Asian Settler Colonialism/Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy

Asian Settler Colonialism, Introduction by Candace Fujikane

Haunani-Kay Trask, a Native Hawaiian nationalist leader and professor of Hawaiian studies at the University of Hawai’i argued:

Modern HawaiiI, like its colonial parent the United States, is a settler society: that is, Hawai’i is a society in which the indigenous culture and people have been murdered, suppressed, or marginalized for the benefit of settlers who now dominate our islands. In settler societies, the issus of civil rights is primarily an issue about how to protect settlers against each other and against the state. Injustices done against Native people, such as genocide, land dispossession, language banning, family disintegration, and cultural exploitation, are not part of this intrasettler discussion and are therefore not within the parameters of civil rights. (1)

There are multi-ethnic group in Hawai’i. In Hawai’i, Hawaiians, whites, Japanese, and Filipinos make up at least 20% of the population. However, people in Hawaii are divided into two groups, “indigenous” and “settler” from the political point of view.

Indigenous people are defined in terms of collective aboriginal occupation prior to colonial settlement. They are not to be confused with minorities or ethnic group within states.

On the other hand, “Settlers” go for the purpose of taking over and establishing dominance.

On a closer view, “settlers” are various ethnic-group and classes. Historically, Caucasians are distinguished from the other groups, especially Asian people, such as Japanese, Filipinos, Chinese and Koreans. Caucasians are masters, Asians are slaves.

Asian laborers came to work on the sugar plantations. Laborers were themselves living in poverty and were exploited by the Caucasian plantation owners and supervisors. The Asian laborers were accomplices with the Caucasians in the success of an economic system which deprived natives of land and political power.

And now, several generations later, the descendants of those Asian settlers, along with other Asians who newly arrive as first-generation settlers, have substantial wealth and political power of their own which makes them sometimes as powerful as the primary (Caucasian) masters of native oppression.

For example, Japanese make up 40 percent of the legislature, but only 20 percent of the population in Hawaii. Hawaiians make up 20 percent of the general population, but only 10 percent of the legislature.

Asian settlers called themselves “local”. “Locals” have lived in Hawaii for a long time. “Local” concept is neutral, but this is very political. “Local” people have a right to exercise control over the land, the economy and the political system. No matter who he may be, they have lived in Hawaii for a long time, they have a right. This is typical settler colonialism logic.

Eiko Kosasa reminded us of Fanon’s statement: “The colonial world is a world cut in two.”

“Nateive” comes first:”Settler”follows it and supports it from behind. (31)

Fujikane concluded:

The essays in Asian Settler Colonialism identify Asians as settler in order to bring about a shift in political consciousness, to identify the problems posed by Asians settler ideologies and practices that reflect their desires for a place in the settler state. For the larger, long-term vision of Hawaiian self-determination to be made a reality, the Native and settler contributors in this volume call on Asian settlers in hawai’i to reexamine their interests within the U.S. settler state and to hold themselves and their communities accountable for their settler practices. Only through such accountability and anticolonial interventions can we find a way to great social and political justice. (36).

Asian settlers can and do support Hawaiian independence--in fact, it is our responsibility as settlers to work to end the conditions of settler colonialism.

"Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy" by Andrea Smith

How “Whit Supermacy” manage to keep its power?

White supremacy is constituted by separate and distinct, but still interrelated, logics. There are three pillars as Slavery/Capitalism, Genocide/Colonialism, and Orientalism/War (67)

1) Slaver/Capitalism is logic of slavery. The logic is the another of capitalism. That is the capitalist system untimately comodifies all workers- one’s own person becomes a commodity that one must sell in the labor market while the profits of one’s work are taken by someone else. (67)

2) Genocide/Colonialism is the logic of genocide. This logic holds that indigenous people must disappear. In fact, they must always be disappearing, in order to allow non-indigenous people rightful claim over this land. The pillar of genocide serves as the anchor for colonialism-it is what allows non-Native peoples to feel they can rightfully own indigenous people’ land. It is okay to take land from indigenous peoples, because indigenous people have disappeared. (68)

3) Orientalism/War is the logic of Orientalism. The logic of Orientalism marks certain peoples or nations as inferior and as posing a constant threat to the well-being of empire. This logic is evident in the anti-immigration movements within the United States that target immigrants of color.  Consequently, orentalism serves as the anchor for war, because it allows the United State to justify being in a constant state of war to protect itself from its enemies. (68)

In present, black/white binary is central to racial and political thought. However, if we look at only this binary, we may misread the dynamic of white supremacy in different context. (71)

“The family’ is no mere metaphor but a crucial technology by which modern power is produced and exercised.” (72)

Patriachy rests on a gender binary system in which only two genders exist, one dominating the other. Consequently, the colonial world order depends on heteronormativity. Just as the patriarchs rule the family, the elites of the nation-state rule their citizens. (72)

Three Pillars of White Society, Smith

I found Andrea Smith’s main point of Three Pillars of White Supremacy” to be buried near the end of the article and before the conclusion.  Smith asserted, “Any liberation struggle that does not challenge heteronormativity cannot substantially challenge colonialism or white supremacy.”  72

Smith provides a framework for understanding this main point through the three pillars defined as:
·      Slavery/Capitalism
·      Genocide/Colonialism
·      Orientalism/War
Smith then elaborates on each of these pillars and helps us to understand how victims in each of the categories are later used to against victims in other the other categories.

Slavery/Capitalism
She explains the relationship between slavery and capitalism founded on the premise that black slaves were viewed as private property essentially turning human beings into a commodity to be exploited in a capitalist economy.  However, Smith makes the slavery analogy relevant today by recognizing the role of prisons and the disparate number of incarcerated African-Americans.  Although she may not have mentioned it specifically, for me this was enough to provoke images and concerns of the privatization of prison systems.

Genocide/Colonialism
Smith then explains that colonialism requires the genocide of indigenous peoples for purposes of acquiring land.  Land acquisition was pursued historically through violence against indigenous peoples and later through cultural assimilation.  What I appreciated from Smith was her ability to explain how people of color are used to suppress other peoples of color.  Smith accomplishes this here when she explains how African-American participation in the military furthers the genocidal policies of a colonizing government.  This part of the Smith’s article evoked  images and memories of the Buffalo Soldiers in the American Indian Wars.

Orientalism/War
Smith explains, “orientalism serves as the anchor for war, because it allows the United States to justify being in a constant state of war to protect itself from its enemies.”  Orientalism or orient, as used in this article includes the Arab or broader mid-East region and the people who come from there.  Given the current war conflict/occupation and war on terror, Smith helps us to view some racial-profiling within this framework.  The pillar is also useful in viewing U.S. relations with China and so-called concerns with it becoming a super power.

It was disappointing to read about heteropatriarchy.  Although it was initially unclear to me where it fits among the three pillars (because sexual orientation discrimination is another separate complex issue), I came to understand how it fits into the Orientalism/War pillar.  The disappointment is not at all in Smith’s discussion of the subject, but rather the logic of the conservative asserting that “we must preserve traditional marriage in order to protect the United States from those who would use our depravity to destroy us.”

COLLIDING HISTORIES

COLLIDING HISTORIES (Saranillio)

This essay illuminates on the fact that, the contemporary discourse on Hawai‘i’s statehood status is narrated by two disparate and opposing histories.  The pro-statehood narrative (i.e., official state histories) view statehood as a progressive multicultural, multiethnic achievement acquired through the democratic process of consent by the people.  Former Governor Lingle praised Hawai‘i’s statehood as a “model of tolerance ahead of its time” (286).  Whereas critics of statehood (myself included), says Saranillio, reflect upon the status of statehood as “a manifestation of the overthrow, sustaining the relations of domination necessary for U.S. state, economic, and military assaults to continue into the present” (285).

Saranillio argues that the problematic of the 1959 congressionally mandated plebiscite is in itsfailure to comply with the United Nations’ required options for “independence” or other “separate systems of self-government”.  Here is my concern: According to the author of our other reading, imagining the good indigenous citizen, the U.N. was established in 1942, with its members being bound to the Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.  However, the covenant proclaiming that all people have the inherent right to self-determination wasn’t ratified until 1966 (Robinson 65).  How then could the 1959 plebiscite contain the language of self-determination which was ratified in 1966?  Am I missing something here? Any help in clarifying this would be appreciated.

The main argument for Saranillio is that “the discourse of pathology” is systematically employedby patriarchal white sovereignty (PWS) to justify its use of power over indigenous peoples in what amounts to a perpetual race war.  PWS then affirms its domination over indigenous people by extending civil “rights;” namely, welfare handouts, to those who measure up to “good white citizens”.  This gives rise to indigenous welfare dependency.  Thus, PWS successfully subjugates and controls the behavior of indigenous people through citizenship rights.  Saranillio’s solution to PWS is found in Indigenous sovereign counter rights claims, as they directly challenge the historical authority of PWS, forcing PWS back into its racist discourse of Indigenous pathology – which is, of course, that Indigenous poverty is the result of their inability to behave as “good” (white) citizens.

Aaron C.

Candace Fujikane & Andrea Smith

 Candace Fujikane's Introduction to Asian Settler Colonialism

A couple classes ago during the Trask reading, the question was brought up about the “forcibly displaced” settler: the refugee, the slave, the persecuted running from genocide in their own lands— would they still be considered colonists? In her Introduction to Asian Settler Colonialism, Professor Candace Fujikane’s argues that they would because A) the definition of indigenous people themselves is the ancestral people who call that land their homeland—not because they “feel” Hawaiian enough, and B) many of the Asians who originally migrated to Hawai’i now play a role in and benefit from the colonist system ruling it. 

When people on the mainland think of Hawai’i, they think diversity. In Washington state, where I’m from, 2011 statistics from the Washington Census Government website listed white people as making up 82% of the population. In Hawai’i, Hawaiians, whites, Japanese, and Filipinos make up at least 20% of the population. Fujikane examines the issue of Asians trying to establish legitimacy for their place in Hawai’i. Because of a claim to being “local,” the political and economic success of Asians over the years contribute to an illusion that Hawai’i is thriving and multicultural. The term “multicultural” state is critiqued, because it can give the illusion that the indigenous people have been exterminated, and now all have claim to the land.  Civil Rights are used for other ethnic groups to stake a claim to Hawaiian land. In Rice vs. Cayetano, Cayetano contended that OHA should be opened up to non-Hawaiians because voting based on “race,” is illegal under the 15^th amendment. The Hawaiians have now been classified as merely another racial group.

In the timeline of events that happened, the immigrant flight to Hawai’i is a sympathetic one. Sugar plantations meant cheap labor was needed, cheap labor to toil away in conditions that were “unfit” for the white settlers. Gunboat diplomacy, traced back to the imperialist interests of the US and other Western European powers, drove first the Chinese, and then Japanese to Hawai’i. Finally, when those two populations looked like they would get too big to control, the Koreans were approached as well, by means of illustrating immigrant to Hawai’i as a way to maintain independence from the Japanese government. The Filipinos were approached last.  If we trace the historical accounts, Fujikane shows the following:

From the 1920s – 60s: White settlers wrote their own historical accounts

1970s – 90s: Scholars wrote about their own ethnics groups

90s - Today:  A focus on mixed ethnicities and this concept of the “local” identity are center stage

Local Nation— “We working people struggled for and built Hawai’i” (2)

I’d like to talk about Hawai’i as this state separated from the mainland and this image of an island state— What other places inspire the same claim to “local” background that many Asians and other ethnicities on the islands so strongly feel? In the words of Benjamin Cayetano:  “I’ve lived in Hawai’i long enough to feel I am Hawaiian.” (9) When looking at the mainland United States, many people, even though they have lived there for generations, could not propose to  claim some sort of solidarity with the Native Americans—although I suppose they try, after reading about Deloria’s encounters with people who claimed “1/10 Cherokee blood on my grandmother’s side,” ect. And claims to locality are apparent in small town locations, such as Cordova, Alaska, small towns in the deep South, or even places as big as New York city, because those people get the cultural mindset that governs their everyday lives. Is that what being “local” means to Fujikane’s “third space” settlers?  Is it just the grasp of where the best hidden surfing spots are, or knowing what opihi is? Is it because it is an island state that makes Hawai’i seem to have such a distinct culture compared to the rest of the mainland it is connected to through name? 

Is it more a question of the 1970 Asian laborer working class rallying around a “local” identity, trying to find a culture they could identify with when they had never seen their ancestral homeland, and their ethnicities were fast becoming mixed—Half Japanese, a quarter German, a quarter Puerto Rican—who to identify with? Trask, of course, hits the nail on the head when she critiques the “third space,” warning that a settler is still a settler, and privileged classes were often using claims to locality to claim a history of oppression for themselves.

Huli

Imaikalani Kalahele

If to help us is your wish then stand behind us

            Not to the side

                        And not in front.

Referring to the poem, Huli, it is pointed out that Hawaiians must possess the right to self-determination without aid, or else groups trying to help will taint the mission with their own self-interests.  Fujikane relates that  Asians supportive of Hawaiian movements still contribute to the colonial power the US holds over Hawaii— teachers, administrators, and others may not see themselves as political, but they still benefit from the system. “Until the Hawaiians regain their lands and nations can Asian settlers liberate themselves from their roles as agents in a colonial system of violence.” (5) Fujikane draws the conclusion that again, A) Asian settlers must recognize their role in the colonist state, and B) hold leaders and community members accountable when they pursue colonial interests.

"Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy" by Andrea Smith

Oppression Olympics 

Andrea Smith advocates for women who have suffered from white oppression to rally together against continued victimization, but the task is easier said than done. Often, she notes, in her article, "Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillar of White Supremacy:” “We are too busy fighting over who is more oppressed.” (1) Below I have provided a summary of the three pillars white supremacists use to maintain claims to power: 

Pillar One: Slavery and Capitalism 

Smith purposefully places these two concepts in the same pillar. Through slavery, white supremacists claim that black people are property. Although the Civil War has been fought and a Civil Rights Movement endured, Smith points out that slavery has merely changed its shape in today’s contemporary society: the prison system. Indeed, statistically speaking, black people are much more likely to face prison time than white people. A horrid sort of racial hierarchy has been established, and black is at the bottom. This way, white supremacists can still beckon to other ethnic groups with the hope that they can climb higher on the racial pyramid, and thus the capitalism cycle founded on exploitation continues.

Pillar Two: Genocide and Colonialism 

The second pillar conveys the “logic of genocide,” the reasoning behind why indigenous people must vanish so their lands can be claimed. Kate Shanley is quoted in the idea of a “present absence.” The native people are disappearing, so there is justification in seizing their lands.  

Pillar Three: Orientalism and War 

Smith chose Orientalism and War for the last pillar, to illustrate how the U.S. uses the myth that white culture is superior to the Oriental to justify a perpetual state of warfare, because the U.S constantly has to protect itself from these eastern “enemies” posing a threat to the stability of the empire.

Smith reaches a conclusion that several of our other authors have reached: Indigenous people, or in this article, ethnic minorities, must recognize the colonist state and operate outside of it, operate outside the pillars, in order to reach self-determination.

Personal Disagreement 

The one area in this article I took issue with was the part about the nuclear family model being a perpetuation of white interests. Of course, I have a definite bias here, as I am fiercely protective of my family, who falls under this model. I understand what Smith is trying to say, and she brings up interesting ways of thinking about this “traditional” family model as being only another way for white interests to exercise power, but I took issue with the wording. I think a better way to phrase  “we can reconstitute alternative ways of living in which the family is not an island alone” would be “The mindset that the nuclear family model is the only correct way to have a family is what is so dangerous.” (8) 

I do agree: Ethnic groups should be able to determine what a family is without having white culture dictate that for them. If a father, mother, sister, and brother is determined to be that family, than that is an example of that model of family existing in an indigenous community and not threatening it with colonialist interests. Especially with the issue of gay/lesbian marriage or biracial families, it is not only white people who haven’t embraced them as a culturally accepted way of family, as many other ethnicities, too, have their struggles with accepting the sexuality of their children. Is that an effect of colonialism? It’s hard to say.  Parents, especially of the older generations, are sometimes influenced by their ethnic group’s own background and traditions. Smith could point out the influence of Christian churches, but she uses the term “Christian” too broadly. As someone who has an aunt who is an Episcopalian priest, I have seen her and her community fighting on the frontlines for opening the gates of the church to all sorts of relationships. “We need a model based on community relationships and mutual respect” is what Smith concludes, and I agree fully, I would just point out that it is the mindset that one way of life is the only acceptable one which is the danger, not that lifestyle itself. (8)

 
 

White Supremacy & Colliding Histories (Smith & Saranillo)

In Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy, Andre Smith is proposing an alternative to the Heteropatriarchal racial system.  Smith adopts an alternative framework for peoples of color called the “Three Pillars of White Supremacy”.  The first pillar is Slavery/Capitalism.  Here Smith argues that the logic of slavery is an anchor of capitalism and the racial hierarchy of slavery is incorporated in the commodification of people.  “This racial hierarchy tells people that as long as you are not Black, you have the opportunity to escape the commodification of capitalism.” (68)  The second is Genocide/Colonialism, where non-Native peoples can justify settler-colonialism through a logic that holds that “Indigenous people must disappear”. (68)  The last pillar is Orientalism/War, Smith utilizes Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism more broadly to include all nations or civilizations that are deemed as threats to the well-being of the empire and white supremacy.   For instance, anti-immigrant movements flourish during war time and treat all immigrants of color (regardless of length of stay) as the “other” and subsequently a threat.   Essentially, Orientalism justifies the United States perpetual state of war to protect it from the “other(s)”.

Therefore, the old model meretriciously seduces certain oppressed peoples to comply in exchange for a rite-of-passage to participate in other pillars.  Smith argues that it would be beneficial if peoples of color make strategic alliances “based on where we are situated within the larger political economy.” (69)  For instance, it would be counterintuitive for Native peoples that organize against genocide in their own homelands to fight other US Imperial wars through the military recruitment.  One model of liberation should not be one of oppression for others.  Smith also criticizes the centrality of black/white binary and its propensity to flatten the different dynamics of white supremacy in relation to other peoples of color.  Furthermore, she argues that status differences of Natives and Blacks are “informed by different economic positions African Americans and American Indians have in US society.” (71)  So since African Americans have been valued for their labor, the dominants want to expand the label “Black” to as many people as possible.  On the other hand, since American Indians are valued for their land, the dominants want to minimize the label “Indian” as much as possible.  Ultimately, Smith is pointing out that striving for racial justice within the normative model is not beneficial since the options are either assimilation into white America or the reproduction of other oppressive nationalisms. 

                 Dean Itsuji Saranillio, utilizes Smith’s Three Pillars of White Supremacy in Colliding Histories.  Saranillo traces the “opposing histories” of Hawaiians and Asians and the political realities and battles that ensue, as illustrated on Admission Day.  Saranillo traces two competing projects, one being the post-WWII project of combating the classification of Japanese Americans as “ineligible to citizenship” and the other project combating the designation that Native Hawaiians are “unfit for self-government”.  Within Smith’s framework we see how liberal multiculturalism has a flattening and counterintuitive effect in relation to historical and political differences.  For example, “the counter hegemonic strategies of Asian Americans against haole supremacy challenged, modified, and yet renewed a hegemonic U.S. colonial system.” (296)   Similarly, those in opposition to statehood like Alice Kamokilaikawai Campbell, worked within the same white supremacy framework and implied that Japanese-Americans would control Hawaii if it were to be a state.  “In combating the notion that Hawaiians were destined to disappear and thus be replaced, she resisted this by heightening fear that Japanese Americans were foreign threats “ineligible to citizenship.” (301)  In both cases we see prime examples of Smith’s argument that oppressed peoples effort’s against oppression can lead unwittingly to oppressing others. 

I couldn’t help but think of the effect 9-11 had in relation to Smith’s third pillar of Orientalism/War.  It seems that 9-11 and the events following that event, for example the invasions of Iraq & Afghanistan, has greatly strengthened the third pillar of white supremacy.  In this case, perhaps “fighting against them” or maybe simply supporting imperialistic policies, immediately grants marginalized/oppressed peoples a rite-of-passage into the white supremacy framework.  Has the black/white binary been surpassed by a Muslim/Judeo-Christian or East/West binary?  If so, how has this affected indigenous peoples fight for self-determination within the Heteropatriarchal racial system?