find a place in triangulation as long as their success increases.
The metaphor of legal "acrobatics" is a great one, Berivan. It totally captures the way the US legal system (and other social structures) get bent and twisted to serve prevailing ideologies...
DeleteI want to thank Betül and Inés for your presentation.
ReplyDeleteIt is very interesting to observe how the targets of racism changes through time and law. The Asian Americans, Latin Americans and Arab Americans have experienced racism in the U.S. in their own contexts. Whether they are US citizens or not most of suffered from the radicalized boundaries in the society. As Ancheta argues “immigrants” and “foreigners” are put in the same category (65). Therefore, people’s legal status in the social level, do not make difference in terms of their being accepted to the US society.
So what makes a person to be a US citizen in both legal and social spectrums is the question that has various answers. One of the arguments that I found from Ancheta’s text is it is people’s capacity to be assimilated or blended in the US society. This means, people who can fit the U.S. norms and culture the best have a chance to be US citizens. However, adopting the culture alone is not enough to be considered as US citizens because your racial features also have role in that process. For instance, Asian Americans for a time were disadvantageous in becoming US citizens because they were not seen as to have capacity to create a melting pot. Their physical appearance would not allow them to be “regular” American because they failed to look like Americans who have Anglo-Saxon background.
The reason why Anglo-Saxon seems to be prerequisite to be admitted for US citizen goes back to the foundation of the United States. The nation was built with the values of Anglo-Saxon culture and thus people who do not share the same racial identity would be automatically categorized as “aliens”. In addition, whiteness as a racial term did not mean to have white skin but to have protestant Anglo-Saxon heritage. This explains why the Irish were not perceived as white in the US for a period. Then, whiteness as a term, broadened its meaning by expanding its territory. Europe as a continent represented the land of white people. As a result, people who have European origin in the US have constituted the white population.
The other motive for outsider racialization is the “foreign competitor”. People who do not have European ancestry are discriminated not only by their racial identity but also for having an occupation that white Americans can do. They are blamed for taking the jobs away from regular Americans. Therefore, regardless of their legal status, they become aliens that have no right to work in the US. Foreign competitor concept also brings out hatred that leads catastrophic incidents like Vincent Chin’s murder. His racial appearance was enough for the murderers to kill him. It is important to take notice that federal government also have role in creating prejudices and hatred. The exclusions for Chinese and internment for the Japanese created a vision that Asians were perceived as threats to the US. Consequently, the government’s policies thorough laws influenced racial boundaries.
Hacer Bahar
An excellent explanation of whiteness here, Hacer!
DeleteThank you Inés and Betül, for your informative presentation.
ReplyDeleteThe process of racialization of outsiders that Ancheta talks about is indeed interesting and thought provoking. People don't wake up in their beds and decide to see Asian Americans as job-stealing aliens. Formation of such ideas in a society take time and some other supportive elements such as media and government regulations and laws. The way governments handle racial issues have big effect on the society. I doubt that Japanese Americans would face violent acts if hadn't been for the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII which pointed at them as if they were the enemy itself and planted this idea in the minds of non-Asian American citizens. There was a time in Turkey when Kurdish people were ashamed of their identity because government policies and official ideology denied their existence entirely.
I find this enormous power that governments and law have frightening when it comes to shaping public opinion. Ancheta displays that this can be and has been true in US history.
Esma Şermet
I would like to hear more about the Kurdish history and how you see similarities and differences between the two histories. We may not be allowed to speak about it openly, but perhaps here we can? It's a topic I'm very curious about...
DeleteAlso, welcome back to the forum, Esma. Stick around...
DeleteRace is a very big issue in the United States of America. We all and forever think that race is something related to African-Americas but in this course we have learnt that it is not all about blacks. Asian-American struggled to get citizenship and could not achieve to do it for a long time even if they assimilated. They were rejected just because of their appearence. Especially there always were lots of stereotypes about Japanese. Americans thought that because of them they are out of work (auto industry). And They recognize all the Asians the same without regarding their country (China, Japan, Korea, in does not matter). This week we learn lots of things about Asian-American
ReplyDeletePınar ILGAR
Thank you Betül and Inés for your presentation on the Asian’s in U.S. and the struggles both legal and illegal they were dealing over time.
ReplyDeleteFirstly I would like to point out that Ancheta’s part and also the whole book which I discovered some other parts on the web is quite well explained in the sense that you can find financial, social and legitimacy of the Asian’s in bulk. As our presentation and yours shows the visuality takes the lead when the question is about Asian’s. Therefore there are no distinction being no one or black or yellow or even red. If your skin color has some shades you will be described as immigrant and this was the first term that I learned from the presentation, “the immigrant racialization”. This weeks chapter also somehow dealing with the visual apperance and this was a good representation that shows the way people see the outsiders. In addition to that the distinction between visitor, competitor and enemy is the main basis of the reading for me. Because it is again about the visuals, thinking about the Family Guy for instance in one of the old episodes I have seen that one drycleaner was Asian and in his shop there was a device that makes sound when someone gets inside. This is important because, the expectation was to clearly deny that there are no racial identification in that scene but Peter goes in and out to make that sound. Eventually Asian shop owner came and said that “each blip costs 1 cent”. By this way Asians visualized as greedy, job stealer or even they were living in their work place. Family Guy, Futurama, Chinatown those are all examplifies that Asians are mostly greedy and they came U.S. to steal jobs.
Another issues I want to point out is the murder of the automotive businessman Vincent Chin. It was pointless as it was unneccary but the thirive is this action is the actual proof that American’s do not like other races among them. In addition to that, as I answered in the class, I cannot see any difference between integration and assimilation. Assimilation is and aggressive term that used to explain there is a person and this person effected by the society that s/he ‘s living in, and losing own culture. On the same idea, integration is adopting yourself to the society you are in.
Lastly I want to answer to the second question of the blogpost, those policies are making it easy to legalize the Works of the “white” and it helps them to develop the sense that püre society will be demolished. This is the way they are living for centuries, and you can see it in the History cleary. There are movements, KKK, white police’s offiecers using excessive force toward immigrants, Qotas, census tests and many more maded to clarify that, we are not doing this to determine the immigrants but to aid them. But when I think of it, census does not help carribean immigrans ? or others. So even you are a citizen in U.S. and you have something to say in public; you should be better to be a white-christian-American to talk. Otherwise, you’ll be accused to not to know anything about America.
Serhat BAŞAK