"Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of America" and "Asian American Panethnicity: Contemporary National and Transnational Possibilities" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 66-87)

Though these two passages were within the same section of Rosenblum and Travis' (2012) The Meaning of Difference, the experiences of those involved were/are incredibly different.

Those of Native American ancestry, also described as "Indian" have had to and continue to have such complex challenges with claiming, explaining, and justifying their background. An interesting piece to this passage was a comparison of the differences for one to claim themselves as Native American versus African American. "The logic that underlies the biological definition of racial identity becomes even more curious and complicated when one considers the striking difference in the way that American definitions assign individuals to the racial category of "Indian," as opposed to the racial category "black" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 70). The passage continues to read, "Although people must have only the slightest trace of "black blood" to be forced into the category of "African American," modern American Indians must (1) formally produce (2) strong evidence of (3) often rather substantial amounts of "Indian blood" to be allowed entry into the corresponding racial category (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 70).

Based on the complete reading of that passage, I wonder if the above is true because one has more to gain when they are of an American Indian tribe, because the United States owes a debt to that group for past atrocities. Of course, that can be said of the African American groups as well, but this is the question I am posing: Does the U.S. feel more indebted to American Indians versus other groups that it has previously/currently mistreats?

It is interesting that in the second passage another look into ethnicity really supports the idea that race is a social construct, and because of this, it is constantly evolving. It was interesting to read, though not surprising, that those U.S. citizens that have ties to various Asian countries are really much more than Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. "Arriving to the United States, nineteenth-century immigrants from Asian countries did not think of themselves as "Asians"....Asian immigrant groups did not even think of themselves as Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and so forth, but rather people from Toishan, Hoiping..." (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 76).

Though the generalization of people as Asians was novel then, it is actually being used as a way for some people to join in solidarity in more recent history. This was/is possible because as new generations grew up speaking English, people of various backgrounds could easily communicate. The idea of Pan-Asianism brings up a thought: Is it ideal for anyone to create a Pan-group, does it not create an us and them culture, or on the flip side, does it promote support among various people which aids in their abilities to navigate the world?

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.