I became Asian when I migrated to the US. My ethnic identity was for the most part Japanese and sometimes Korean when I was in Japan. Thus I'm registered as Japanese in SFSU's enrollment record. I don't know if I can change it; I'll try later.
In contemporary/colloquial Japanese, "Asia" implies Southeast Asia and maybe South Asia when referring to food, culture, furniture and so on. I'd say that it's often used in contexts that exoticize those mystic, ambiguous, far-flung cities with tropical climates and exotic people who somehow live closer to nature because they use handmade baskets and wear colorful traditional clothes. Basically, Orientalism seems prevalent in Japanese gaze of other countries/cultures/peoples in Asia, somehow distancing Japan from them to indicate how westernized (and superior) Japan is.
So I'm not sure if many Japanese strongly identify as Asian. I don't think I did. Upon arriving here did I begin to recognize how a Japanese person is categorized in the US culture. Thus, I became Asian.
Since Korea and Japan are in Asia, I had difficulties identifying as biracial or mixed race, both of which seemed to refer to people who are, for instance, Asian and White or Black and Latino than being "Korean and Japanese." For some reason, I believed that race refers to categories like White, Asian, Black, Latino, and the like, and ethnicity refers to Japanese, Korean, Tibetan, Irish, or Russian. I thought my race is Asian, my ethnicity is Korean and Japanese, and my nationality (citizenship) is Japanese.
I don't know exactly what is what, but now I think I wasn't exactly right. If race is a social construct that has some political implication, Korean is a race in Japan, just like Asian is a race in the US. This makes me biracial. But does it matter if I'm in the US? If I hadn't met other Zainichi folks, I'd still have identified as mono-racial Asian and bi-ethnic Korean and Japanese. But once I begin to recognize Korean as a race in a transnational context, I am mixed no matter where I am. Then I begin to question what Asian is.
In western geography, Asia generally refers to "the rest of the world that we're too unfamiliar with to break it down and distinguish." So what does it mean to accept Asia as my racial identification? Being "Asian" diminishes my individual and collective experiences as Zainichi Korean. All those racism and discrimination we face in Japan suddenly disappear into the background of this huge but ambiguous box called "Asian."
Some Filipin@s identify as Pacific Islander and refuse the Asian identification because they're mis- or underrepresented in what Whites see as "Asia," which is too often exclusively East Asia. If I have similar agency over my racial identification, I could be a Pacific Islander because Japan is an insular country in the Pacific Ocean. Or, if I ultimately refuse all of these Eurocentric racial and geographical classifications for political reasons, "Asian" becomes a meaningless category, and it makes sense to me that I identify as biracial Zainichi Korean. And it's NOT the same as being "Asian," "Japanese and Korean," or "Korean Japanese."
So here's my temporary and partial conclusion: I no longer identify as Asian, and I identify as mixed race Zainichi Korean.
4 comments for this post
Seems like the Japanese are like the English.. a separatist culture.. removing and elevating themselves from their continental counterparts.. The English don't refer to themselves as European, despite the fact that their northern neighbor Ireland is now officially a part of the EU.
There also seems to be a similar culture of emotional reservation.
I no longer know how to identify myself.. I don't have much in common with other 'white' people.. As I grow older, I recognize the influence of my Cherokee genes. After traveling in Europe I realize how mixed I am, how very different my Dutch and Irish and German genetic contributions are...
Usually when filling out forms, I put 'other'
I'm not sure what good all this classification really does for us..
Whenever I meet someone I'm interested in (usually from across the Pacific) I never ask their nationality.. its more interesting to hear how they identify themselves, usually by way of their journey
Identification is agreeably a frustrating matter to resolve. You highlight beautifully the difficulty in "labels" especially concerning racial, ethnic, and national identities. I believe that our identity profiles become diminished into mere checks in boxes.
While I do agree with you that being lumped into this "Asian" classifier can depreciate the significance of personal and exclusive experiences, I wonder then when is it appropriate (or is it ever appropriate) for us to adopt this more broad identifier: "Asian"? I guess I'm curious as to why you can't identify as both "Asian" and "mixed race Zainichi Korean", would that be wrong? On a personal level, does it then become a mere matter of convenience - in the sense that we can pick an choose our labels when it is most appropriate for us??
In the case, pick option A to join this collective struggle through a more general geographical identity or option B to distinguish and narrate our own unique histories. Do we have to choose? I don't know.
Hmm, I don't think I "choose" mixed race Zainichi Korean identity because it's appropriate or convenient. It just makes most sense. "Choosing" implies that I am given options that I can pick one from, rather passively; I see my identity journey as a process of creation rather than selection. My refusal of "Asian" and creation of "mixed race Zainichi Korean" identities are concurrent but different processes. Saying no to one thing and saying yes to another isn't exactly the same as choosing the latter instead of the former.
Here, I'm critical of, or even just questioning the "Asian" category that has been constructed by the western school of thought. I'm ignorant of how practically successful "Asians" have been in working together to create real radical changes in the US, so I'm curious to know to what extent it is meaningful to have this collective identity of being "Asian," when it never really means entire parts of "Asia." And I think that sharing experiences and sharing movements are fundamentally different.
Thank you for your comments!
In your creation of identity, I guess my error was in assuming that your two processes are contingent upon each other. Nevertheless, I'm still confused why there needs to be a rejection of an "Asian" identity? While you may not be choosing one over the other, I guess I'm curious to know what un-identifying as "Asian" does for you? Specifically why assuming the label would diminish your status as a Zainichi Korean? Do you feel that once you group yourself into a broader community that to some extent your national experiences become invalidated? Like it becomes just another item among a long list?
To what extent are we successful moving under this Asian collective? I guess the answer is still incomplete. I feel that it takes significant effort to create this Pan-Asian "unity" even locally, that it would take much more to see radical changes on the national scale. The non-inclusive definition of "Asian" in a geographical sense is also due in part to how each "Asian" individual identifies. My personal observation is that there is still intraracial discrimination existing among ourselves that make it less suitable to be a part of a collective.
What becomes troubling is that if and when we do achieve meaningful progress as this collective, then would it be inappropriate for those who feel disconnected to enjoy the outcome? I'm only asking because sometimes I do feel that I only identify as "Asian" because it seems appropriate, meaning that what made sense to me was what "fits". I guess that needs re-evaluating.