Julian Leus Week 6 Blog

McKibbin’s article “Current State of Multiracial Discourse” traces the evolution of multiracial academic and activist discussion from the nineteenth century to present. This author agrees with other scholars that the nineteenth and first half of the 20^th centuries viewed multiracialism in an “Age of Pathology”, in which many Western scientists tried to attribute multiracialism as some sort of social and biological disease. The explosion of multiracial discourse in the late-twentieth-century marks what many scholars call the “Age of Celebration,” when mixed-race individuals gain more visibility because of landmark court cases like Loving v. Virginia (1967) barred the prohibition of mixed-race marriages. Finally the current age in which we live is called the “Age of Critique”, in which many scholars focusing on multiracialism deal with questions of racial categorization and structure and multiracial agency.

This current age in multiracial scholarly discourse examines political institutions that fail to or are being reformed to include multiracial citizens in society, such as the choice for individuals to check off multiple boxes for racial identity in the U.S. Census (185). This idea of multiracial individuals to “choose” among their many races reveals deeper implications about race as a social construction that is now being dismantled in our post-colonial society. I find this movement very fascinating and can see how it will further the aims of racial minorities in the U.S. to achieve social justice and equality.

Julian Leus Week 4 Blog

Professor Valverde’s article “From Dust to Gold: The Vietnamese Amerasian Experience” contextualizes the struggles of mixed-race Vietnamese-Americans in the U.S. in the aftermath of the Vietnam War. Many of these mixed-race individuals were not socially accepted in Vietnam because of a strict patriarchal culture, in which many native Vietnamese people shamed mixed-race children in schools for not knowing their fathers even if it was not their fault (147). This sentiment follows an old Vietnamese saying that “a child without a father is like a house without a roof”. I found it particularly interesting how phenotypically varying mixed-race Vietnamese were treated differently in Vietnamese society. For example, Black Amerasians were especially discriminated against because of the association of darker skin with the peasant class––ethnic discrimination. Another example includes a biracial woman who could phenotypically pass as full Vietnamese and therefore did not have as many problems with racial prejudice or discrimination. This distinction in social interaction amongst phenotypically different mixed-race Vietnamese people reveals the insidiousness of racial identity politics not only in the U.S., but also in Vietnam and other places affected by war.

While the article also delves into the consequences of legal action taken by both the U.S. and Vietnam once Amerasian children, I found the cultural influences of mixed-race Amerasians in Vietnam the most interesting facet of this article. I also found it interesting how the professor pointed out the political friction between Vietnam and the U.S. when trying to immigrate Amerasians to the U.S., such as the Vietnamese government not wanting ODP children to be identified as “refugees” (151). Overall, this article gave me a new perspective on the cultural history of post-war Vietnam and its focus on Amerasians felt like a fresh contribution to Ethnic Studies scholarship.