Introduction to Asian American Studies: Race and War
Course website and blog
The McGraw Center for Teaching and Learning
328 Frist Campus Center, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
PH: 609-258-2575 | FX: 609-258-1433
mcgrawect@princeton.edu
A unit of the Office of the Dean of the College
© Copyright 2025 The Trustees of Princeton University
After this class, I was left thinking about the our discussion about imaginative and physical/material geographies where we talked about how the imagined geographies of Oceania largely impact how Oceania and the people residing in Oceania are viewed, treated, and understood. It was interesting to see the contrast between the way Oceanian people viewed Oceania and how western countries viewed Oceania. I think I was most surprised by how much the western notions of space and geography were instilled in me, and how I had never come to question it until this discussion. This rang through particularly loudly when Dr. L showed us the different world maps which showed how the most commonly used maps , at least in our communities, are euro-centric and focused on the Atlantic Ocean rather than the Pacific Ocean which is actually much larger than the Atlantic. After this class, I am left wanting to learn more about how imaginative geographies have impacted other regions, and how I can use this newfound knowledge to re-educate myself on how I view the world and the people residing here.
I agree in that I found last week’s class to be very enlightening about a region that I had never really learned much about before. What struck me about the maps that we saw in class is how Western society explicitly constructed the Pacific region in relation to military strategy. Rather than viewing Oceania as a collection of independent islands, they were seen as strategic points to be controlled in order to further an imperialist agenda. This paternalistic attitude had real-world implications in the treatment of the residents of these islands. Military bases were established that limited the access of native islanders to natural resources on the island. Certain regions even bore the brunt of nuclear arms testing that destroyed entire islands and ecosystems that the natives depended on. These are all examples of how Oceania was considered simply a resource to be exploited, while the actual occupants of the islands were neglected and abused.
Last week’s discussion on the Pacific question was particularly interesting to me because of how little we collectively knew as a class. Most, if not everyone, was struck by how much they had learned from reading excerpts from a small slice of the scholarship on the Pacific. This just goes to show the importance of disaggregating the experiences within the term Asian American. These narratives need to be fleshed out and treated as important, stand-alone topics of exploration. In addition, I was struck by how discourse around the pacific islands illogically conflates the Pacific Islander identity with passivity. Generally, agency of pacific islanders and native communities were stripped of individual agency; politics was not created in these geographic sites, but the consequences of history happened onto them. These thoughts were particularly salient with our examination of the 1914 naval base map, Mercator projection map, and Peters projection map.
I was particularly struck in class this week by our discussion on the way that Asian Americans are seen in Hawai’i. It surprised me that there are some groups that want Asian Americans to identify themselves as settlers, because it was always my impression that the local/foreigner divide was more prominent. This was reinforced by the concepts introduced in our White Love reading for this week, which talked about the history of settlerism in the Philippines.
This concept leads into the labeling of Asian Americans as allies instead of a minority group. I think that it is part of the model minority myth that people believe that Asian Americans don’t suffer discrimination or oppression like other minority groups, and that social justice actions by Asian Americans are discredited because they are ‘successful’. This part of our class discussion helped me realize that these views create a lot of erasure around the history of ethnic struggle that Asian Americans have experienced.
I found the class discussion on Hau’ofa’s piece both interesting and challenging. His ideas about reimagining space and changing our terminology pointed out the ways in which vocabulary choices can have lasting material consequences. The idea that language is powerful and words should be chosen thoughtfully also related to “big question” of how to address histories of racial oppression without reproducing the violence of the categories themselves. In fact, the issue of whether Hau’ofa was overly romantic in his description of islander’s interconnectedness was a good example of how hard it can be to talk about differences without resorting to stereotypes or making homogenizing assumptions. Though Hau’ofa arguably uses some overly sentimental language, his essay has been cited hundreds of times and used powerfully in guiding academics studying the Pacific Islands. I think this is a good reminder that many of the subjects we’re looking at are fraught with gray areas and contradictions, and elude easy/absolute answers.
Since our last class, I’ve been thinking a lot about the Grace Lee Boggs film in conjunction with “A Critique of Ally Politics.” In the documentary, I think Grace Lee Boggs cited a quote by James Boggs: “Grace and I being ourselves is nobody. It is only in relationship to other bodies and many somebodies that anybody is somebody.” When this came up in the film, it reminded me of what M raises in the ally politics text – that our own survival/liberation is inextricably connected to the survival/liberation of others. It is imperative that the process of achieving survival/liberation is reciprocal, rather than following in the ally politics model of the more privileged group liberating the less privileged group. In our discussion, we talked about how organizing around people’s material conditions and tethering one’s identity to shared physical spaces or movements (Grace Lee Boggs and her activism in her community in Detroit as an example) as opposed to fixed ethnic/racial categories may be a viable alternative to the patronizing logic of ally politics. I also think that James Boggs’ quote is especially salient because it emphasizes the importance of relating to and with others, which also shifts the focus away from the individualization of oppression that M warns against. Because racism is historical and structural and institutional, to begin to address and challenge it requires us to move beyond just individual choices and behaviors; relationships are very much at the core of revolutionary futures and make possible mutual interdependency and reciprocity.
As someone who had very little previous knowledge regarding Pacific Islanders and their culture, I found both the Hau’ofa and Kauanui readings enlightening in their respective and disparate ways. Hau’ofa painting of the Pacific brought attention to the imagined spaces and lended us a way into thinking about perceptions regarding geography. Coupled with the imperialistic maps Dr. L showed us in class, the Pacific Ocean could be reimagined as not a vast empty blue, many a times cut in half space (although as someone who grew up in Korea, I actually was much more accustomed to maps in which the Pacific was centerstage!), but as another part of the world full of life and culture. The Kauanui writings were extremely important as well, as it showed how well intentioned but ignorant “inclusion” can inadvertently serve as a detriment to a whole group of people, who deserve recognition of their own right.
I particularly appreciated our discussion of ally politics during this class. I thought it was valuable to recognize that the idea of “ally-ship” goes beyond language, and extends into an ignorant and potentially harmful mentality. It was enlightening to see how the culture of ally politics can further reinforce oppressive power structures, and how it is more productive to work towards subverting these structures, rather than “help” a “less fortunate” group of people succeed despite their oppression. I see, too, how calling oneself an ally, especially in the context of relations between the Asian/Asian-American and Pacific Islander/Oceanic communities as we discussed, can have the effect of erasing or ignoring one’s own oppression. I know action and activism have been key themes in this class, and these conversations have personally helped me to develop my perspective on what my role is in bringing about change. Discussing ally politics has helped me realize how my mentality of being a “good ally” is misguided, and how I should instead stand in solidarity with other groups of people, so that I may work towards subverting our collective systems of oppression.
I really enjoyed discussing the differences between allyship and affinity, ones I had not particularly picked up on while reading the blog post. By considering oneself an ally, it seems to draw attention to self rather than to the structural problem or the group you are trying to help. In addition, for example, when discussing Pacific Islanders, Asian Americans may consider themselves an ally by representing them in a conference or something, but they do not truly understand their oppression, and how their problems and experiences are linked. Both groups have a stake in helping to deconstruct each other’s oppression. It’s not that one group is helping out another as a charity case. I also enjoyed looking at the map of the world and realizing how the same geography can be construed in a multitude of ways—real and imagined. The same few islands that Hau’ofa views as full of vast life, possibility, and connection are only a series of strategic military bases for the US. These same islands are only dots compared to the size of America. The territorial boundaries and borders drawn between these islands are only fictional considering the interconnected legacies of these islands before colonial influence.
Looking back at last week’s class, I was most interested in the idea of asserting identities in relation to movements, and the idea that came up in the Grace Lee Boggs film of organizing around people’s material conditions rather than the symbolic representation of racial identification. This, in turn, plays into our discussion of ally politics: a politics of allyship rather than one of solidarity relies entirely on this type of symbolic racial identity, reinforcing fixed racial categories. As M. writes in the blog post we read, ally politics, like charity, creates a power dynamic where one group is giving to another less-privileged group, rather than recognizing a collective goal and working towards it in solidarity. The result of this was a shift in focus from people’s material conditions to their racialized ability to act in the anti-oppression struggle.