美國亞裔遭受的種族歧視

阿德里安·德萊昂

From “yellow peril” to “model minority” to the “Chinese virus，” Asian Americans have long been considered as a threat to a nation that promoted a whites-only immigration policy. 從所謂“黃禍”到“模范少數(shù)族裔”再到“中國病毒”，在推崇“僅限白人”移民政策的美國，亞裔美國人始終被認(rèn)為是這個(gè)國度的威脅。

In a recent Washington Post op-ed， former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang called upon Asian Americans to become part of the solution against COVID-19. In the face of rising anti-Asian racist actions—now at about 100 reported cases per day—Yang implores Asian Americans to “wear red， white， and blue1” in their efforts to combat the virus.

Optimistically， before Donald Trump declared COVID-19 as the “Chinese virus，” Yang believed that “getting the virus under control” would rid this country of its anti-Asian racism. But Asian American history， my field of research， suggests a sobering reality.

A history of anti-Asian racism

Up until the eve of the COVID-19 crisis， the prevailing narrative about Asian Americans was one of the model minority. The model minority concept， developed during and after World War II， posits that Asian Americans were the ideal immigrants of color to the United States due to their economic success.

But in the United States， Asian Americans have long been considered as a threat to a nation that promoted a whites-only immigration policy. They were called a “yellow peril”： unclean and unfit for citizenship in America.

In the late 19th century， white nativists spread xenophobic propaganda about Chinese uncleanliness in San Francisco. This fueled the passage of the infamous Chinese Exclusion Act， the first law in the United States that barred immigration solely based on race. Initially， the act placed a 10-year moratorium on all Chinese migration.

In the early 20th century， American officials in the Philippines， then a formal colony of the U.S.， denigrated Filipinos for their supposedly unclean and uncivilized bodies. Colonial officers and doctors identified two enemies： Filipino insurgents against American rule， and “tropical diseases” festering in native bodies. By pointing to Filipinos political and medical unruliness， these officials justified continued U.S. colonial rule in the islands.

On Feb. 19， 1942， President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 to incarcerate people under suspicion as enemies to inland internment camps. While the order also affected German- and Italian-Americans on the East Coast， the vast majority of those incarcerated in 1942 were of Japanese descent.

Many of them were naturalized citizens， second- and third-generation Americans. Internees who fought in the celebrated 442nd Regiment were coerced by the United States military to prove their loyalty to a country that locked them up simply for being Japanese.

In the 21st century， even the most “multicultural” North American cities， like my hometown of Toronto， Canada， are hotbeds for virulent racism. During the 2003 SARS outbreak， Toronto saw a rise of anti-Asian racism， much like that of today.

In her 2008 study， sociologist Carrianne Leung highlights the everyday racism against Chinese and Filipina health care workers in the years that followed the SARS crisis. While publicly celebrated for their work in hospitals and other health facilities， these women found themselves fearing for their lives on their way home.

No expression of patriotism—not even being front-line workers in a pandemic—makes Asian migrants immune to racism.

Making the model minority

Over the past decade， from Pulitzer Prizes to popular films， Asian Americans have slowly been gaining better representation in Hollywood and other cultural industries. By the 2018 Golden Globes， Sandra Oh declared her now famous adage： “Its an honor just to be Asian.” It was， at least at face value， a moment of cultural inclusion.

However， so-called Asian American inclusion has a dark side. In reality， as cultural historian Robert G. Lee has argued， inclusion can and has been used to undermine the activism of African Americans， indigenous peoples and other marginalized groups in the United States. In the words of writer Frank Chin in 1974， “Whites love us because were not black.”

For example， in 1943， a year after the United States incarcerated Japanese Americans under Executive Order 9066， Congress repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act. White liberals advocated for the repeal not out of altruism toward Chinese migrants， but to advocate for a transpacific alliance against Japan and the Axis powers.

By allowing for the free passage of Chinese migrants to the United States， the nation could show its supposed fitness as an interracial superpower that rivaled Japan and Germany. Meanwhile， incarcerated Japanese Americans in camps and African Americans were still held under Jim Crow segregation laws2.

In her new book， “Opening the Gates to Asia： A Transpacific History of How America Repealed Asian Exclusion，” Occidental College historian Jane Hong reveals how the United States government used Asian immigration inclusion against other minority groups at a time of social upheaval.

For example， in 1965， Lyndon B. Johnsons administration signed the much-celebrated Hart-Celler Act into law. The act primarily targeted Asian and African migrants， shifting immigration from an exclusionary quota system to a merit-based points system. However， it also imposed immigration restrictions on Latin America.

Beyond model minority politics

As history shows， Asian American communities stand to gain more working within communities and across the lines of race， rather than trying to appeal to those in power. Japanese American activists such as the late Yuri Kochiyama worked in solidarity with other communities of color to advance the civil rights movement.

A former internee at the Jerome Relocation Center in Arkansas， Kochiyamas postwar life in Harlem， and her friendship with Malcolm X， inspired her to become active in the anti-Vietnam War and civil rights movements. In the 1980s， she and her husband Bill， himself part of the 442nd Regiment， worked at the forefront of the reparations and apology movement for Japanese internees. As a result of their efforts， Ronald Reagan signed the resulting Civil Liberties Act into law in 1988.

Kochiyama and activists like her have inspired the cross-community work of Asian American communities after them. In Los Angeles， where I live， the Little Tokyo Service Center is among those at the forefront of grassroots organizing for affordable housing and social services in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood.

While the organizations priority area is Little Tokyo and its community members， the centers work advocates for affordable housing among black and Latinx residents， as well as Japanese American and other Asian American groups. To the northwest in Koreatown， the grassroots organization Ktown for All conducts outreach to unhoused residents of the neighborhood， regardless of ethnic background.

The coronavirus sees no borders. Likewise， I think that everyone must follow the example of these organizations and activists， past and present， to reach across borders and contribute to collective well-being.

Self-isolation， social distancing and healthy practices should not be in the service of proving ones patriotism. Instead， these precautions should be done for the sake of caring for those whom we do and do not know， inside and outside our national communities.

近期在《華盛頓郵報(bào)》的一篇專欄文章中，前民主黨總統(tǒng)候選人楊安澤呼吁亞裔美國人加入應(yīng)對(duì)新冠肺炎的行動(dòng)中。如今，針對(duì)亞裔的種族主義行為與日俱增，每天約有百起相關(guān)事件，楊安澤懇求亞裔“身披紅白藍(lán)”，合力抗擊疫情。

在唐納德·特朗普將新冠病毒稱作“中國病毒”前，楊安澤樂觀地認(rèn)為，“防控得當(dāng)”可以消解針對(duì)美國亞裔的種族歧視。然而，根據(jù)我的研究領(lǐng)域——亞裔美國人史，現(xiàn)實(shí)很嚴(yán)峻。

針對(duì)亞裔的種族主義史

在新冠肺炎危機(jī)發(fā)生前，關(guān)于亞裔美國人的主流論調(diào)是他們是模范少數(shù)族裔。模范少數(shù)族裔這一概念形成于二戰(zhàn)期間及戰(zhàn)后，它提出，由于亞裔在經(jīng)濟(jì)上的成功，他們是美國理想的有色移民人種。

然而在推崇“僅限白人”移民政策的美國，亞裔美國人始終被認(rèn)為是這個(gè)國度的威脅。他們?cè)环Q作“黃禍”：邋遢，不適于成為美國公民。

19世紀(jì)末，本土主義的白人在舊金山傳播關(guān)于中國人不衛(wèi)生的排外輿論，致使美國通過第一部?jī)H依據(jù)種族阻止移民的法律——臭名昭著的《排華法案》。起初，該法案禁止所有華人在10年內(nèi)赴美。

20世紀(jì)初，菲律賓是美國的殖民地，在菲美國官員詆毀菲律賓人，聲稱他們軀體不衛(wèi)生、不文明。殖民官員和醫(yī)生認(rèn)為當(dāng)?shù)卮嬖趦蓚€(gè)敵人：反美的菲律賓叛亂者和在本土人之間蔓延的“熱帶病”。這些官員通過指出菲律賓人政治無序、衛(wèi)生不凈，證明在菲律賓群島上延續(xù)殖民統(tǒng)治的正當(dāng)性。

1942年2月19日，富蘭克林·德拉諾·羅斯?？偨y(tǒng)簽署第9066號(hào)行政命令，將可疑人員當(dāng)作敵人拘禁于內(nèi)陸拘留營。雖然這項(xiàng)總統(tǒng)令也影響了東海岸的德裔和意裔美國人，但在1942年被監(jiān)禁關(guān)押的大多數(shù)是日裔。

他們中許多是入籍公民、二代和三代移民。有些被拘留者曾在著名的美國陸軍第442步兵團(tuán)征戰(zhàn)，被美國軍方強(qiáng)迫證明他們對(duì)這個(gè)國家的忠誠，一個(gè)僅因他們是日本人而將其關(guān)押的國家。

21世紀(jì)，即便是最“多元文化”的北美城市，如我的家鄉(xiāng)加拿大多倫多，也同樣是種族歧視肆虐的溫床。2003年非典暴發(fā)時(shí)期，多倫多反亞裔種族歧視事件增多，與今天的狀況很像。

社會(huì)學(xué)家卡里亞娜·梁在她2008年的研究中強(qiáng)調(diào)了非典危機(jī)后幾年，針對(duì)中國和菲律賓醫(yī)療工作者經(jīng)常發(fā)生的種族歧視現(xiàn)象。盡管許多女性在醫(yī)院和其他醫(yī)療系統(tǒng)的工作受人敬重，她們卻在回家路上戰(zhàn)戰(zhàn)兢兢，擔(dān)心遭遇不測(cè)。

愛國之情的表達(dá)，甚至是身為抗疫一線工作者，都沒能讓亞裔移民免于種族歧視。

成為模范少數(shù)族裔

過去10年，從普利策獎(jiǎng)到流行電影，亞裔美國人慢慢在好萊塢和其他文化產(chǎn)業(yè)獲得更多鏡頭。在2018年的金球獎(jiǎng)?lì)C獎(jiǎng)典禮上，亞裔演員吳珊卓發(fā)表了她的名言：“生為亞裔，即是榮耀?！蹦莻€(gè)時(shí)刻，至少在表象上，是一個(gè)文化包容的時(shí)刻。

然而，所謂的亞裔包容也存在見不得陽光的一面。事實(shí)上，正如文化歷史學(xué)家羅伯特·G.李所認(rèn)為，文化包容能夠且已被用來打擊非裔美國人、原住民和其他邊緣群體的政治積極性。用作家趙健秀在1974年的一句話說，“白人喜歡我們只是因?yàn)槲覀儾皇呛谌恕薄?/p>

比如1943年，美國實(shí)施第9066號(hào)行政命令關(guān)押日裔的第二年，國會(huì)廢除《排華法案》。自由主義白人主張廢除該法案，并不是出于對(duì)華裔勞工利益的尊重，而是出于對(duì)對(duì)抗日本和軸心國勢(shì)力的跨太平洋聯(lián)盟的支持。

通過允許華裔勞工自由進(jìn)出美利堅(jiān)，美國能夠展示它是一個(gè)所謂的多種族融合、足以匹敵日本和德國的超級(jí)大國。然而同時(shí)，日裔仍被關(guān)押在拘留營，他們以及非裔美國人仍遭受“吉姆·克勞法”的種族隔離。

西方學(xué)院歷史學(xué)家簡(jiǎn)·洪在她的新書《向亞洲敞開大門：一部美國廢止亞裔隔離的跨太平洋歷史》中，揭露了美國政府如何在社會(huì)動(dòng)蕩時(shí)期，利用亞裔移民的準(zhǔn)入，制約其他少數(shù)族裔。

比如1965年，林登·B.約翰遜政府簽署備受贊譽(yù)的《哈特-塞勒法》。該法案主要針對(duì)亞裔和非裔移民，將排他性配額制度改為基于行為表現(xiàn)的積分制度。然而，它也對(duì)拉美裔移民加以限制。

超越模范少數(shù)族裔政治

歷史顯示，在美亞裔群體會(huì)在社群內(nèi)或在不同種族間合作，而不嘗試訴諸當(dāng)權(quán)者。比如已故的日裔政治活動(dòng)家河內(nèi)山曾和其他有色人種社區(qū)團(tuán)結(jié)合作，推進(jìn)民權(quán)運(yùn)動(dòng)。

河內(nèi)山在阿肯色州杰羅姆再安置中心被關(guān)押的經(jīng)歷、戰(zhàn)后在哈萊姆區(qū)的生活以及與馬爾科姆·X的友誼，激勵(lì)她積極參與反越戰(zhàn)和民權(quán)運(yùn)動(dòng)。20世紀(jì)80年代，她與丈夫比爾，一位美國陸軍第442步兵團(tuán)成員，在向日裔被拘留者道歉賠償運(yùn)動(dòng)的最前線工作。他們的努力最終促成了羅納德·里根在1988年將《公民自由法案》簽署成法律。

以河內(nèi)山為代表的政治活動(dòng)家鼓舞了之后亞裔社區(qū)的跨群體工作。我居住的洛杉磯正快速中產(chǎn)階級(jí)化，小東京服務(wù)中心等組織行動(dòng)在最前線，組織普通民眾爭(zhēng)取保障性住房和社會(huì)服務(wù)。

雖然該組織首要服務(wù)范圍是小東京社區(qū)和其成員，但它的工作推動(dòng)了非裔、拉丁裔及日裔和其他亞裔群體爭(zhēng)取保障性住房。在韓國城的西北部，“為所有人服務(wù)的韓國城”基層組織，將服務(wù)范圍擴(kuò)展到周邊居無定所的人，無論他們是何種族。

新冠病毒無國界。同樣，我認(rèn)為每個(gè)人均須向過去和現(xiàn)在的各個(gè)組織和活動(dòng)家學(xué)習(xí)，超越國界，為人類共同福祉作出貢獻(xiàn)。

自我隔離、保持社交距離和良好的衛(wèi)生習(xí)慣不應(yīng)是為了證明個(gè)人的愛國之情而做，這些防護(hù)措施應(yīng)是出于對(duì)國內(nèi)外我們相識(shí)或不相識(shí)的人的關(guān)愛而為。

（譯者為“《英語世界》杯”翻譯大賽獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)?單位：南京師范大學(xué)）

【本譯文系2017年度南京師范大學(xué)“英才培養(yǎng)計(jì)劃”項(xiàng)目階段性研究成果】

1從5月最后一個(gè)星期一美國陣亡將士紀(jì)念日到9月第一個(gè)星期一勞工節(jié)，美國有數(shù)個(gè)愛國主義相關(guān)紀(jì)念日，鼓勵(lì)人民身穿帶紅、白、藍(lán)色星條旗的衣服，其中尤以7月4日美國獨(dú)立日這一倡議最為熱烈。

2 泛指1876年至1965年間美國南部各州及邊境各州對(duì)有色人種實(shí)行種族隔離制度的法律。Jim Crow是對(duì)黑人的貶稱。