Imagining race and nation in multiculturalist America

Abstract

Post-1965 demographic changes in the United States [US] have brought blacks, Latinos, and Asian Americans into direct conflict, raising the question of how and whether law and public policy should attempt to adjudicate conflicts among racialized minority groups. I argue in this article that for the past few decades, national political leaders in the US have promoted an official multiculturalist discourse that actually discourages Americans from naming and addressing these intergroup tensions. This discourse superficially reimagines race and nation – by moving from a biracial, black-white focus to a formal acknowledgment of multiracial difference – while refusing to acknowledge the complex interminority inequalities and antagonisms generated by this new diversity. How might we refocus national attention on the serious interminority conflicts and racial justice struggles unfolding around us? I consider resurrecting the traditional notion of racial hierarchy as a counter-narrative to official multiculturalist discourse before arguing instead for one which involves a more complex notion of “racial positionality”.

Keywords:

• Multiculturalism
• race
• United States
• difference, hierarchy, positionality

Notes

CLAIRE JEAN KIM is Associate Professor at the University of California, Irvine.

ADDRESS: University of California, Irvine, 3151 Social Science Plaza, Irvine, CA 92697, USA. Email:<[email protected]>

Hu-DeHart borrows the term ‘triumphalist’ from Bellvillada (1990).

For a sense of the diversity of perspectives that fall under the rubric of ‘multiculturalism’, see Young (1990), Donald and Rattansi (1992), Goldberg (1994), Kymlicka (1995), Gordon and Newfield (1996), and Willett (1998).

‘Radio and Television Remarks Upon Signing the Civil Rights Bill’, 2 July 1964.

‘Special Message to the Congress: The American Promise’, 15 March 1965.

‘Commencement Address at Howard University: “To Fulfill These Rights”’, 4 June 1965.

The following are examples of official texts: State of the Union addresses, White House websites and initiatives, Presidential heritage/history month proclamations, Presidential inaugural and other speeches, and select Congressional resolutions and U.S. Supreme Court cases.

‘One American On the Move: The President's Initiative on Race’, 25 November 1997.

‘Remarks by the President on the Michigan Affirmative Action Case’, 15 January 2003.

‘National African American History Month, 2003: A Proclamation’, 31 January 2003.

‘Remarks at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute Dinner’, 25 September 1996.

‘Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address’, 4 February 1997.

‘Remarks by the President at University of California at San Diego Commencement’, 14 June 1997.

Ibid.

‘Remarks by the President to the NAACP National Convention,’ 17 July 1997.

After some initial blunders (such as referring to the war against the Taliban as a ‘crusade’ and temporarily naming it ‘Operation Infinite Justice’), Bush has tried to signal that his administration respects and appreciates Islam but hates those who do evil in the name of Islam. See ‘In the President's Words: Respecting Islam’ on Bush's White House website.

‘H.CON.RES. 141: A Congressional Resolution to Celebrate One America’.

See, for example, Blauner (1972) who distinguishes famously between colonized and voluntary immigrants in the U.S.

I agree with Feagin (2000) that the white/black dualism has been the central axis around which racialization processes have played out in the US context. Other nonwhites are indeed racialized as more or less white or black. However, they are also characterized as permanently foreign in ways that whites and blacks are not–and this is an aspect of racialization that Feagin's single-axis spectrum of white to black misses.

Actually, The Bell Curve places Asians above whites in the racial hierarchy (as determined by intelligence test scores). See Lieberman (2001) for discussion of this point.

The contrast with South African apartheid is instructive. In 1983, the South African government created a new tricameral parliament featuring houses for whites, Coloreds, and Asians – but none for blacks. The franchise extended to Coloureds and Asians under this system was more restricted than that granted to whites but more expansive than that granted to blacks. This scenario is aptly described as a hierarchical gradation along a single scale. There is no parallel for this in US history.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Claire Jean Kim

CLAIRE JEAN KIM is Associate Professor at the University of California, Irvine. ADDRESS: University of California, Irvine, 3151 Social Science Plaza, Irvine, CA 92697, USA. Email:<[email protected]>