Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 68, No. 3, 2012, pp. 534--558
One Hundred and Fifty Years of “The Chinese
Question”: An Intergroup Relations Perspective
on Immigration and Globalization
Priya Mariana Shimpi∗ and Sabrina Zirkel
Mills College
Increased migration is, in many ways, the sine qua non of globalization. In this
manuscript, we examine the single case of Chinese American immigration in the
United States over a 150-year period to explore how race and interracial attitudes
shape immigrant –host relations in very deep ways. We find remarkably little
change in the valence of these conversations or even in the precise content of the
depictions of Chinese Americans over time. A detailed analysis of depictions and
conversations about Chinese Americans in a variety of contexts finds that European Americans in the United States often describe them as: (1) self-segregating,
(2) lacking loyalty to the United States, and (3) hardworking and successful, but
simultaneously lacking in “humanity.” We highlight the way such depictions ignore any attention to basic facts; we use these data to discuss the ways that race
and interracial interaction form the core of immigrant –host relations; and we use
this case study to highlight how race shapes immigrant –host relations around the
globe.
A central aspect of globalization is increased movement and contact between
people. Cheaper transportation, extreme economic disparities, and greater global
consciousness have all contributed to skyrocketing levels of migration. Worldwide,
the number of people living outside of their birth country has grown exponentially
in the last several decades. The rate of growth of international migration is now
50% higher than it was in the early 1990s, and shows every sign of continuous
increase (United Nations, 2009). A signature feature of globalization is a greater
awareness of and contact between different peoples in the world—and increased
levels of immigration are a core aspect of these processes. These increased levels
∗ Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to Priya Mariana Shimpi,
PhD, School of Education Mills College 5000 MacArthur Boulevard Oakland, CA 94613. Tel: (510)
430-2114 [e-mail: [email protected]].
534
C
2012 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
Immigration as Interracial Interaction
535
of migration reveal as well as define the extent to which individuals see themselves
as part of a globalized world, and this migration also reveals economies that are
increasingly connected and interwoven (see also in this issue: Aneesh, 2012;
Breckenridge & Moghaddam, 2012; Carolissen, 2012; Jensen & Arnett, 2012;
Marsalla, 2012; Prilleltensky, 2012). Recently, there has been increasing attention
to immigration, both at the level of national policy and among scholars and
social scientists in many disciplines (e.g., Chiu, Gries, Torelli, & Cheng, 2011;
Hirschman, Kasinitz, & Dewind, 1999).
With a few notable exceptions in the past 10 years (e.g., Berry, 2001, 2005;
Chiu et al., 2011; Deaux, 2006, 2008; Esses, Deaux, Lalonde, & Brown, 2010;
Esses, Dovidio, Jackson, & Armstrong, 2001; Gelfand, Lyons, & Lun, 2011;
Ryan & Casas, 2010; Torelli, Chiu, Tam, Au, & Keh, 2011; Zick, Pettigrew, &
Wagner, 2008; see also Aneesh, 2012; Breckenridge & Moghaddam, 2012; Jensen
& Arnett, 2012), psychologists have paid less attention to immigration and its
psychological implications as a specific focus of study than have sociologists,
historians, economists, or other social scientists (Dovidio & Esses, 2001). We
believe that this is a mistake, and suggest that psychology has much to offer our
understanding of immigration, immigrant experiences, and host nation reactions to
immigration and immigrants. Our aim is to highlight relations between immigrant
populations and their hosts using an intergroup relations perspective, thereby
revealing another way that psychologists can contribute to our understanding of
immigration and its impact. After framing the broader context of migration in
a more globalized world and an exploration of some of the larger patterns of
relationships between immigrants and host nations, we turn our attention to a
specific case example of immigrants within the United States: We explore both
recent and older conversations about Chinese and other Asian Americans originally
within California, and lately across the United States.
In particular, we build on the work of Wu (2002) and others (e.g., Cheryan
& Monin, 2005; Lowe, 1996; Nakayama, 1994; Wong, 2006) who highlight the
way Chinese and other Asian Americans are often conceived as “perpetual foreigners.” In this work, we demonstrate that even after many generations in the
United States, and particularly in California, some of the very same “conversations” or tensions between Chinese Americans and European Americans that we
saw over 150 years ago persist to this day—sometimes even using remarkably
similar language. We argue that this consistency in the public debates between
Chinese Americans and European Americans—long after the Chinese Americans
are no longer “immigrants”—suggests that an interracial interactions frame actually provides more insights than an “immigrant –host” frame for understanding
these patterns. In essence, we argue that much “anti-immigrant” sentiment might
be better described as “anti-people of color” sentiment—and we suggest that these
insights might help us to better understand immigrant –host relations in many other
regions as well. Most immigrant –host relationships can be coded as “interracial
536
Shimpi and Zirkel
interactions” in that the social construction of “race” is such that immigrants are
often seen as racially “other” by hosts (see, e.g., Painter, 2011). Because of this,
we do well to understand these relationships as between hierarchically arranged
interracial relationships.
Social Context of Migration
Although migration is a worldwide phenomenon, the vast majority of this
migration is targeted towards Europe and North America. The primary migration
patterns can best be described as people who are moving from the developing
countries of what has been referred to as the Global South to more developed
countries in the Global North (United Nations, 2009). Well more than half of
the population growth in North America and the European Union (EU) reflects
the impact of immigration—both directly through immigrants themselves and
indirectly through their children born in the host country (Meyer, 2004). In fact,
without immigration, most EU countries would be in population decline, as birth
rates among native EU citizens is lower than replacement levels (Meyer, 2004).
These increasing levels of world migration are, unfortunately, being met with
increasing levels of anti-immigrant sentiment in many parts of the North America
and Europe (e.g., Transatlantic Trends: Immigration, 2010).
Histories of conquest and colonization provide another important context
to our understanding of global migration. Immigration frequently occurs along
former colonial routes (e.g., from the former British, French, and Dutch colonies
to the United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands, respectively), and between
countries with historically contested borders (e.g., United States –Mexico). These
colonial histories are typically histories shaped by race and can be characterized
by power imbalances between the colonists and the colonized. We argue that
while the United States and China have not had a colonial relationship, much of
what we see happening between European Americans and Chinese Americans
in the United States follows similar race-based power dynamics. This migration
pattern—from the Global South to the Global North and along pathways marked
by colonization and conquest or from nations in economic despair to nations with
greater wealth—all emphasize the movement of people of color to predominantly
“white” countries. Although these are not by any means the exclusive immigration
patterns—this pattern forms the largest share of the modern immigration story.
This leads to several important intergroup dynamics about which psychology can offer important insights. Immigration policies and discussion within host
countries about increasing numbers of immigrants must be understood within this
context: (a) they are typically conversations among predominantly white “host”
populations about immigrant populations of color, (b) they are conversations
among citizens of richer nations about poorer nations, and (c) they are often conversations among citizens of former colonial powers about their former “subjects.”
Immigration as Interracial Interaction
537
Thus, careful analysis of conversations about the politics of immigration must be
embedded in an analysis of issues of race and class (see also Ayers, Hofstetter,
Schnakenberg, & Kolody, 2009). These conversations may parallel in many ways
recent conversations in the United States about the role of China, and to a lesser
extent India (see also Aneesh, 2012) in the world economy. It is also important to
note that while it is beyond the scope of this paper to speak to other interethnic relationships between Chinese Americans and other ethnic groups within the United
States, this is an area of important investigation and insights by other scholars
(e.g., see Chang & Diaz-Veizades, 1999). In this analysis, we want to acknowledge the way that social power works to ensure that the voices and attitudes of
European Americans are preferentially attended to in mainstream newspapers and
other major sources of public information.
High and increasing levels of global migration—this central feature of
globalization—have led to tremendous increases in the number and quality of immigrant –host relationships. Studies of global migration find that anti-immigrant
sentiment is growing with the increased levels of migration that have resulted
from heightened levels of globalization (e.g., Transatlantic Trends, 2010). We
argue that psychology can make an important contribution to the study of immigrant –host relations through our existing research and theorizing about interracial
interactions. Immigrant –host relations—even in this increasingly globalized, interconnected world, have interracial interactions at their core. When members of
host nations express anti-immigrant sentiments, we suggest that these are frequently anti-people of color attitudes in disguise. Psychological perspectives on
intergroup relations, stereotyping and prejudice, race and racism, class and classism, and ethnic, racial, and other collective identities can offer important insights
into our understanding of the psychological processes of immigration.
Chinese Americans in the United States: A Case Study
Chinese American immigration history presents an ideal case study for an
exploration of host-immigrant relationships. Chinese Americans make up the
largest ethnic group among Asian Americans in the United States, forming about
a quarter of the Asian American population in the United States (Reeves &
Bennett, 2004). Chinese immigration to the United States has taken place over
a period of nearly two hundred years, and has always been a highly contested
area of immigration (Whitney, 1888; Lee, 2002, 2007). Chinese Americans have
vastly different experiences ranging from Americans whose families have lived in
California for generations, to recent immigrants who have left China for a wide
variety of reasons. Despite this, many speak of Chinese and other Asian Americans
as the “perpetual foreigner”—in that however many generations live in the United
States, Chinese and other Asian Americans are still likely to be seen as “foreigners” by many (Cheryan & Monin, 2005; Zhang, 2010). Chinese Americans have,
538
Shimpi and Zirkel
by many measures, been relatively successful in school or in the workplace relative to other groups of color—both immigrant and not—and thus are often talked
about as the “immigrant success story” and the “model minority” (e.g., McGowan
& Lindgren, 2006). Despite this, a clear pattern of exclusionary reactions (Chiu
et al., 2011) emerges when Chinese Americans’ perceived success becomes a
threat to European Americans. These reactions include denigration, isolation, and
persecution of Chinese Americans.
We will unpack and deconstruct these framings in more detail below, but the
academic success of Chinese American students suggests that this can be an ideal
case study—how White Americans talk about Chinese Americans, who are as a
group relatively successful, speaks volumes about how they might speak about
immigrant groups who have had more difficulty (Wang, 2007; Wu, 2002).
Importantly, Chinese and other Asian Americans have often been overlooked
in conversations about race and ethnicity in the United States. The “model minority” stereotype has been used to indicate that there is little or no discrimination
against Chinese and other Asian Americans (e.g., McGowan & Lindgren, 2006),
when in fact there is a great deal of evidence that Chinese Americans experience
discrimination in many areas of life in the United States. Some of this discrimination will be documented below. However, large scale studies have revealed that
among Chinese and other Asian Americans, the financial return on their education
is lower than that of other groups (Friedman & Krackhardt, 1997), Chinese and
other Asian Americans are less likely to be promoted to leadership positions than
other ethnic groups (Leong & Grand, 2008; Tang, 2007), and Chinese Americans
particularly experience more social exclusion than other ethnic groups, including
other Asian Americans within the United States (Zhang, 2010). Within psychology, there have been far fewer studies of discrimination against Chinese and other
Asian Americans, thus attending to these groups here can reveal some new insights about Chinese–European American relations within the United States while
also offering insight into the racial dynamics that often underline immigrant –host
relations.
We attempt to focus specifically on the experiences of Chinese Americans rather than focusing on Asian Americans as a broad group for several
reasons. One negative result of the Asian American model minority stereotype
is what Leong and Grand (2008) refer to as an “ethnic gloss,” in which the
many subgroups of Asian Americans are portrayed as homogeneous, regardless
of large cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic differences. This “model minority” label thus masks the diversity of the Asian American experience, which
can include struggles with finances, education, or well-being (Tang, 2007). One
reason to focus more specifically on Chinese Americans in this analysis is to
honor these differences between Asian American groups. Another reason is that
Chinese Americans first immigrated to California nearly 200 years ago, providing
Immigration as Interracial Interaction
539
a long history both within the United States and of immigrant –host relations.
Chinese American immigration in the mid- to late-1800s sparked debates that
sound surprisingly familiar today, and thus provide an interesting focus to compare many of the debates about Chinese Americans in a variety of settings today.
That said, it is not always easy to follow conversations about Chinese Americans as a specific ethnic group because in modern parlance, European Americans
often refer to “Asian Americans” as a broad category, even when they are in actuality referring to Chinese Americans. There is, in fact, a lot of naivety about which
Asian American ethnic group is being discussed in many conversations. Chinese
Americans are the largest ethnic group within the overarching group “Asian
Americans” in the United States, and in the contexts we highlight below, Chinese Americans make up a large percentage of the “Asian Americans” discussed.
As a result, we have restricted our analysis to events involving Chinese Americans,
and have specifically focused on issues and settings in which Chinese Americans
were at least the largest group involved. Thus, we will continue to use the term
“Asian American” when we are directly quoting someone who uses that term, but
we will highlight the predominance of Chinese Americans within the context that
is under discussion by using the term Chinese American(s) whenever possible.
Conceptual Framework
Our conceptual framework for this study highlights several core themes that
emerge regarding immigration and conflicts between host countries and immigrants. Immigration never happens in isolation: immigration happens in an economic, historical, sociological, and psychological context—and this context is
essential to understanding the intergroup relations involved in the process. We examine conversations between European Americans and Chinese Americans about
their relationships and their interactions over 150 years. To anticipate, we find little
change in the conversations over this period, suggesting that what is often framed
as a conversation about “immigrants” is really a conversation about something
else: namely race. Although the use of derogatory racist language has diminished,
many of the same kinds of statements are made today—although today many
speakers use rhetorical devices to hide racist attitudes (Bonilla-Silva, 2002). At
other times, particularly when speakers are writing anonymously, there is nothing
covert about the racist attitudes underlying the comments made. We use Opotow’s
(1990, 2011) moral exclusion theory to frame how some of the more vicious
and exclusionary comments about Asian Americans can be seen in such “polite”
contexts as the school newspapers of elite colleges.
Within these comments and public discussions over a 150-year period, we
identify three themes that have remained constant. The first theme concerns descriptions of Chinese Americans as “hard-working” but “drones.” Repeatedly,
540
Shimpi and Zirkel
we see Chinese Americans are described as diligent, but this diligence is also
described as suspect in some way—leading many European Americans over the
years to suggest that Chinese Americans are lacking in “humanity.” In this stereotype, we see mean-spirited descriptions of Chinese Americans as “robots” or as
“soulless,” which seems clearly motivated to render their success less psychologically threatening (Chiu et al., 2011; Fein & Spencer, 1997; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick,
& Xu, 2002). The second theme we see over the entire 150-year period is the
notion that Chinese Americans are self-segregating. From the earliest years of
Chinese immigration, Chinese Americans have been described as “isolationist”
and “self-segregating,” often despite rather blatant laws that prevented Chinese
American integration (e.g., antimiscegenation laws; schooling and housing segregation laws). We present Asian American and European American discussion
of this stereotype and its origins. Finally, a third theme that consistently emerges
as a stereotype about Asian Americans generally and Chinese Americans particularly is their “lack of loyalty” to the United States. From the time of railroad
workers in the West to the case of Dr. Wen Ho Lee at the turn of the 21st century,
we see consistent examples in which the loyalty of Chinese Americans—even
among people who have been in the United States for generations—is repeatedly
questioned without basis.
Chinese Americans in the United States: A Brief History
Currently, there are approximately 10 million people of Asian heritage in the
United States. Of these, 2.4 million are Chinese Americans, the largest subgroup
of this population (Reeves & Bennett, 2004). Chinese immigration has its roots
in the mid 19th century, when the first wave of immigrants arrived from areas
experiencing socioeconomic and cultural instability (Mei, 1979). These Chinese
emigrants went to California to work for the mines during the Gold Rush in the
1850s and for the Transcontinental Railroad in the 1860s (Mei, 1979; Saxton,
1971).
Initially praised as “docile,” and “capable extraordinary people” (Black,
1963), once labor became scarce, the Chinese worker became a threat to European Americans (Boswell, 1986; Whitney, 1888). In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion
Act effectively prevented further Chinese immigration as well as naturalization of
those Chinese already living in the United States, including the U.S. born children
of immigrants (Lee, 2007; Mei, 1979). This exclusion act was followed by others,
including the Immigration Act of 1917, California’s Alien Land Law of 1913, and
the National Origins Act of 1924, all which served to further alienate Asians and
Asian Americans within and from the United States. The Chinese Exclusion Act
was finally repealed in 1943, yet there were still strict limits on the number of
Chinese allowed into the United States until the 1965 Immigration Act prevented
explicitly race-based restrictions on immigration.
Immigration as Interracial Interaction
541
The Myth of the “Hardworking Drone”
From the mid-1800s, the European American host culture in the United States
has demonstrated ambivalence toward Chinese Americans, alternating expressions
of admiration and condemnation. This ambivalence has led to two dominant stereotypes of Chinese and other Asians in America as a “model minority” characterized
by hard work and diligence and as “not fully human”—we describe this stereotype as the “hardworking drone.” This dehumanization—or moral exclusion as
Opotow (1990; 2011) refers to it—is a theme that runs throughout conversations
about Chinese Americans particularly, but are a hallmark of anti-immigrant sentiment worldwide. Throughout U.S. Chinese immigration history, Chinese have
been admired for their determination and education. Yet as these attributes have
become socially and economically threatening to European Americans, the perception of the Chinese has turned to resentment (Boswell, 1986; see also Chang
& Diaz for similar processes between other groups). This resentment has often
been expressed in terms of Chinese Americans being described as unconcerned
with anything but work. In each case, this stereotype seems clearly motivated to
make European Americans feel better about their lack of similar success (e.g., see
Fein & Spencer, 1997) and expresses precisely Fiske and her colleagues’ concept
of ambivalent stereotypes, especially towards those with whom one feels competitive: as “competent, but lacking in warmth” (Fiske et al., 2002; see also Chiu
et al., 2011).
The 19th Century “Drone” Language
We see this “hardworking drone” language and ambivalence about Chinese
Americans going back to the outset of their immigration to the United States.
These comments—then and now—couple compliments about being so successful
with denigrating comments that this “success” comes at the cost of being fully
human. An example can be seen in a 19th century depiction of a Chinese worker
as: “a being trained to manual dexterity by almost fifty centuries of labor, but
devoid of the wants, the aspirations, the high humanity with all its attendant needs
which ages of intellectual, emotional, and physical advancement have given to the
races with which time and circumstance had brought him face to face” (Whitney,
1888; pp. 35–36). It is clear from this example that from the beginning of Chinese
immigration to the United States, European Americans have described Chinese
workers as driven and skilled, yet psychologically, they were nothing more than
“automatons” (Whitney, 1888).
Chinese as Cheap Labor
This “hardworking drone” idea was used to justify giving Chinese Americans low wages. In 1865, California Governor Leland Stanford wrote to President
542
Shimpi and Zirkel
Andrew Johnson praising Chinese immigrants: “as a class, they are quiet, peaceable, patient, industrious, and economical. . .they are law abiding, patient, much
more frugal than the European Americans, and they do not care about the wages. . .
(cited in Annian, 2006, p. 37). This initial praise would turn to resentment as the
idea that Chinese are willing, and even “eager” to live on a fraction of the earnings a European American worker would expect. This was seen as detrimental to
European American workers and their way of life (e.g., Whitney, 1888). However,
it is important to understand that from a Chinese American perspective, the low
wages were not necessarily voluntary. Lee (1889, p. 3), counters: “are you sure
that Chinese laborers would not ask more if they dared, or take more if they could
get it?” Yet the argument remained that Chinese workers were content to live under conditions of hard work and extremely low wages in ways that actively drove
European American workers out of business.
These 19th century attitudes concerning European Americans being left behind as a result of Chinese workers’ diligence and low wages are also seen in the
justification of delinquent behaviors in European American youth: “There are in
San Francisco fifteen thousand boys and girls, between the ages of fourteen and
twenty, who, in eastern communities, would find active employment; but cannot
compete with the Chinese, and are for the most part idle.” (Whitney, 1888, p. 113).
These examples are typical of another critical aspect of the “hard-working” label
assigned to Chinese immigrants—this hardworking nature is seen as an active
threat to European Americans’ economic security, and like much anti-immigrant
sentiment, is heightened during times of economic stress or other kinds of scarcity
(Boswell, 1986).
The “New” Model Minority
One hundred years later, similar “model minority” language again emerged
regarding Chinese and other Asian Americans (Petersen, 1966; Tang, 2007). In
the midst of the civil rights era, praise for the Chinese was used to implicitly
denigrate people from other racial groups (McGowan & Lindgren, 2006; Wu,
2002). For example, Peterson (1966) writes about Chinese Americans in U.S.
News and World Report: “At a time when Americans are awash in worry over
the plight of racial minorities-one such minority, the nation’s 300,000 ChineseAmericans, is winning wealth and respect by dint of its own hard work” (Peterson,
1966). Elements of this “model minority” stereotype are the images of academic
success, low crime rates, high incomes, and family stability, among others (Tang,
2007; Wong & Halgin, 2006; Zhang, 2010). Scholars have long noted how this
“model minority” frame is a double-edged sword—on the one hand, representing
a complimentary attitude, but on the other, a clear edge emerges. This language
often devolves into that which we described from 19th century, that the “model
minority” are “overachievers” and European Americans are their victims (Wing,
2007).
Immigration as Interracial Interaction
543
Ambivalent views of Chinese Americans have persisted to the 21st century;
we argue that what has changed is the way in which these views are expressed. In
modern times, cultural norms prohibit the open expression of overt racist language;
as a result, European Americans instead rely on specific rhetorical strategies to
express racist ideas in open debate (Bonilla-Silva, 2002) or they choose to express
more openly racist beliefs in anonymous venues like public comment sections
of on-line forums (e.g., Pollack & Zirkel, 2012; Zirkel et al., 2011). We see this
“hardworking drone” language in modern discussions regarding admissions to
elite colleges as well as in a few recent discussions of public schools in which
Chinese Americans form a majority. These public conversations highlight how
little the conversation and attitudes towards Chinese Americans have changed in
almost 200 years.
The “Chinese Problem” in European American Schools
In 2005, the Wall Street Journal published an article describing the flight
of European American families away from high-achieving, academically rigorous and successful California Bay Area schools, despite excellent test scores and
college admissions trajectories. These parents argued that the high concentration
of Chinese and other Asian American families in these schools was “problematic.” The schools profiled are part of Silicon Valley in California, where more
than 25% of the population is Chinese American in one of the cities profiled
(Ameridia, 2008). White parents contended that Chinese and other Asian American families are hardworking and successful but “not well-rounded.” Thus, we
see a reintroduction of the “hardworking drone” stereotype—Chinese and other
Asian American families may be successful, but only in a narrow “uninteresting”
way. The Wall Street Journal describes it this way: “Many European American
parents say they’re leaving because the schools are too academically driven and
too narrowly invested in subjects such as math and science at the expense of liberal arts and extracurriculars [sic] like sports and other personal interests. The two
schools, put another way that parents rarely articulate so bluntly, are too Asian. . .”
(Hwang, 2005).
Several Asian American on-line discussion boards took up this article, and
many members pointed out the falsity of linking Asian American students with
hardworking “drones” and their families as unconcerned about the “whole child.”
They point, for example, to the many athletic and other extracurricular offerings
at the profiled schools, and the high percentage of Chinese and other Asian
American students engaged in those activities. Similarly, Wing (2007) addresses
the stereotypes of Chinese or Asian Americans as non-athletic and not interested in
athletics through an examination of athletics in a large urban high school in the San
Francisco Bay Area. Contrary to stereotype, Asian students Wing interviewed were
very active in sports, just not “high profile” sports like basketball and football.
544
Shimpi and Zirkel
Elite College Admissions
In higher education, conversations about admission of Chinese and other
Asian American students at elite colleges reveal this “hardworking drone” stereotype in very stark and disturbing ways. In a widely used, but controversial practice,
many elite private colleges “red-line” Chinese and other Asian American applicants in admission to ensure Asian American students make up no more than
15–20% of the student body (e.g., Espenshade & Radford, 2009; Golden, 2006).
When discussing Chinese and other Asian American college admissions, many
non-Asian students freely express a contemptuous view that Chinese and other
Asian Americans may work hard and do well academically, but that they are not
“fully human.” Sometimes they are described as “robots” or other nonhuman beings, reflecting “automaton” labels from the 1800s. One anonymous commenter,
responding to Chinese and other Asian Americans’ support of Affirmative Action
policies, articulated this view by accusing Chinese and other Asian American
students at the University of California of being “hyperintroverted, moderately
xenophobic science and math robots” (Asian Americans for Affirmative Action,
2007).
A recent editorial in the Daily Princetonian expresses a similar view in response to a complaint filed with the Office of Civil Rights by Jian Li when he
was denied admission to Princeton. Jian Li was born in China and immigrated to
the United States at age four, and graduated top of his class from a New Jersey
high school with a perfect score on the SAT I and perfect or near perfect scores
on his SAT subject tests. In his complaint, Li argues that he was not admitted to
Princeton because he is Chinese. His complaint led to a campus-wide conversation about university admissions, which revealed some disturbing anti-Chinese,
and anti-Asian bias among students and alums. A controversial and anonymously
written editorial by a “guest columnist” in the Daily Princetonian’s annual “joke”
issue mocks his complaint as follows:
I the super smart Asian. Princeton the super dumb college, not accept me. I get angry and file
a federal civil rights complaint against Princeton for rejecting my application for admission.
What is wrong with you no color people? Yellow people make the world go round. We cook
greasy food, wash your clothes, and let you copy our homework . . . (Princeton University
is racist against me, I mean, non-European Americans, 2007).
Responses to this article were many—including many outraged comments
from Chinese and other Asian American students and alums as well as from
members of other groups. However, many students took the points made seriously and responded in support of the universities’ not admitting both Jian Li and
other similar students. Their rationale was an assumption of the “hardworking
drone” stereotype. In their anonymous responses to the comment board attached
to this “editorial,” these commenters seemed to feel quite free to express these
stereotypes. “Julia <3” expresses this assumption explicitly: “if someone has
Immigration as Interracial Interaction
545
devoted their entire life to such incredibly boring and time consuming activities
they shouldn’t get into a college because most likely it means their social intelligence isn’t worth a nickel and sometimes social intelligence can be as important
as talent or intellectual intelligence” (Princeton University is racist against me, I
mean, non-European Americans, 2007). She is not alone. “Exasperated Student”
(2007) dismisses Jian Li by similarly invoking the notion that Chinese Americans
maybe successful in terms of “numbers,” but not really have the “personality” or
“drive” to be admitted to Princeton. This fits precisely within Fiske et al.’s (2002)
model of motivated stereotyping emphasizing “coldness” when “competence”
seems high, and stands in direct contrast to the sort of anti-Affirmative Action
comments often made about members of other racial groups in college admissions
decisions.
In contrast to elite private universities, admissions at the University of
California (UC) are governed by strict laws that prevent the consideration of
race and ethnicity in admissions, which has resulted in Chinese and other Asian
Americans achieving a high level of admissions to UC. Asian American students
form a majority in some campuses, and Chinese Americans form a substantial
proportion of Asian American students in all cases where we have available data.
For example, as of fall, 2010 at UC Berkeley, self-identified Asian American
students make up 33% of the entire student population; half of these students are
Chinese (University of California Berkeley Office of Student Research, 2010).
In this context, we again see strongly hostile reactions to the number of Chinese
and other Asian Americans admitted to the UC that are funneled through these
stereotypes of “hardworking” but “drone.” In each comment, we can see how
rhetorical strategies are employed to hide racist and stereotypical attitudes behind
accusations that these issues are not about race but about “cultural” or “values”
differences (Bonilla-Silva, 2002):
This isn’t about race. It’s about culture. Asian-American kids are shoehorned into educational and occupational paths by dominant parents and strong sub-cultural pressures to
conform and obey (From the OC, 2006).
University of California faculty and staff have proposed changing admissions
processes in ways that seem directly designed to reduce Chinese and other Asian
American admissions (e.g., weighing SAT verbal scores over SAT math or logic
scores). Ling-chi Wang, a retired professor at UC Berkeley said: “I like to call
it Affirmative Action for White people. I think it’s extremely unfair to Asian
Americans on the one hand and underrepresented minorities on the other” (Associated Press, 2009). Among European American commenters, white privilege
and the privileging of white applications to elite universities were never even
considered as a possibility. Instead, the presumption among commenters is that
Chinese and other Asian Americans are kept out of Ivy League college in order
to admit what they often refer to as “less qualified” African American and Latino
546
Shimpi and Zirkel
students—never European Americans. In point of fact, most European Americans admitted to those elite colleges do not have academic records that match
those reported for Chinese and other Asian American students, and it is European
Americans, not African American or Latino applicants, who benefit the most from
efforts to keep Asian American admissions to elite colleges low.
Self-Segregation of Chinese Americans
Regardless of the time or number of generations in the United States, “no
other people has [sic] been quite as commonly, or fervently, labeled as foreigners
than Asian Americans” (Leong & Grand, 2008, p. 99). As a result, it has been
difficult for Chinese Americans to gain social acceptance or to assimilate in
larger American culture, or to gain advancement in careers. Accusing minorities
of being “self-segregating” is a way of justifying the exclusion of this group
from social activities. Accusations of “self-segregation” are thus examples of
coded racism—specifically as a type of projection by the European American
community (Bonilla-Silva, 2002). Here, we examine the roots of the idea that
Chinese are self-segregating, and explore the conditions associated with this view.
The complaint that Chinese Americans are self-segregating has been documented as early as the 19th century. The 19th century Chinese were described
as having “no knowledge or appreciation for our institutions” and establishing “a
quasi-government among themselves independent of our laws” (Whitney, 1888,
p. 144). This “self-segregating” as critics describe it clearly stems from a context
in which Chinese Americans were not welcomed—not socially or legally—and
in which they were actively forced to live separately from European Americans
by law. Lee (1889) responds to this allegation with a sarcastic counternarrative,
explaining why Chinese immigrants kept a distance from European American
communities from the moment they arrived:
A big crowd gathers at the wharf to receive [the Chinese immigrant] with shouts of joy
(and showers of stones) . . . Despite such treatment, the Chinese will keep “themselves to
themselves” and snub the American community (Lee, 1889; p. 6).
Accusations of self-segregation often co-occurred with the 19th and early
20th century beliefs, laws, and larger social practices which excluded Chinese
from European American social, political, educational, and economic institutions.
Chinese were described as “distinct, separate, segregated, in all things alien to
the United States as would be the inhabitants of another world” (Whitney, 1988,
p. 135). As a result of these attitudes, they were driven to live, work, and attend
schools among themselves, rather than being able to spread out and assimilate
within the dominant culture (Lee, 2007; Wing, 2007).
Immigration as Interracial Interaction
547
Modern Views of Self-Segregation
Today, this race-based discrimination is often coded in socially acceptable
questions such as “where are you really from?” (Cheryan & Monin, 2005;
McGowan & Lindgren, 2006). Asking this kind of question implies that Chinese
and other Asian Americans, even those whose families have been in the United
States for over 150 years, do not belong. Cheryan and Monin (2005) find that
Chinese and other Asian Americans are seen as “less American” than European
Americans, even though they report feeling just as identified with being “American.” Moreover, in their everyday lives Chinese and other Asian Americans report
that others do not see them as American and act accordingly, and that to combat this
experience they actively self-present themselves as knowledgeable about American cultural practices and engaged in “American” activities (Wong, 2006). Chinese
Americans still tend to form tightly bound communities, yet some of this isolation
can be seen as a result of having “few other options” (Leong & Grand, 2008,
p. 100).
Even second, third, or later generation Chinese and other Asian Americans
with few direct ties to their heritage language or culture are sometimes described
as “self-segregating” when in fact they are actively culturally displaced from
(European American) America. Leong & Grand (2008) and Zhang (2010) found
that across ethnic groups, Chinese and other Asian Americans are more likely to be
left out in social situations, and that European Americans are less likely to initiate
friendships with Chinese and other Asian Americans as compared to other ethnic
groups. Thus, European Americans accuse Chinese and other Asian Americans
of self-segregation while at the same time failing to initiate social interaction
or exert effort to befriend them. This attitude is often seen in higher education.
On an anonymous comment board, one commenter noted the “voluntary racial
self-segregation” of Chinese and other Asian Americans on college campuses,
stating:
I am quite frustrated by the manner in which the public universities and in particular the
science and engineering programs are greatly exploited by an Asian immigrant population
that refuses to observe English as a primary (though not exclusive) language, that refuses
to culturally and socially mix with non-Asians, and that regards itself in many ways as
inviolably different from and superior to the culture of the nation that offers the education
system (Asian Americans for Affirmative Action, 2007, public comment).
The commenter reports that Chinese and other Asian Americans “snub” the
United States, without any evidence that he or she attempted any positive relations with the Chinese or other Asian American students. This reflects the
same segregation-based views Lee responded to over 120 years ago (Lee, 1889),
illustrating the remarkable consistency in the way European Americans discuss
Chinese or Asian Americans over 150 years.
548
Shimpi and Zirkel
Loyalty to the United States
One idea related to the “self segregation” stereotype is that Chinese do not
desire or value U.S. citizenship or possess any concern for or interest in the country.
From the 19th century, Chinese were accused of being apathetic to U.S. causes,
and of having no value for citizenship. The argument was that they were here to
simply receive the economic benefits from working in the mines and railroads, but
instead of putting the money back into the United States, they would send these
resources back to China (e.g., Whitney, 1888). We discuss how these longstanding
accusations are again unfounded; instead, laws and social limitations designed
by European Americans largely prevented Chinese, other Asian Americans, and
their families from fully participating as U.S. citizens. We explore how through
modern times, we see the same types of unfounded accusations, evidence of a
xenophobic element at play. Chinese Americans were accused of not wanting to
be citizens, yet when they took action to demonstrate their interest, the option was
immediately refused to them (Lee, 1889). The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, still
in place until 1943, specifically barred Chinese Americans—even those born in
the United States, from attaining citizenship.
Another aspect of the “self-segregating” charge is that Chinese Americans
use U.S. resources without giving back. In the 19th century, Chinese were accused
of draining the country of “large sums” of money, sending funds home to support
their families instead of putting this money back into U.S. society: “The wealth
that he gathers—for however moderate according to our standard, it is wealth to
him—is garnered to be carried to China, not destined to add to the accumulations
of the land in which he temporarily sojourns” (Whitney, 1888, p. 142). Lee (1889)
responds that the seemingly simple reason the Chinese were sending the money
back to China: because workers’ wives and children were simply not welcome
to come to the United States Again, the 1892 Chinese Exclusion Act essentially
barred the immigration of any Chinese without advanced skills or education, and
that included the wives and children of men already here.
Giving Back
Today, Chinese Americans are still discussed by some as using U.S. resources
without a desire to give back by contributing to the public good. Of course, even
a casual observation of Chinese Americans’ professional lives would reveal the
blatant and transparent fallacy of such a statement, and yet it gets made—once
again revealing the way that Chinese Americans’ success can be used against
them. This idea is especially apparent in discussions about schools. We argue
that this accusation illustrates a fear that Chinese are using much of the U.S.’s
resources (that could be used by European Americans) and they are not giving anything in return (whereas, implicitly, European Americans would). In an
Immigration as Interracial Interaction
549
example of this discourse about this issue in the context of higher education
admissions:
What are the Asian kids with those highly desirable educations giving back to society?
For what are they using their math and science skills, or their violin skills for that matter?
Few Asian Americans are attracted to, for example, cancer research, agronomy, educational
leadership or even teaching music to disadvantaged youth. What’s the point of all those
violin lessons? And what’s the point of going to Harvard, whose job is to prepare society’s
future leaders, when Asian kids are not interested in those leadership roles? (Posted by
“from the OC,” in response to Jaschik, 2006).
Though these accusations are common, it is important to note that they are
unsubstantiated. To illustrate the absurdity of this accusation we point out that the
quote above is attributed to someone at UC Irvine, where the Cancer Center at the
UC Irvine Medical School, one of the top 40 in the country, is named the “Chao
Family Cancer Center,” after the dedication of a Chinese family to the research
and treatment mission of the center (http://www.cancer.uci.edu/about.html).
Stealing Government Secrets
The charges first seen in the 19th century that Chinese take U.S. resources
and give them to China is still operating in the 21st century. McGowan & Lindgren (2006) found that non-Asians who hold the model minority stereotype,
in that they perceive Asian Americans are more intelligent than other minorities, were also more likely to think that immigrants will weaken national unity
and were more likely to want to decrease immigration. The recent case of Dr.
Wen Ho Lee illustrates how such fears about loyalty can uncover latent institutional racism. Dr. Lee was a weapons scientist who worked for the University
of California’s Los Alamos laboratory; in 1999, he was accused of espionage—
specifically, of stealing nuclear secrets for China. Dr. Lee was held in solitary
confinement for nine months. He was released when no evidence could corroborate any of the 59 counts held against him. Lee’s Chinese ethnicity played a
key role in his treatment, as well as the subsequent treatment of other Chinese
and other Asian American coworkers. In the end, the judge apologized for the
way Lee was treated by the criminal justice system in this case (Gotanda, 2000;
Turnbull, 2003). It is clear that even after being in the United States for over
150 years, Chinese and other Asian Americans are not perceived by some as “true
citizens,” and these accusations, as in the case of Dr. Lee, can reveal racism that
lies just below the surface of daily interactions, and might otherwise only emerge
in anonymous settings such as on anonymous comment boards.
Discussion
Though Chinese Americans have been in the United States for more than
five generations, they are still often treated as immigrants, and alternately as
550
Shimpi and Zirkel
“model” minorities and “threats” to socioeconomic and educational security of
European Americans. Our analysis of the public conversations above reveals a
remarkable similarity in the way Chinese immigrants to the United States and
Chinese Americans have been discussed by European Americans for more than 150
years. Some of what has changed is the openness with which these conversations
take place, but much of the content of these conversations shows remarkable
consistency throughout the history of Chinese Americans in the United States We
highlight, through the case study of Chinese Americans in the United States, the
way debates about immigration and immigrants are masked conversations about
race and ethnicity, and demonstrate that it is actually issues of race and ethnicity
and identity that frame immigration debates as much as anything else (see also
Ayers et al., 2009). Much of what we see in these debates can best be understood
from an intergroup relations perspective focused on issues of race and ethnicity.
In particular, we focus on three aspects of the intergroup relations literature to
highlight the processes underlying the dialogs described above: (1) the motivated
function of stereotyping and prejudice, (2) the role that group separation can play
in increasing, rather than decreasing, stereotyping and prejudice over time, and
finally that (3) racial differences are linked to the persistence of this “othering” of
immigrant populations.
Motivated Functions of Stereotyping and Prejudice
In these discussions, the maliciousness of conversations about Chinese and
other Asian Americans as the “model minority” is revealed. Fiske et al.’s (2002)
discussion of the ambivalent nature of stereotype content focuses on the constructs
of competence and warmth. They argue that negatively stereotyped groups are
typically portrayed negatively along only one of these dimensions. Within this
frame, competition with a group leads to construing members of that group as
high on “competence” but low on “warmth.” This is precisely the pattern we see
with the stereotypes about Chinese Americans as “hardworking drones.”
Throughout these comments about Chinese Americans in schools, we see
European Americans in competition with them (e.g., competition for spaces in
elite colleges, and competition within a high school). In each case, different versions of the “high competence, low warmth” stereotype that Fiske et al. (2002)
describe is clearly present. These discussions and comments reveal how European
Americans are using these negative stereotypes and derogatory images of Chinese
and other Asian Americans in order to feel better about themselves and their own
position and performance. This is a process we know well from the stereotyping
and prejudice literature—people get a self-esteem “boost” from seeing derogatory
images of other groups (e.g., Fein & Spencer, 1997; Snyder & Meine, 1994).
Similarly, Fein and Spencer (1997) demonstrated that people are more likely to
rely on derogatory stereotypes and images when they have experienced a blow to
Immigration as Interracial Interaction
551
their self-esteem. These exclusionary tactics illustrated by these negative stereotypes can thus be explained as a defense mechanism (Chiu et al., 2011; Gelfand
et al., 2011). We see much of this anti-Chinese American sentiment in contexts
in which European Americans feel threatened—in schools and colleges and other
explicitly competitive settings in which European Americans are doing less well
than Chinese Americans. This pattern is reflected in immigrant –host relations writ
large, in which we see anti-immigrant sentiment at its highest in tougher economic
times, and it mirrors some of the interethnic conflict highlighted by Chang and
Diaz-Veizades (1999) between ethnic minority groups within urban communities.
Several points become important when considering this phenomenon in that
context. First, many Chinese Americans, and most of those discussed in the derogatory terms we see above are not, in fact, immigrants. As we see in these studies,
anti-Chinese sentiment frequently long outlasted the immigration period, casting
doubt on the extent to which immigration, per se, was the “problem.” In addition,
though anti-immigrant sentiment may rise during tough economic times (Boswell,
1986), the reality is that immigrants actually pose little threat to European Americans’ jobs. For example, although Chinese and other Asian Americans have a
lower unemployment rate that other racial or ethnic groups, their unemployment
rate is actually higher than that of all other groups when education level is statistically controlled, and once unemployed, they tend to stay unemployed longer than
do all other ethnic groups (Noguchi, 2010). Even among the employed, Chinese
and other Asian Americans do not fare as well as they should given their education
level. Only 5% of Chinese and other Asian Americans are employed in managerial
roles, and there are far fewer Chinese and other Asian Americans in the highest
echelons of management than would be predicted by their presence in middle
management would predict (AAPI Work Group, 2007).
Group Separation
Ongoing group separation can play a large role in the persistence of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination (Sidanius, Levin, Van Laar, & Sears, 2010).
Segregation and isolation has a particularly strong presence in the history of
Chinese Americans in the United States, because of laws prescribing where Chinese Americans could live in the 19th century, and later relating to the Chinese
Exclusion Act of 1882 and its impact on Chinese American communities (Lee,
2007). Even after the end of the Chinese Exclusion Act and the more open immigration policies developed in the in 1960s, Chinese Americans have still experienced exclusion from European American society in housing (Turner & Ross,
2003), job discrimination (Duleep & Sanders, 1992), and socially, through being prohibited from pursuing romantic relationships with European Americans
(Sohoni, 2007).
552
Shimpi and Zirkel
As a result, the level of contact between Chinese Americans and European
Americans has remained relatively low over more than 150 years. Min (2005)
points out that integration is lower between Chinese Americans and other Asian
Americans, even compared to groups who have not been in the United States
as long. This lack of contact constructed by European American policies and
practices has ironically led to charges that Chinese Americans are “secretive”
and “self-segregating,” and it has contributed to ongoing poor relations between
Chinese Americans and European Americans in the United States.
Race and Anti-Immigrant Sentiment
The United States has, of course, a long history of absorbing immigrants from
around the world—indeed, its moniker is often described as “A Nation of Immigrants,” but immigrants of color have experienced a particularly difficult time
integrating with European Americans throughout our history. U.S. immigration
history is one in which many immigrants, including many European immigrants
from Southern and Eastern Europe or Ireland experienced a great deal of negative
attitudes, prejudice and stereotyping (e.g., Painter, 2010). However, a closer examination of this history reveals that these European American immigrants still did
not face the kind of systematic, institutionalized racial discrimination that is most
likely to lead to generations of disadvantage and segregation (e.g., Guglielmo,
2003; Painter, 2010).
Immigrants of color—perhaps particularly Chinese Americans, but also Mexican Americans or immigrants of color from other parts of the world—were not
afforded similar opportunities to “blend in.” Until well into the second half of the
20th century, antimiscegenation laws were prevalent (Sohoni, 2007), as were laws
restricting access to education and property (Lee, 2007). Even today, during a
difficult recession, anti-immigrant sentiment has risen to a fevered pitch—but that
anti-immigrant sentiment is almost exclusively directed at immigrants of color
(Laws 2010, Chapter 113 in Arizona and similar laws across many states in the
United States). We find that what is often articulated as anti-immigrant sentiment
has at its roots racism against people of color. As we see above, even the “model
minority” stereotypes are really a cover for degrading, dehumanizing stereotypes
that harm other people of color by comparisons with Chinese “success” and are
used to dehumanize Chinese and other Asian Americans at the same time.
Our Case Study in the Context of World Migration
This case study of Chinese Americans in the United States provides insights and a model for exploring immigration patterns and anti-immigrant attitudes
among host nations around much of the developed world. Throughout Europe, the
most vociferous host-immigrant discussions are about immigrants of color, and can
Immigration as Interracial Interaction
553
be reconsidered and reframed as outcomes of racism as much as anti-immigrant
sentiment. Immigration itself often plays a small part in the conversation. Often, these conversations utilize dehumanizing or other very derogatory language
(e.g., referring to “swarms” or even “infestations” of immigrants; see Marshall
and Eberhardt, 2010; Whitney, 1888). This language has had a profound effect on
individuals’ emotional reactions to discussions of immigrants (e.g., Esses et al.,
2008). We contend that the most vicious, dehumanizing, and derogatory language
is reserved for immigrants of color. We also note that many of the attitudes or sentiments expressed here towards Chinese Americans are similar to those that many
in the West might express towards China as a nation, in terms of fears expressed
by many in the West about China’s economic rise. Future studies may determine
whether this is similarly true in other immigrant contexts, and would examine
whether discussions of Mexico parallel those attitudes that might be expressed
towards Mexican–Americans, or how white EU citizens might talk about Africa
and Africans.
Through our analysis of comments about Chinese Americans, European
Americans typically relied on a number of the rhetorical and linguistic strategies to
mask deeper racial feelings and negative racial stereotypes (Bonilla-Silva, 2002).
It is striking that in anonymous settings such as on-line comment boards, many
commenters felt very comfortable describing Chinese and other Asian Americans
in very harsh, negative terms and using deeply troubling language and stereotypes to make their points. Zirkel (Zirkel et al., 2011; Zirkel & Pollack, 2011) has
found a similar pattern in other contexts—on-line, anonymous forums provide an
opportunity for many (often European Americans) to express a racial rage and
maliciousness that is otherwise hidden in much of modern life.
In general, the availability of this technological environment changes many
aspects of immigrant –host encounters. For example, Wong (2006) argues that
an important way that globalization has shaped the immigrant experience, and
particularly the experience of recent Chinese American immigrants, is that modern
technology offers a greater opportunity to connect to one’s home country at the
same time that one might also be deeply engaged in efforts at assimilation. Future
research will examine of the role of changes in the technology of communication
and how it gives rise to new dynamics in immigrant host relations (see Gries,
Crowson, & Cai, 2011).
Summary and Conclusions
With globalization, there have been dramatically increased rates of migration
around the world in the last several decades. In this manuscript, we examine the
single case of Chinese American immigration in the United States over a 150-year
period to explore how conversations and debates about immigration and immigrants have changed over time. We find remarkably little change in the valence
554
Shimpi and Zirkel
of these conversations (see also Mullen, 2001) or in the precise content of the
depictions of Chinese Americans over time. A detailed analysis of depictions
and conversations about Chinese Americans in a variety of contexts reveals that
European Americans often describe them as: (1) self-segregating, (2) lacking loyalty to the United States, and (3) hardworking and successful, but simultaneously
lacking in “humanity.” We highlight the way such depictions ignore any attention
to basic facts, and use these data to discuss the ways that race and interracial
interaction form the core of immigrant –host relations and use this case study to
highlight how race shapes immigrant –host relations around the globe.
References
AAPI Work Group (2007). Asian American and Pacific Islander Work Group Report to the Chair of
the EEOC. Retrieved October 15, 2010 from: http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/reports/aapi.html.
Ameridia (2008). Chinese American Demographics. Retrived October 15, 2010 from: http://www.
ameredia.com/resources/demographics/chinese.html.
Aneesh, A. (2012). Negotiating globalization: Men and women of India’s call centers. Journal of
Social Issues, 68(3), 514 – 533.
Annian, H. (2006). The silent spikes: Chinese laborers and the construction of North American
railroads. Beijing, China: China Intercontinental Press.
Asian Americans for Affirmative Action. (2007, January 8). The Nation. [Web log message].
Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/blog/asian-americans-affirmative-action?page=
0,0,0,3#comments.
Associated Press (2009, April. 24). Asian Americans blast UC admissions policy: They say
new standards are unfair and will reduce their numbers on campus. Retrieved from
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30393117/).
Ayers, J. W., Hofstetter, C. R., Schnakenberg, K., & Kolody, B. (2009). Is immigration a racial issue?
Anglo attitudes on immigration policies in a border county. Social Science Quarterly, 90(3),
593 – 610. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00633.x.
Beckenbridge, J. N., & Moghaddam, F. (2012). Globalization and a conservative dilemma: Economic
openness and retributive policies. Journal of Social Issues, 68(3), 559 – 570.
Berry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 615 – 631.
doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00231.
Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 697 – 712. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.013.
Black, I. (1963). American labour and Chinese immigration. Past & Present, 25, 59 – 76.
doi:10.1093/past/25.1.59.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2002). The linguistics of colorblind racism: How to talk nasty about blacks without
sounding “racist.” Critical Sociology, 28(1), 41 – 64. doi:10.1177/08969205020280010501.
Boswell, T. (1986). A split labor market analysis of discrimination against Chinese immigrants, 1850 –
1882. American.
Carolissen, R. (2012). “Belonging” as a theoretical framework for the study of psychology and
globalization. Journal of Social Issues, 68(3), 630 – 642.
Chang, E. T. & Diaz-Veizades, J. (1999). Ethnic peace in the American city: Building community in
Los Angeles and beyond. NY: New York University Press.
Cheryan, S., & Monin, B. (2005). Where are you really from? Asian Americans and identity
denial. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 717 – 730. doi:10.1037/00223514.89.5.717.
Chiu, C. Y., Gries, P. H., Torelli, C., & Cheng, S. Y.Y. (2011). Toward a social psychology of globalization. Journal of Social Issues, 67(4), 663 – 676. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01721.x.
Deaux, K. (2006). To be an immigrant. NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Deaux, K. (2008). To be an American: Immigration, hyphenation, and incorporation. Journal of Social
Issues, 64, 925 – 943. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00596.x.
Immigration as Interracial Interaction
555
Dovidio, J. F., & Esses, V. M. (2001). Immigrants and immigration: Advancing the psychological
perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 375 – 388. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00219.
Duleep, H., & Sanders, S. (1992). Discrimination at the top: American-born Asian men. Industrial
Relations, 31(3) 416 – 432.
Espenshade, T., & Radford, A. (2009). No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite
College Admission and Campus Life, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Esses, V. M., Veenvliet, S., Hodson, G., & Mihic, L. (2008). Justice, morality, and the dehumanization
of refugees. Social Justice Research, 21, 4 – 25.
Esses, V. M., Deaux, K., Lalonde, R. N., & Brown, R. (2010). Psychological perspectives
on immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 66(4), 635 – 647. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.
01667.x.
Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (2001). The immigration dilemma:
The role of perceived group competition, ethnic prejudice, and national identity. Journal of
Social Issues, 57(3), 389 – 412. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00220.
Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through
derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 31 – 44.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content:
Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878 – 902. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878.
Friedman, R., & Krackhardt, D. (1997). Social Capital and Career Mobility: A Structural Theory of
Lower Returns to Education for Asian Employees. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
33(3) 316 – 334.
Gelfand, M. J., Lyons, S. L., & Lun, J. (2011). Toward a psychological science of globalization. Journal
of Social Issues, 67(4), 841 – 853. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01731.x.
Golden, D. (2006). The price of admission: How America’s ruling class buys its way into elite
colleges—and who gets left outside the gates. New York: Crown.
Gotanda, N. (2000). Comparative Racialization. Racial Profiling and the Case of Wen Ho Lee, UCLA
Law Review, 47, 1689 – 1703.
Gries, P. H., Crowson, H. M., & Cai, H. (2011). When knowledge is a double-edged sword: Contact,
media exposure, and American China policy preferences. Journal of Social Issues, 67(4),
787 – 805. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01728.x.
Guglielmo, T. (2003). White on arrival: Italians, race, color, and power in Chicago, 1890 – 1945. NY:
Oxford University Press.
Hirschman, C., Kasinitz, P, & Dewind, J. (Eds.). The handbook of international migration: The
American experience. NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hwang, S. (2005, November 19). The new European American flight. [Classroom Edition]. The
Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://wsjclassroom.com/teen/teencenter/05nov_European
Americanflight.htm.
Jensen, L. A., & Arnett, J. J. (2012). Going global: New pathways for adolescents and emerging adults
in a changing world. Journal of Social Issues, 68, 473 – 492.
Lee, Y. (1889). The Chinese must stay. The North American Review, 148(389), 476 –
484. [Transcribed by Bates, C. 2006]. Retrieved from The Yung Wing Project:
http://web.pdx.edu/∼lorz/index.htm.
Lee, E. (2002). The Chinese exclusion example: Race, immigration, and American gatekeeping,
1882 – 1924. Journal of American Ethnic History, 21, 36 – 62.
Lee, E. (2007). At America’s gates: Chinese immigration during the exclusion era, 1882 – 1943. Chapel
Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Leong, F. T. L., & Grand, J.A. (2008). Career and work implications of the Model Minority Myth and
other stereotypes for Asian Americans (pp. 91 – 115). In G. Li & L. Wang (Eds.), Model Minority
Myths revisited: An interdisciplinary approach to demystifying Asian American education
experiences. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Lowe, L. (1996). Immigrant acts: On Asian American cultural politics. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press.
Marsella, A. (2012). Psychology and globalization: Understanding a complex relationship. Journal of
Social Issues, 68(3), 454 – 472.
556
Shimpi and Zirkel
Marshall, S., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2011). The function of animal associations: Latinos as rats and
anti-immigrant sentiment. Poster presented at the 12th Annual Meeting of the Society for
Personality and Social Psychology, San Antonio, Texas.
Min, P. (2005). Asian Americans: Contemporary Trends and Issues (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Pine Forge Press.
Hirschman, C., Kasinitz, P., & DeWind, J., (Eds.) (1999). The Handbook of International Migration:
The American Experience (pp. 21 – 33). NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
McGowan, M., & Lindgren, J. (2006). Testing the “Model Minority Myth.” Northwestern University
Law Review, 100(1), 331 – 377.
Mei, J. (1979). Socioeconomic origins of emigration: Guangdong to California, 1850 – 1882. Modern
China, 5(4), 463 – 501. doi:10.1177/009770047900500402.
Meyers, E. (2004). International Immigration Policy: A Theoretical and Comparative Analysis,
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mullen, B. (2001). Ethnophaulisms and ethnic immigrant groups. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 457 –
475. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00223.
Nakayama, T. (1994). Show/down time: Race, gender, sexuality and popular culture. Critical Studies
in Mass Communication, 11, 162 – 179. doi:10.1080/15295039409366893.
Noguchi, Y. (2010, October 8). Asians out of the longest among U.S. minorities. National Public Radio. Retrieved October 9, 2010 from: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?
storyId=130408243.
Opotow, S. (1990), Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 1 – 20.
Opotow, S. (2011). How this was possible: Interpreting the Holocaust. Journal of Social Issues, 67(1),
205 – 224. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01694.x.
Painter, N. I. (2010). The history of European American people. NY: Norton Press.
Painter, N. I. (2011). The history of white people. NY: Norton Press.
Peterson, W. (1966). Success story of one minority group in the U.S. U.S. News & World Report,
73 – 78.
Jaschik, S. (2006, October 6). Too Asian? Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/10/asian#Comments on 10/6/10.
Pollack, T., & Zirkel, S. (2012). Negotiating the Contested Terrain of Equity-Focused Change Efforts
in Schools: Critical Race Theory as a Leadership Framework for Creating More Equitable
Schools, Manuscript under review.
Prilleltensky, I. (2012). The what, why, who, and how of globalization: What is psychology to do?
Journal of Social Issues, 68, 612 – 629.
Princeton University is racist against me, I mean, non-European Americans. (2007, January 17). The
Daily Princetonian. Retrieved from http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2007/01/17/17109/.
Reeves, T., & Bennett, C. (2004). We the people: Asians in the United States. Census 2000
Special Reports. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau. Retrieved from www.
census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-17.pdf.
Ryan, C. S., & Casas, J. F. (Eds.) (2010). Latinos and Latino immigrants in the United States. Special
issue of the Journal of Social Issues, 66(1), 1 – 222.
Saxton A. (1971). The indispensable enemy: Labor and the anti-Chinese movement in California.
Berkeley, CA: Univ. Calif. Press.
Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Van Laar, C., & Sears, D. O. (2010). The diversity challenge: Social identity
and intergroup relations on the college campus. NY: Russell Sage Foundation Press.
Snyder, M., & Miene, P. (1994). On the functions of stereotypes and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna &
J. M. Olson (Eds.). The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 7, pp. 33 – 54).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sohoni, D. (2007). Unsuitable suitors: Anti-miscegenation laws, naturalization laws, and the construction of Asian identities. Law and Society Review, 41, 587 – 618. doi: 10.1111/j.15405893.2007.00315.x.
Tang, M. (2007). Psychological effects on being perceived as a “model minority” for Asian Americans.
New Waves: Educational Research and Development, 11(3), 11 – 16.
Torelli, C. J., Chiu, C.-Y., Tam, K.-P., Au, K. C., & Keh, H. T. (2011). Exclusionary reactions to
Foreign cultures: Effects of simultaneous exposure to cultures in globalized space. Journal of
Social Issues, 67(4), 716 – 742. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01724.x.
Immigration as Interracial Interaction
557
Transatlantic Trends (2010). Immigration: Key Findings. A report of the German Marshall Fund of
the United States. Washington, DC.
Turnbull, S. (2003). Wen Ho Lee and the consequences of enduring Asian American stereotypes
(pp. 303 – 316). In D. Nakanishi & J. Lai (Eds.), Asian American Politics: Law, Participation,
and Policy. Lanhm, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Turner, M. A., & Ross, S. L., with Benarz, B. A., Herbig, C., & Lee, S. J. (2003). Discrimination
in metropolitan housing markets: Phase 2 – Asians and Pacific Islanders. Final Report. The
Urban Institute, Prepared for U.S. HUD. Retrieved 10/11/10 from http://www.huduser.org
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2009). International
migration report 2006: A global assessment.
University of California Berkeley Office of Student Research (2010). Fall 2010 ethnic distribution.
Retrieved from: http://osr2.berkeley.edu/twiki/bin/view/Main/Fall2010EthnicDistribution.
Wang, L. (2007). Demystifying Model Minority’s Academic Achievement: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Studying Asian Americans” Educational Experiences. New Waves Educational Research and Development, 11(3), 4 – 6.
Whitney, J. A. (1888). The Chinese, and the Chinese question (2nd ed.). New York: Tibbals Book
Company.
Wing, J. (2007). Beyond Black and European American: The model minority myth and the invisibility
of Asian American students. The Urban Review, 39(4),455 – 487. doi:10.1007/s11256-0070058-6.
Wong, B. (2006). The Chinese in Silicon Valley: Globalization, social networks, and ethnic identity.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Wu, F. H. (2002). Yellow: Race in America beyond black and European American. NY: Basic Books.
Zhang, Q. (2010). Asian Americans beyond the model minority stereotype: The nerdy and
the left out. Journal of international and intercultural communication, 3(1), 20 – 37.
doi:10.1080/17513050903428109.
Zick, A., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wagner, U. (Eds.) (2008). Ethnic prejudice and discrimination in Europe.
Special issue of the Journal of Social Issues, 64(2). doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00559.x.
Zirkel, S., Bailey, F., Hawley, R., Lewis, U., Lo, J., Long, D., Pollack, T., Roberts, Z., Stroud, R.
S, & Winful, A. (2011). ‘Isn’t that what “those kids” need?’ Urban schools and the master
narrative of the ‘tough urban principal’. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 14(2), 137 – 158. doi:
10.1080/13613324.2010.519973.
PRIYA MARIANA SHIMPI, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Education in the
School of Education at Mills College, Oakland, CA. She has a PhD in Developmental Psychology from the University of Chicago, and recently completed an
NIH-funded postdoctoral fellowship at the University of California, Santa Cruz,
studying social and cultural foundations of development. Dr. Shimpi’s research
focuses on the role of cultural and environmental experiences in children’s attention and learning. Her work also examines the formation of language policies
in first- and second- generation American families. Her work on language and
cognitive development has been published in psychology journals, including Applied Psycholinguistics, Child Development, Developmental Psychology, Journal
of Child Language, Journal of Memory and Language, and Language Learning
and Development.
558
Shimpi and Zirkel
SABRINA ZIRKEL, PhD, is the Abbie Valley Professor of Education in the
School of Education at Mills College, Oakland, CA. A fellow of the Society
for the Psychological Study of Social Issues and the American Psychological
Association, she has written extensively on issues of race, racism, and ethnic
diversity in education. She has published widely in both psychology and education
journals including Social Issues and Policy Review, Teachers College Record,
Race, Ethnicity and Education, Journal of Social Issues, Urban Review, and the
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and her 2011 paper in Race Ethnicity
and Education is a co-winner of the 2010 Gordon Allport Intergroup Relations
Prize from SPSSI. Dr. Zirkel’s research is focused on creating multiethnic school
settings that are effective for all students. In her most recent work, she is exploring
public discussions of public education through the lens of Critical Race Theory to
help us understand the larger context of school reform successes and failures.