Milton gordon seven stages of assimilation

Week 3

Lecture #3, Part I: The Primacy of the Assimilation Paradigm in Understanding Incorporation

In order to understand the complex history of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, I will introduce in this lecture two "incorporation paradigms" that should be read along with your readings. Consider how your readings are connected to these two ways of understanding how groups (APIs) get incorporated (or didn't get incorporated) into American society. How did "laws" play a role in allowing APIs to become a part of U.S. society? How did "laws" play a role in preventing, excluding APIs from becoming an integral part of U.S. society?

Assimilation Paradigm. I will be discussing the first of the two major and somewhat oppositional paradigms that explain incorporation paradigms. These “incorporation” paradigms explain how groups become (or not become) part of the United States (or any other host society where there is movements of populations en masse). These paradigms explain the process of how groups “become American” or “become part of a host society” (dominant group). These two paradigms are: 1) “assimilation” and 2) “internal colonialism.” First, let me begin with “Assimilation.” Assimilation is not only the paradigm that holds primacy in explaining incorporation experiences of groups into American society but it has become the dominant narrative in explaining what it means to be an American. International Colonialism (a little later on this) was popularized in the 1950’s and 1960’s as a challenge to assimilationist thinking. Have you heard the following kinds of statements? Have you or people you know made statements like these? “We are a nation of immigrants.” “We are a melting pot.” “Americans, we are all mutts! We are all mixed up!” “We are a mosaic!” “We are a salad bowl!” “That family is so Americanized!” “This is America! Speak English!” “My ancestors came here legally and the right way. I don’t agree with those who come here illegally! They should come the right way!” “My grandfather came here with nothing but the shirt on his back and 100-rubles in his pocket, took any job that he could get here in America, worked hard, long hours, and put my father through college. We now live a comfortable life!” “We all came here to live and fulfill the American dream!” “My cousin is so white-washed. He’s beige on the outside, white on the inside!” “President Obama doesn’t ‘sound Black.’ He’s pretty white-acting!” “Margaret Cho doesn’t act Asian at all! What’s up with that? She’s a banana --yellow on the outside and white on the inside!” People need to stop clinging to their cultures. We are all Americans now! These statements reflect a theoretical framework of “assimilation.” Remember: a paradigm is a theoretical framework within which interrelated ideas and concepts guide our thinking. Through socialization, lived experiences, education, ideological indoctrination (or influences), hegemony, etc. we all have come to develop (and always in the process of constantly developing, forming, reforming, etc.) our set of beliefs and understanding of the world --the framing of our thinking. ROBERT E. PARK originated the assimilationist thinking when he introduced the model of the “race relations’ cycle.” This would eventually become the foundation of Milton Gordon’s elaboration of assimilation. Park became known as one of the pioneers of the “Chicago School of Sociology” between 1915-ish and into the 1930s. I want to put forth the concept of “context.” If you recall in the film, “Race: Power of an Illusion” Dr. Evelyn Hammond (Historian of Science) stated that scientists are also products of their environment and we must understand their theories and their research within the context of their historical period. Therefore, many “scientists” based their scientific research on racism. Many of their perspectives have now been completely refuted and even dismissed altogether (i.e. such as the physical, intellectual, genetic “inferiority” and “superiority” of certain “races.” using “biology” as an explanation.) Surely, there are people who are able to step outside of their context and envision ideas & realities that are outside of their immediate experiential box, but not completely & fully. These people (like Jefferson, Einstein, etc.) are often referred to as people who are “ahead of their time.” They help to shift paradigms. Even those who are ahead of their time still have one foot in their immediate generational context (and all of the contexts cumulatively that preceded them). So the work and research of people (be they scholars, politicians, historians, sociologists, geneticists, micro-biologists, neuro-surgeons, psychiatrists, etc.) must be examined from within “context”--social, political, economic, etc. (This is when “the sociological imagination” --see your syllabus-- comes in handy.) From yesterday’s lecture, there was all of this talk about “President Obama being a global president.” He was born as the Civil Rights’ Movement was underway to international/interracial parents and grew up transnationally as the world was increasingly become globalized with more travel, technological advancements, etc. In fact, I think it was Dr. Dinesh Sharma who described President Obama as a “president of these global times.” This is neither a compliment nor an insult. This is neither an accomplishment nor a failure for the U.S. (perhaps?), but rather an interesting “sign of the times” (i.e. context!) from a historical and institutional perspective. (Obviously, individually & societally, we could argue strongly that this is an accomplishment both for President Barack Obama individually and the U.S. societally.) Now Back to contextualizing Robert E. Park’s development of the “race relations’ cycle” and “assimilation:” During the time Robert E. Park was working at the University of Chicago (and what led up to that) from about 1915 to 1930s, the U.S. was undergoing structural changes racially/ethnically. We had just gone from the 19th to the 20th century. Technological advances were being made. Industrial and economic changes were taking place. The U.S. was well on its way of becoming an “empire” or a “player in the world” --however, you want to describe it--(having acquired Hawaii, Guam, Philippines, Puerto Rico, & other territories, etc.). Though WWI was devastating and also serve (in part) to lead up to the Great Depression domestically, we ended up on the “winning side” as part of the “Allied Forces.” The Civil War had ended slavery and we were on our way to re-instituting a form of enforced racial inequality through Jim Crow Segregation in the South. Blacks were moving to the Northern, Midwestern, and Western states in large numbers. Immigrants from Southeastern Europe (no longer Northwestern Europe) who were perceived as “not Anglo/Anglicized” and “not Protestant-Christian” were arriving in the U.S. Massive changes were taking place socially and economically. Urban centers were becoming multiracial/multiethnic with European immigrant and Black enclaves (these enclaves were also called, “ghettos” for Europeans as well. There were conflicts, tensions, and riots. Some of the debates we hear today about “the browning of America” and “America just isn’t the same anymore” and “Immigrants are taking over.” or “Immigrants --legal/illegal-- are taking our jobs!” were all said at the last turn of the century as well (1899-1900). The discourse has changed a little but as we’ve entered the 21st century, we still hear the same kind of debates. (The more things have changed, the more they seemed not have changed much!) :-) or :-( . . . It was under this historical context that those like Robert E. Park and the sociologists at the CHICAGO SCHOOL were seeing urban centers such as Chicago as a “multiracial/multiethnic social laboratory” (it’s kind of like how Los Angeles is seen today)! There was growing interethnic tension, heightening racialized violence, nativism, scapegoating of immigrants, economic rivalry, etc. that seemed to be intensifying --a goldmine of “race relations” research grounds for social scientists, as you can imagine. (As a sociologist and lay-historian, I have come to wonder, was there *ever* a time in U.S. history that there wasn’t a “goldmine” of interethnic tension, heightening racialized violence, nativism, scapegoating of immigrants, economic rivalry, multiethnic growth, and on and on and on. We seem to be in a constant state of these dynamic forces struggling --for good or for ill!) In fact, the term “melting pot” was coined by a playwright by the name of “Israel Zangwill” who was trying to convey that this “diversity” of America’s people (those new immigrants coming from new lands, mainly Southeastern Europe) was a strength and an asset! During this period, Robert E. Park developed what he termed, “The Race Relations’ Cycle.” He argued that there were four stages of race relations: 1) contact; 2) conflict; 3) accommodation; and then 4) eventual assimilation. Prior to his tenure at the University of Chicago, he had worked closely with Booker T. Washington at the Tuskegee Institute. It is here that he developed an interest in “race,” specifically black-white racial relations. Let me apply Park’s Race Relations’ Cycle to Native Americans as a simple example (you can apply it to any groups of people trying to incorporate into an established society but using their specific experiences & struggles). Native Americans (or American Indians) live in what Europeans termed, “The New World.” Europeans arrive in “the New World” and come into *contact* with the indigenous population. (Either shortly before or shortly after the “first Thanksgiving”, there is *conflict* --mostly around land & resource acquisition for Europeans. There are misunderstandings, struggles for resources, slaughters, and wars for generations which signifies the *conflict* stage. Then, eventually there is a form of *accommodation* (an example of this might be “forced assimilation” of Native Americans by sending their children to Christian boarding schools, forbidding them to speak or practice their native languages & cultures OR by placing them into “reservations” and calling this their “nation status.” Native Americans have therefore become “accommodated.”) Finally, after a while, Native Americans (or American Indians) have left their reservations, come to identify as “American,” carry a U.S. passport, and “Voila!” (Wah-La!) Native Americans/American Indians have become assimilated Americans (according to this paradigm)! MILTON GORDON took Robert E. Park’s work in the 1960’s and developed it. He argued that there seven key stages of assimilation: 1) cultural (this stage is sometimes called, “acculturation” is when the incoming group [B] adopts the culture (go back to the definition of culture) of the host society or dominant group [A];

2) structural (this stage is usually when the incoming group [B] is allowed in , makes its way in, or integrates into the social organizations, churches, cliques, clubs, and institutions of the host society/dominant group [A];

3) marital (this stage is when groups marry each other (in large numbers with propensity) without being seen as an “inter-marriage” but just a marriage.

4) identificational (this stage is when [B] the incoming group or the subordinated status group feels a bond and identifies with the host society/dominant group, “I am American, not German or German-American!” not just in declaration but also in practice. [A]).

5) attitudinal (reception); (this stage occurs when [B] the incoming/minority-status group no longer experiences large-scale prejudice from the host society [A])

6) behavioral (reception)(this stage occurs when [B] the incoming/minority-status group no longer experiences large-scale discrimination from the host society [A]) &

7) civic (this stage occurs when [B] the incoming/minority-status group [B] no longer has a different “status” (power, access to resources/institutions, struggles) with the host society/dominant group [A]. When civic assimilation is achieved, it means that the hyphen in one’s American-ness ceases to exist: I am not British-American; I am “just American” without any qualifier (not “Something-American”)! Did you notice in the last presidential election in 2016 (Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump) how the term, “American” was being used? How does President Trump utilize the term, “American?” What does “making America great again” mean to President Donald Trump and his supporters? Do you see or hear any layers of racialized meanings, innuendos, and contexts? Much of the research suggests that most Northwestern Europeans have achieved all 7 stages of assimilation and therefore, we don’t hyphenate their “American-ness” anymore. We don’t assume British-Americans or Irish-Americans or German-Americans to be “illegally” here or even assume they speak English with an accent by just eye-balling their phenotype, for example. Several years ago, a woman (UCLA student) named, “Kendra Wallace,” also known as “UCLA Girl,” made a video titled, “Asians in the Library,” which created a huge discussion on the media images and perceptions of Asians and Asian Americans on college campuses. She characterized “Asians” as cliquish, loud, un-American. She received a huge backlash, but even as people slammed her, the images and representations continued to portray “Asians” as “perpetually foreign” and “taking over our college campuses, libraries and dorms.”

http://iamkoream.com/december-issue-angry-asian-mans-angriest-stories-of-2011/ http://blog.angryasianman.com/2011/12/chik-fil-cashier-names-customers-ching.html http://blog.angryasianman.com/2011/12/this-years-angriest-posts.html We still consider some “whites” to be “ethnic whites” (Southeastern Europeans or non-Christian-Protestant Europeans), such as Italian-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Greek-Americans still not fully achieve Park’s and Gordon’s “full & complete one-ness” (or assimilation) with originally "White Anglo Saxon Protestants" and moreover "Northwestern European" (who have come to be racialized as “white” and identified as simply “American.”) If you watch “Jersey Shore” or “Godfather” or “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” and so on, there’s a sense of “ethnic identity” separate from the dominant culture (formerly WASP, but now “AMERICAN”) being portrayed & identified with. Gordon also introduced the three types of assimilation: * Anglo-Conformity: A+B = A (forced, coerced, pressured to adopt dominant Anglo culture, change one’s name to be more “Anglicized,” etc. In order to assimilate, one must erase their culture, shed away their ethnicity and become “American.”) * Amalgamation (Melting Pot): A+B = C (the dominant group and the incoming group both transform each other. “Being American” is no longer like being British/Anglo/Protestant. Incoming groups have also changed, influenced and transformed what it means to be “an American.” Just listen to the way Americans speak English, as a very simple example. It’s not what was brought over by the Pilgrims any longer. “Thanksgiving” as we practice it is specific to the U.S. but it incorporates many ethnicities/cultures or the example of New Year’s we all shared!). * Cultural Pluralism (Salad Bowl): A+B = AB (this is when incoming groups form their own communities and maintain their own institutions theoretically *alongside* the dominant group. In reality, they become ethnic enclaves & ghettos confined to their communities such as Chinatowns, Little Saigons, Pico-Union Area, urban Black centers, Thai Towns, Mexican American communities, and other communities with varying degrees of confinement, coerced segregation, & self-segregation. Notice how middle class, suburban communities are not seen as “ethnic enclaves” or “ghettos.” Why not?). The “A” is represented by the “host society” “the dominant group” or the “core group” which was originally “White Anglo Saxon Protestants.” The “A” has expanded to include mostly Northwestern Europeans and even many/most Southeastern groups are in the process of “becoming white” and “being accepted as white.” (There is a socioeconomic status/class dimension to the assimilation paradigm. The assumption is “as we become American, we move up in social class status --usually to “middle class.”) The “B” represents the “immigrating or in-coming group.” (When “B” enters the host society of the dominant group “A,” there is contact. Then, there is conflict. Afterward, accommodation is made and finally, assimilation is or will be achieved.). http://www.reference.com/browse/Milton+Gordon+%28sociologist%29 Some random person’s little explanation on Gordon’s assimilation (nice summary): http://amomenttoolate.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/1-on-milton-m-gordon’s-assimilation-in-american-life/ The Source: http://www.biblio.com/milton-m-gordon/assimilation-in-american~36488670~title Gordon argued that in order to become fully “one” with the dominant group, all 7 stages needed to be eventually be achieved. Let’s take “marital assimilation” for example. In order for marital assimilation to take place, the two groups’ marrying must cease to be understood and referred to as “inter-” married. When a British American and a French American marry, they are a married couple. However, when black Kenyan marries an Irish American (from Kansas), it is an “inter-marriage.” (See President Obama’s “race” speech from March, 2008 & yesterday’s lecture/December 30th’s Discussion Post). Obama puts forth an assimilationist view by arguing that only in America is a story like his possible. He actually states that we are people from all over the world. “Out of many, One!” which of course, Bonilla-Silva is highly critical of, see chapter 8) Although Obama’s union is viewed as “interracial” or a form of “inter-marriage,” in his speech overall as well as when he talks about his parents’ union, he is trying to argue an assimilationist viewpoint (marital assimilation). American society (--though seemingly moving in that direction--), seems yet to embrace the marital assimilation of black-white marriages (and most/some --that’s up for debate-- the marital assimilation of nonwhite-white marriages. The following are some interesting work on the social construction of “whiteness.”

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/How-Jews-Became-White-Folks/Karen-Brodkin/e/9780813525907 http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/white13.htm http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-0415934516-1 Gordon argues that eventually people of color “those defined as non-whites” socially, legally, economically, identificationally, etc. (mainly, those who were racialized as “black,” “Asian,” “Native American” and to some extent, “Latinos/Hispanics”) too will become “one” (assimilate) with WASPs and become “American.” One note: Mexicans were racially/legallyl classified as “white” until the mid-1970s but were not always treated as “whites” socially. South Asian Indians were anthropologically (pseudo-scientifically) classified as “Caucasian” but legally treated in the U.S. as “nonwhite.” There are several legal cases (one being the Thind case), in which a South Asian man took his case to the Supreme Court to become a U.S. citizen. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5076 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Asians were legally classified and were not eligible to become naturalized citizens until 1954 (McCarren-Walters’ Act). The two well-known challenges were the Ozawa Case and the Thind Case in the 1920s. Both were denied citizenship on the basis of “race.” The 1790 Naturalization Act only allowed “whites” and then “blacks” to become naturalized citizens. http://www.scribd.com/doc/60126272/Takao-Ozawa-1922-and-Bhagat-Singh-Thind-1923 Of course, many race relations’ scholars disagree, citing the laws that defined, excluded, included, etc. “citizenship” based on “racial classifications.” --very inconsistent racial definitions (the point being that these classifications were inconsistent because “race” really doesn’t exist.) http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/White05.htm

Here are some underlying assumptions of the Assimilation paradigm: We all come from somewhere else. We all came here voluntarily. We all started out at the bottom. As we shed our cultural ways (our ethnicity) and adopt the ways of dominant American culture (language, clothes, values, ideas, behaviors, ideology, etc.), we become “American.”

052716-podcast.jpg

Lecture #3, Part II: Internal Colonialism as a Challenge to the Assimilation Paradigm

Lecture, Part II: Internal Colonialism In the 1960s & 1970s the theoretical paradigm “internal colonialism” gained a following. It was also a response to the dominance of the “assimilation” paradigm developed by Robert E. Park and advanced, developed by Milton Gordon. Those like Historian Ronald Takaki, Sociologist Mario Barrera, Sociologist Robert Blauner, etc. all challenged assimilationist perspectives and provided an alternative incorporation analysis. It borrows from “classical colonialism” in which there is a core country (i.e. the mother country or the imperialist/colonial power) and its periphery (i.e. colonies). Ronald Takaki pointed out that while “assimilationists” referred to “incoming groups” [B] as “immigrants, it’s important to distinguished between “immigrants” who are “voluntary migrants” and “colonial subjects” who are moving from the periphery (i.e. the colony) to the “core society” [A] usually under force, coercion or subjugation. So while most Europeans left (even under pressure or persecution) their countries to come to the U.S., those like Takaki, Blauner, and Barrera would argue, with some “choice.” They voluntarilyentered the U.S. Whereas, Native Americans/American Indians and Native Hawaiians, were “arrived upon.” For Mexicans/Chicanos the border crossed them. They did not initially cross the border to come to the U.S. For African Americans, they were brought forcibly to the colonies with chains against their will. Asians are in a peculiar situation, Takaki would argue. They aren’t quite “forced” but they aren’t voluntary immigrants in the way most (not all) Europeans were, except for Southeast Asians such as Pilipinos, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, and the Hmong People. Just as Irish escaping British colonialism or Koreans fleeing Japanese colonialism put them in a slightly different position because of their “subjugated status.” Pilipinos are an example of a people who also went from being externally to internally colonized because the Philippines was U.S. territory from 1898 to 1934 (Tydings-McDuffy Act) or 1945 (after WWII) [or even into the 1980s], depending upon how you want to argue the colonization process (legally, militarily, politically, economically, etc.) Ideology plays a role because “colonial subjects” experience oppression (often “racialized oppression”) in which their language, culture religious practices, and access to resources are stripped and denied and thus their humanity questioned (subjected to the dehumanization process). See Bonilla-Silva's definition of "ideology" from the textbook. The socio-political relationship the colonizer and the colonized is one of tremendous inequality. Internal colonial theorists would argue that this makes the migration, entry, incorporation (or lack thereof), exclusion and subjugation qualitatively distinguish “colonial subjects” (i.e. those who came to be defined as “nonwhite” in the world) and “immigrants” (i.e. mostly Europeans groups) to the United States (or what would become the United States). No European immigrant group, --though they undeniably faced tremendous hardships and discrimination--, was ever denied naturalization rights and land ownership rights in the way Asians were or subjected to anti-miscegenation laws (prevented them from marrying other “whites” even when the Irish were defined as “not white.”) in the way Blacks, Asians, Native Americans and mixed-race people of African, Asian & Native American ancestries (who were defined as “non-white”) were, etc. These are examples of how “racial oppression” and “racial exclusion” become part of the ideological justification for colonization “people” who were viewed and racialized as “sub-” or “non-” human and therefore their cultural/religious practices banned. (Below, there is a clip from Haunani-Kay Trask discussing the role of Christianity in destroying Native Hawaiian way of life, regarding "Father Lehua.") Why “internal” colonialism, not just colonialism? “Classic colonialism” or “colonialism” is when the resources and colonial subjects are exploited between “the core” (colonizers in the core country) and the periphery (the colonies and the colonized people). Examples of this would be Spain and its territories that included what would eventually become the nation-states of Mexico, Cuba, El Salvador Guatemala, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Peru, Chile, Ecuador, etc. or Britain and its colonies that included parts of what would become nation-states of Canada, U.S., Belize, Jamaica, etc. The core or mother countries exploited the resources (human, social, cultural capital) of the colonies or “the periphery” for the wealth, development, profit, etc. of the colonizer. Internal colonialism is when the exploitation and subjugation take place within the borders of the colonizers’ national, territorial borders. An internal colonialism theorist would argue, for example that, Hawai’i (and even the continental U.S. from a Native perspective) went from being an external colony to communities of internalized colonies (i.e. Native Hawaiians and Native Americans are “internally colonized peoples). The example of the reservations is referred to by sociologist Matthew Snipp as “captive nations.” He argues that Native Americans are a “ward of the state” (like a prisoner of the U.S.) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1536-7150.1986.tb01915.x/abstract . Haunani-Kay Trask, a Native Hawaiian nationalist and supporter of the Sovereignty Movement, and her sister, attorney/activist, Mililani Trask, actually argues that Native Hawaiians, even as a “ward of the state” is better off than Native Hawaiians who don’t have their own “nation.” Professor Haunani-Kay Trask (on the role of missionaries in the colonization of Native Hawaiians): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtrdmkXsY9g Hawai’i: Multiethnic Paradise (the “best of Obama”) versus An Internal Colony? (Different Perspectives on Hawaiian History): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nqDkCzwXeY&feature=related Historian David Stannard on the "American Holocaust:" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qra6pcn4AOE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPKH_94jix4&feature=related The CSUN library has a video called, “bell hooks: cultural criticism and transformation.” In her analysis, hooks (she doesn’t capitalize her name) argues that hip hop/rap/black culture is like an internal colony. She explains: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtoanes_L_g&feature=related The Chicano concept of “Aztlan” (a mythical homeland of the indigenous peoples --the Nahua people-- of the areas of what is now U.S./Mexico) acknowledges the “occupation of Mexico” (or even the occupation of the indigenous peoples of this region before “Mexico--former Spanish colony” became a nation-state. CSUN Professor Rudy Acuña describes California and the southwest as “Occupied America.”

QUESTIONS FOR THE CLASS TO CONSIDER: The use of the terms “Chicano” versus “Mexican-American” imply different perspectives. Which term evokes assimilationist perspectives? Which one evoke internal colonial perspectives? How about “colored,” “negro,” “black” versus “African American?” What about “Oriental” versus “Asian American” versus “Asian Pacific Islander?” “Native” versus “Hawaiian?” How about “LA Riots” versus “LA Rebellion?” Can you tell? (What do you mean when you select specfic terms? Have you thought about what your choice of words conveys?) Words and terms have layers of social meaning, historical contexts, and political orientation. It’s not a matter of just being “politically correct” or “politically incorrect.” It’s about conveying a worldview and theoretical framework, whether you were aware of it or not. . . Professor Acuña on his “banned book” and Chicano/Mexican American contributions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJKOzA3TAvs The following article by Peter Bohmer is a great summary of the paradigm “Internal Colonialism” and applies this framework to Latinos and African Americans: http://academic.evergreen.edu/b/bohmerp/internalcolony.htm MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE CLASS TO PONDER: Comparing the two paradigms, "assimilation," and “internal colonialsm” can you use the arguments of “internal colonialism” to challenge the underlying assumptions of assimiliation? What is the “internal colonalism” paradigm rebuttal to these underlying assumptions of assimiliation? Which model "assimilation" or "internal colonialism" best describe Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders? Would you, for example, apply the paradigms differently for Pilipinos? Native Hawaiians? Samoans? Taiwanese-Americans? Korean Americans? Chinese Americans Pakistani-Americans? South Asian Indian-Americans? Other References for further readings/viewing: http://science.jrank.org/pages/7790/Internal-Colonialism.html http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/1566_reg_print.html http://www.justanswer.com/homework/027n0-blauner-s-hypothesis-need-college-assignment.html http://usslave.blogspot.com/2011/06/ron-takaki.html http://www.garyokihiro.com/uploads/okihiro_1988.pdf http://gwtoledo.blogspot.com/2007/11/race-and-class-in-southwest-mario.html http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f18/how-america-became-christian-genocide-7076/ http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2246http://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/12631.html http://philcsc.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/asian-american-studies-a-critique/ (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.