The Brown Asian American Movement: Advocating for South Asian, Southeast Asian, and Filipino American Communities

Abstract

Throughout the history of Asian Americans in the United States, the experiences of Brown Asians (e.g., South Asian, Filipino, and Southeast Asian Americans) have been ignored or overlooked. The current paper examines the history of the Brown Asian American Movement, as well as contemporary issues affecting Brown Asian Americans within the Asian American umbrella. Policy recommendations for inclusivity and coalition building are discussed.

Full text

2 | Asian Americ an Policy Review, Volume 29 Nadal | 3
THE BROWN ASIAN AMERICAN
MOVEMENT: ADVOCATING FOR SOUTH
ASIAN, SOUTHEAST ASIAN, AND
FILIPINO AMERICAN COMMUNITIES
Kevin L. Nadal
While the Civil Rights Movement of the
mid-1950s and early 1960s made great
strides toward racial equity in the United
States, it focused primarily on issues aect-
ing Black Americans. Black activists and
leaders like Rosa Parks, James Baldwin, and
Martin Luther King Jr. advocated against
numerous inequities that were detrimental
to Black people and communities, includ-
ing, but not limited to, segregation, hate
crimes, and police brutality. Shortly follow-
ing, the Black Power Movement emerged,
emphasizing cultural integrity and pride,
self-acceptance, and the celebration of his-
torical attainments and contributions of
Black people.1 In the 1960s and 1970s, the
Chicano Movement formalized, highlight-
ing injustices aecting Mexican American
people.2 Community organizers from the
United Farmworkers like Cesar Chavez
and Dolores Huerta became nationally
known, as they led one of the most success-
ful labor strikes in American history. Terms
like “La Raza” and “Brown Power” were
introduced with the aim of uniting people
of Latinx origin (e.g., Central Americans,
South Americans, Caribbean Americans,
etc.) and encouraging them to reclaim a
pride in their ethnic identities.3
In the late 1960s, Chinese American,
Japanese American, and Filipino American
activists and community leaders (mostly
college students) began to form coalitions
to advocate for the civil rights and visibil-
ity of Asian Americans.4,5 As the most pop-
ulous Asian ethnic groups in the United
States at the time, these leaders believed
that building bridges between their various
Asian ethnic groups would result in a stron-
ger united voice and, thus, more political
capital. The term “Asian American” was
created as a way of combatting previous
oensive labels like “Oriental” or “Mon-
goloid,” and the Asian American Move-
ment formed with the mission of building a
united front among Asian American ethnic
groups.6
In response to the Black Power Move-
ment and the Brown Power Movement, the
Asian American Movement was sometimes
referred to as the Yellow Power Movement.
For instance, activist Amy Uyematsu (1971)
stated that the movement sought “freedom
from racial oppression through the power
of a consolidated yellow people.”7 At the
time, many Filipino Americans vocally
protested the terminology, as they did not
identify with the term “yellow” and instead
identied as “brown.”8 Even as other
Asian Americans with darker skin (e.g.,
Asian Indians, Vietnamese Americans)
began to immigrate to the United States
in larger numbers, the usage of “Yellow
Power” continued. Whether intentional
or not, such terminology set the tone for
East Asian Americans (especially Chinese
and Japanese Americans) to be centered as
the dominant voice in the Asian American
movement and later in Asian American
studies.9,10,11
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Since the inception of the Asian Ameri-
can Movement, Filipino Americans, South
Asian Americans, and Southeast Asian
Americans have consistently vocalized
feelings of marginalization and exclu-
sion within the pan-ethnic group. Filipino
Americans have described discrimination
from other Asian Americans, including
being told they are “not Asian enough,”
being stereotyped as inferior or uncivi-
lized, or being completely overlooked or
excluded altogether.12,13 South Asian Amer-
icans have shared how they are excluded
from the Asian American umbrella because
of their cultural, religious, and racial/phe-
notypic dierences, resulting in lack of
representation in Asian American studies,
narratives, and media representations.14,15
Southeast Asian Americans have reported
feeling like “other Asians” and being ste-
reotyped as being inferior to East Asian
Americans.16,17,18 Individuals from these
three subgroups describe a common nar-
rative that “Asian” usually refers to East
Asians, resulting in feelings of marginaliza-
tion and invisibility
within the Asian
American umbrella.
In order for
Asian Americans to
further advance as a
political voice in the
United States, it is imperative to address
historical hierarchies, community dynam-
ics, and inter-ethnic conicts. Further, in
order for Asian Americans of all ethnic
groups to feel invested in advocating for
a pan-Asian umbrella group, they must all
feel included and must believe that their
best interests are acknowledged. Thus,
the purpose of this commentary is two-
fold. First, I will describe the history of the
“Brown Asian American Movement” as a
way of contextualizing historical power
dynamics that have been pervasive in
Asian American communities since the
1960s. Second, I will provide recommen-
dations for how current Asian American
leaders, activists, and policy makers can be
mindful of ways that colorism and privi-
lege impacts invisibility and community
dynamics. In doing so, I hope community
leaders and members continue the conver-
sations that began many decades ago but
that have generally gone unaddressed or
ignored on a national level.
THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF
BROWN ASIANS
In order to understand the term “Brown
Asian American,” one must rst recognize
how the term “Asian American” came to be
and whom it had historically included. As
aforementioned, the term rst described
the largest Asian ethnic groups at the incep-
tion of the Asian American Movement in
the 1960s, including Chinese, Japanese, and
Filipino Americans. These groups are also
credited as being the rst Asian Americans
in the United States, with Filipinos rst
landing in 1587 and the Chinese and Jap-
anese rst arriving as laborers in the 1840s.
Despite this, the
term “Asian Ameri-
can” did not initially
include Asian Indian
Americans, who had
rst migrated to the
United States in the
late 1800s. Despite
India being located in Asia, the US Census
initially categorized Asian Indians as “Cau-
casian,” with a primary reason being that
they were not considered a “discriminated
minority group.”19 To ght against this, the
Association of Indians in America organized
in the late 1960s and lobbied that Indian
Americans be labeled as Asian Americans.
By the 1980 Census, the term “Asian Indian”
was created, and Asian Indians were iden-
tied as a minority group under the Asian
umbrella. By 2000, the Asian category was
expanded to include Pakistani, Bangladeshi,
Sri Lankan, and Nepalese Americans, and
the term “South Asian” became popularized
as an umbrella term for these ethnic groups.20
Further adding to, and complicating,
the Asian category was the emergence
of Southeast Asian Americans (e.g.,
“Individuals from these three subgroups
describe a common narrative that ‘Asian’
usually refers to East Asians, resulting in
feelings of marginalization and invisibility
within the Asian American umbrella.”

4 | Asian Americ an Policy Review, Volume 29
occurred with other Southeast Asian ethnic
groups in other parts of the country, includ-
ing Hmong Americans in the Midwest who
had fought for more representation and
inclusion in their Asian American Studies
departments too.31
Through the years, South Asian,
Southeast Asian, and Filipino Americans
have been vocal within, and toward, the
Association for Asian American Studies
(AAAS), the primary national organiza-
tion for Asian American studies, for their
centering of East Asian American perspec-
tives and their bias of, and discrimination
toward, other Asian American groups. For
instance, in analyzing AAAS conferences,
scholar Peter Kiang noted that from 1995
to 2000, only 4.35 percent of a total of 2,162
presenters were Vietnamese, Cambodian,
Lao, or Hmong (in comparison to 50 per-
cent of presenters who were Chinese or
Japanese).32 Further, in 1998, the Filipino
American caucus of AAAS protested the
organization when the AAAS awarded
a major literary award to a Japanese Amer-
ican author whose novel depicted Filipino
Americans in racially oensive and stereo-
typical ways.33
Many Brown Asian Americans have
been particularly vocal about the need for
data disaggregation, as a way of under-
standing the unique needs of their ethnic
communities and combatting false notions
of a homogenous model minority. In 1988,
Filipino American lobbyists advocated for
California Senate Bill 1813, which required
all California state personnel surveys or
statistical tabulations to classify persons of
Filipino ancestry as “Filipino” rather than
as Asian, Pacic Islander, or Hispanic.34
Because of this state law, Filipino Ameri-
cans in California have since always been
disaggregated from government data,
allowing for policy makers and community
leaders to be aware of specic issues aect-
ing the group. Decades later, similar eorts
transpired for Hmong American commu-
nity leaders in Wisconsin who formed an
educational advocacy group to lobby for
increased services for Hmong American
students.35
There is some documentation of how
ethnic-specic college organizations navi-
gate whether or not to work with or within
pan-ethnic organizations, due to lack of
representation or resources for their con-
stituents. For instance, in the 1990s, lead-
ers of South Asian American organizations
at numerous Ivy League institutions (e.g.,
Brown, Harvard, and Penn) described the
tension in working collaboratively with
their campus pan-ethnic Asian American
organizations or intentionally seeking
their own independent voice as a South
Asian community.36 In 1999, Kababayan,
a Filipino American organization at the
University of California, Irvine, seceded
from the Asian Pacic Student Association
(APSA), which was one of the umbrella
groups under the Cross-Cultural Center.
They formed their own umbrella organi-
zation Alyansa ng mga Kababayan due
to the lack of resources and support they
received from APSA as well as their need
to be viewed as a disaggregated group
from Asian Americans. As an umbrella
group, they received more funding and
more advocacy opportunities for specic
Filipino American issues at the university.
Similar to the earlier Brown Asian Cau-
cuses at the inception of the Asian Amer-
ican Movement, many ethnic-specic
interest groups have formed within larger
pan-ethnic professional organizations. For
example, within the Asian American Psy-
chological Association (AAPA), several
divisions were created as a way of uniting
and uplifting certain subgroups that had
been historically overlooked since the orga-
nization’s founding in 1972. The Division
on South Asian Americans (DoSAA) was
established in 2007, and the Division on Fil-
ipino Americans (DoFA) was established in
2010. While both organizations remain part
of the AAPA, there are some indications of
the struggle of Brown Asians within the
Vietnamese, Cambodian, Lao, and Hmong
Americans) who migrated to the United
States in the mid-1970s, mostly as refugees
escaping war and violence. Because of the
circumstances for their migration to the
United States, Southeast Asian Americans’
lower socioeconomic statuses and educa-
tional attainment countered the model-mi-
nority stereotypes that had been created
about the existing Asian American groups
at the time.21 As a result, Southeast Asian
Americans had straddled between posi-
tive, yet pressured, stereotypes (e.g., being
expected to do well in school) to negative,
harmful stereotypes like being viewed as
a gangster or a delinquent.22
The rst documented usage of the term
“Brown Asian” is from the early 1970s,
when Brown Asian caucuses formed at var-
ious Asian American national and regional
conferences. For example, a Brown Asian
Caucus emerged at the inaugural National
Conference on Asian American Men-
tal Health in 1972, where Filipinos were
joined by Pacic Islanders (i.e., Native
Hawaiians, Samoans, and Chamorros)
who also felt marginalized as part of the
Asian American/ Pacic Islander (AAPI)
umbrella group.23 One of the conicts for
Filipino Americans and Pacic Islanders
at this time was that they recognized that
the benet of building coalitions with
other Asian Americans was the strength in
numbers; however, they also learned that
such coalitions may not actually benet
their best interests.24 Despite this, Filipino
Americans and Pacic Islanders who were
involved in the earlier parts of the Asian
American Movement continued to partic-
ipate in pan-ethnic community organizing
and advocacy, in hopes that the needs of
their ethnic group would eventually be
addressed.
Since then, Filipino, South Asian, and
Southeast Asian Americans have spoken
against feelings of invisibility or marginal-
ization within the general Asian American
community in myriad ways. For example,
when Asian American Studies was rst
established in the late 1960s, course content
across programs often centered experiences
of Chinese and Japanese Americans, with
few publications and classes that examined
other subgroups’ histories or experiences.
Author Fred Cordova described Filipinos
as “Forgotten Asian Americans,” citing
how Asian American Studies had tradition-
ally excluded narratives of Filipino Amer-
icans,25 while Filipina American scholar
Dawn Bohulano Mabalon discussed how
previous descriptions of Filipino Amer-
icans by early Asian American studies
scholars had been inaccurate, misrepresen-
tative, or altogether false.26
In the late 1980s, South Asian American
student groups formed on college cam-
puses, with the intention of combating
religious bigotry aecting their communi-
ties while also challenging the exclusion of
South Asians within pan-ethnic organiza-
tions and Asian American studies depart-
ments.27 In their seminal text A Part, Yet
Apart: South Asians in Asian America, schol-
ars Lavina Dhingra Shankar and Rajini
Srikanth highlighted how the term “Asian
American” was not initially intended to
include Asian Americans who were not
East Asian and how South Asian Ameri-
cans had continuously been excluded from
Asian American studies.28
Similarly, as Southeast Asian Amer-
ican student populations increased on
campuses in the 1990s, so did advocacy
eorts for inclusion within Asian Ameri-
can studies. For example, at San Francisco
State University (where ethnic studies and
Asian American studies were founded),
the Asian American Studies department
only oered one Southeast Asian Amer-
ican course from 1989 to 1996.29 Students
critiqued that the course was not enough,
eventually pressuring the department
to advocate for more Southeast Asian
American courses and faculty as well as
the founding of the Vietnamese American
Studies Center in 1996.30 Similar eorts
Nadal | 5

6 | Asian Americ an Policy Review, Volume 29
Hollywood studio. One of the diculties
with this last expectation was that there
were movies from major Hollywood stu-
dios that had featured South Asian Amer-
icans (e.g., The Namesake) or those from
the South Asian Diaspora (e.g., Slumdog
Millionaire, Lion). These lms were hardly
labeled as “Asian” or “Asian American”
lms (as they did not star East Asian Amer-
icans), and there was hardly an expectation
for the entire Asian American community
to fully endorse or relate to these lms.
A similar pattern occurred in television
with Fresh o the Boat in 2015. Touted as the
second Asian American sitcom to appear
on mainstream television since Margaret
Cho’s All-American Girl, many individu-
als have overlooked that there have been
numerous shows like Master of None and
The Mindy Project, which featured South
Asian lead characters (and their families).
The presumptions of a homogenous
Asian American community regarding
academic achievement is prevalent with
the recent lawsuit against Harvard Uni-
versity challenging armative action. Led
mostly by Chinese Americans (under the
direction of White American legal strat-
egist Edward Blum), the plaintis allege
that “Asian Americans” are being discrim-
inated against in university admissions
because of their race. When the mainstream
media reports on the case, they incorrectly
generalize that all Asian Americans are in
favor of the lawsuit; for example, a TIME
headline reads “A Lawsuit by Asian-Amer-
ican Students Against Harvard Could End
Armative Action as We Know It”.41 Such
generalizations fail to recognize that a
majority of Asian Americans believe in
armative action42 and that many Asian
Americans (particularly Southeast Asian
Americans and Filipino Americans) benet
from armative action too.43,44,45
Finally, experiences of overt discrimina-
tion and hate crimes toward Asian Ameri-
cans tend to only concern the general Asian
American community if they occur against
East Asian Americans. For example, when
hate crimes are historically discussed in
relation to Asian Americans, the case of Vin-
cent Chin is most often referenced. Despite
this, there are many historical and contem-
porary instances of Brown Asian Ameri-
cans who had also been targeted by hate
and subsequently murdered but who often
are excluded in the discourse. For exam-
ple, during the 1930 Watsonville Riots, in
which Filipino Americans were violently
assaulted by White mobs who believed Fil-
ipinos to be stealing their jobs and women,
a Filipino American man Fermin Tobera
was murdered. In 1999, Joseph Ileto, a Fili-
pino American postal worker in California
was killed by a White terrorist after he ter-
rorized a synagogue. In 2012, the shootings
at a Wisconsin Sikh temple resulted in the
deaths of six South Asian Americans. And
in 2017, Srinivas Kuchibhotla was killed by
a White gunman who yelled “Get out of my
country” while shooting him.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
INCLUSIVITY AND COALITION
BUILDING
Given all of these factors, I end this com-
mentary by providing several recommen-
dations for how current Asian American
community leaders can be more mindful
and inclusive of issues related to Brown
Asian Americans. Not meant to be a com-
plete list of recommendations, it is hoped
that these ideas can be a starting point for
continual dialogues and reections.
1. ENCOURAGE MEANINGFUL
DIVERSITY IN PAN-ETHNIC
LEADERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION
Some pan-ethnic organizations ensure
that there are community liaisons or rep-
resentatives for each major community
or subgroups, in order to guarantee that
people’s voices are always being heard.
Others are mindful of representation when
they encourage their members to run for
leadership positions (i.e., intentionally
organization, including that there have not
been any South Asian or Southeast Asian
American presidents in the 45-year his-
tory of the organization. It is important to
note that while caucuses of Brown Asian
ethnic groups tend to emerge within these
pan-ethnic organizations, East Asian cau-
cuses tend not to form. One hypothesis for
this trend is that East Asian Americans may
generally feel empowered or supported by
their overall organization and therefore
do not need a separate support group—a
sentiment that may be similar to how
White Americans may feel generally sup-
ported in White-dominated professional
organizations.
Across the country, other ethnic-spe-
cic organizations were formed as a way
of ensuring that the needs of historically
marginalized Asian American ethnic
groups were addressed. For instance, the
Southeast Asian Resource Action Center
(SEARAC) was formed in 1979 and con-
tinues to be the only national civil rights
organization devoted to uplifting Cambo-
dian, Laotian, and Vietnamese American
communities. In 1982, historian and activ-
ist Dorothy Laigo Cordova founded the
Filipino American National Historical Soci-
ety (FANHS) with the mission of preserv-
ing and promoting the history of Filipino
Americans. In 1988, FANHS declared Octo-
ber as Filipino American History Month to
ensure that Filipino American history was
being highlighted across the country.37
And in 2000, South Asian Americans Lead-
ing Together (SAALT) was founded as the
only national South Asian organization
with a social justice framework that advo-
cates for South Asian communities; SAALT
also administers the National Coalition of
South Asian Organizations, a network
of 60 South Asian American organizations
across the United States.
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
AFFECTING BROWN ASIAN
AMERICANS
In recent years, Brown Asian Americans
have been much more vocal about the
continued invisibility of their commu-
nities within the larger Asian American
community, particularly in combatting the
presumption that “Asian” equates “East
Asian.” In 2016, Filipino American and
South Asian Americans wrote an open let-
ter to the New York Times, citing ways that
their communities had been erased from
narratives involving Asian Americans
and racial discrimination.38 The letter led
to a Twitter hashtag #BrownAsiansExist,
which encouraged Brown Asians to advo-
cate for more visibility within Asian Amer-
ican communities, particularly given that
they comprise roughly 60 percent of the
Asian American population. Filmmaker
Marissa Aroy produced a short lm enti-
tled Thank God, I’m Filipino in response to
this exclusion.39
In 2018, when Crazy Rich Asians was
released, most Asian Americans were sup-
portive; it was a high-grossing box oce
hit that starred an all-Asian cast. However,
some scholars and journalists critiqued
a few aspects of the movie.40 First, the
idea that “Asians” was used in the lm’s
title and focused explicitly on East Asians
(Chinese and Singaporeans) supported
previous hypotheses that “Asian” equated
“East Asian.” Second, in the lm, the pres-
ence of Brown Asians was either minimal
or stereotypical (e.g., Brown Asians were
only portrayed as servants, and Filipino
actors were cast as East Asian characters).
Third, there was an expectation for the
entire Asian American community to back
this lm because it was allegedly the rst
Asian American motion picture of a major
“In 2018, when Crazy Rich Asians was
released, most Asian Americans were
supportive; it was a high-grossing box
office hit that starred an all-Asian cast.
However, some scholars and journal-
ists critiqued . . . the idea that . . . ‘Asian’
equated ‘East Asian.’”
Nadal | 7

8 | Asian Americ an Policy Review, Volume 29
of microaggressions that Asian Ameri-
cans face perpetuates the false notion that
“Asian” equals “East Asian.”
Further, there are indeed many issues
negatively aecting East Asian Ameri-
cans, and those issues should be addressed
appropriately. Thus, when speaking
specically about East Asian American
experiences, label them as such without
generalizing to the entire Asian American
group. For example, previous research
has found that Chinese Americans are
less likely than other Asian Americans to
undergo cancer screenings, particularly
when they have lower English pro-
ciency.48 Labeling this nding as a Chinese
American issue instead of an Asian Ameri-
can issue allows for directed programming
and targeted outreach toward Chinese
Americans, potentially increasing aware-
ness of the problem.
5. DISAGGREGATE DATA WHENEVER
POSSIBLE
While many datasets do not account for
ethnic dierences, it is important to dis-
aggregate when those data exist (and to
report on the data). As discussed through-
out this commentary, because the Asian
American category is so diverse, research
should reect that. When collecting data
on Asian Americans, ensure that the sam-
ple is as representative of the Asian Amer-
ican population as possible, with one-fth
consisting of Chinese Americans, one-fth
of Filipino Americans, one-fth of South
Asian Americans, one-fth of Southeast
Asian Americans, and one-fth of other
East Asian Americans. If research stud-
ies consist mostly of East Asian Ameri-
cans, then it cannot be generalized to the
Asian American experience and perhaps
should be labeled as a study on East Asian
Americans.
6. BE CONSCIOUS OF YOUR OWN
PRIVILEGE WITHIN THE ASIAN
AMERICAN COMMUNITY
It is very important to acknowledge how
privilege and bias operate in the Asian
American community in ways that are
similar in general American society. While
it is clear that East Asian Americans are
subject to systemic racism and discrimina-
tion within oppressive White supremacist
systems, there are some ways that privi-
lege operates in parallel ways within Asian
American communities. When East
Asian Americans say things like “Why
can’t we just all view ourselves as Asian
American and not xate on our dier-
ences?,” such statements are akin to color-
blind ideologies espoused by many White
Americans. When East Asian Americans
deny that racial or ethnic hierarchies exist
within the Asian American umbrella, their
sentiments are akin to the ways that White
Americans deny that racism and
White privilege exist. In this way, it is
important for people with privileged back-
grounds to listen to the perspectives of
those without privilege. People with priv-
ilege within Asian American communities
may have diculty recognizing their priv-
ilege and the ways they have benetted
from such privilege—similar to the ways
that White people may not see White privi-
lege, cisgender men may not see male priv-
ilege, and heterosexual people may not see
heterosexual privilege. While acknowledg-
ing that privilege may be uncomfortable,
admitting to these dynamics is the rst
step to recognizing the problems that exist
encouraging Brown Asian groups to run if
those groups have not been represented).
At the same time, organizations must be
careful to avoid tokenization by making
sure that representation is meaningful and
relevant, as opposed to feeling forced or
insincere or masking political undercur-
rents within the organization. One organi-
zation that has exemplied this meaningful
representation is the Asian Pacic Ameri-
can Labor Alliance (APALA). With their
constitution including a clause that states
that leadership must represent ethnic, gen-
der, and geographic diversity, APALA has
created a culture in which people of var-
ious AAPI backgrounds have consistently
served in its highest leadership positions.
2. HAVE OPEN AND OVERT CONVER-
SATIONS ABOUT ASIAN AMERICAN
COMMUNITY DYNAMICS, PARTICU-
LARLY RELATED TO ISSUES OF SKIN
COLOR, PHENOTYPE, RELIGION, AND
LANGUAGE
Openly acknowledge the historical context
of these community dynamics as a way
of ensuring that such dynamics are not
repeated in conscious or unconscious ways.
Consider other intersectional identities,
too, including gender, sexual orientation,
social class, age, generation, immigration
status, size, and more. Discussing these
dynamics intentionally will also allow
community members to be mindful of the
role of systemic oppression in perpetuating
trends and experiences in the organization
while creating solutions for how to instill
change, justice, and equity. For example, the
Asian American Psychological Association
devoted their 2018 conference to discuss-
ing intersectionalities and group dynamics
within their organization; through work-
shops and roundtable discussions, Brown
Asians, LGBTQ people, and multiracial
people voiced their experiences of margin-
alization within the organization, which
prompted leaders and members to strat-
egize ways the organization can be more
inclusive and cohesive.
3. ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXTENSIVE
HISTORY AND CONTRIBUTIONS
OF THE ENTIRE ASIAN AMERICAN
COMMUNITY
When teaching about Asian American
studies, ensure that all aspects of the Asian
American experience are being covered.
For instance, when talking about the earli-
est presence of Asian people in the United
States, make sure to include the Filipinos
who landed in what is now California in
1587 or the South Asians who were present
during the founding of the United States.
When discussing the labor of Chinese and
Japanese Americans who helped build the
transcontinental railroads, also include
how the Filipino American farmworkers
were the rst to strike against the land-
owners in the 1960s and how they worked
together with the Chicano farmworkers to
form the United Farmworkers and success-
fully advocate for farmworkers’ rights.46
Finally, when discussing the Asian Amer-
ican “story,” move beyond the dominant
narrative of immigrants searching for the
American Dream and acknowledge that
many Southeast Asians migrated as refu-
gees who were escaping war and violence.
4. BE MINDFUL WHEN “ASIAN” OR
“ASIAN AMERICAN” ARE USED AS
UMBRELLA TERMS
Being intentional and using proper labels
can ensure that specic needs are being
addressed while still being aware of the
heterogeneity of Asian American com-
munities. For instance, when address-
ing common types of microaggressions
aecting “Asian Americans,” it is com-
mon for researchers to default to themes
of being exoticized or being treated as
a perpetual foreigner.47 While many Brown
Asian Americans encounter these types
of microaggressions, they also encounter
other microaggressions (e.g., Filipinos and
Southeast Asians are often viewed as crim-
inals or gangsters, while South Asians are
often stereotyped as being terrorists). Thus,
excluding these examples as common types
“People with privilege within Asian American communities may have difficulty recog-
nizing their privilege and the ways they have benefitted from such privilege. . . . While
acknowledging that [confronting one’s] privilege may be uncomfortable, admitting to
these dynamics is the first step to recognizing the problems that exist in advocating for
justice and equities within Asian American communities.”
Nadal | 9

10 | Asian Americ an Policy Review, Volume 29
cation, and Power, eds. Dina C. Maramba and Rick
Bonus (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing,
2013), 213–36.
45. Susan Taing, “Lost in the Shue: The Failure of
the Pan-Asian Coalition to Advance the Interests of
Southeast Asian Americans,” Berkeley La Raza Law
Journal 16, no. 1 (2005): 3.
46. Mabalon, Little Manila Is in the Heart.
47. Derald Wing Sue et al., “Racial Microaggressions
and the Asian American Experience,” Cultural Di-
versity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 13, no. 1 (2007):
72–81.
48. Lei-Chun Fung et al., “Impact of a cancer education
seminar on knowledge and screening intent among
Chinese Americans: Results from a randomized,
controlled, community-based trial,” Cancer 124, no.
S7 (2018): 1622–30.
and in advocating for justice and equities
within Asian American communities.
1. Winston A. Van Home, “The Concept of Black Pow-
er: Its Continued Relevance,” Journal of Black Studies
27, no. 3 (2007): 365–89.
2. José Ángel Gutiérrez, “The Chicano Movement:
Paths to Power,” The Social Studies 102, no. 1 (2010):
25–32.
3. Lillian Comas-Díaz, “Hispanics, Latinos, or Ameri-
canos: The evolution of identity,” Cultural Diversity
and Ethnic Minority Psychology 7, no. 2 (2001): 115–20.
4. Yen Le Espiritu, Asian American Panethnicity: Bridg-
ing Institutions and Identities (Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 1992).
5. Lemuel F. Ignacio, Asian Americans and Pacic Island-
ers (Is There Such An Ethnic Group?) (San Jose: Pili-
pino Development and Associates, 1976).
6. William Wei, The Asian American Movement (Phila-
delphia: Temple University Press, 1993).
7. Amy Uyematsu, “The Emergence of Yellow Power
in America,” in Roots: An Asian American Reader, ed.
Amy Tachiki (Continental Graphics, 1971), 9–13.
8. Ignacio, Asian Americans and Pacic Islanders.
9. Ignacio, Asian Americans and Pacic Islanders.
10. Kevin L. Nadal, Filipino American Psychology: A
Handbook of Theory, Research, and Clinical Practice
(Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2011)
11. Joanne L. Rondilla, “The Filipino Question in Asia
and the Pacic: Rethinking Regional Origins in
Diaspora,” in Pacic Diaspora: Island Peoples in the
United States and Across the Pacic, eds. Paul Spick-
ard, Joanne L. Rondilla, Debbie Hippolite Wright
(Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2002) 56–68.
12. Nadal, Filipino American Psychology.
13. Kevin L. Nadal et al., “Racial Microaggressions and
the Filipino American Experience: Recommenda-
tions for Counseling and Development,” Journal of
Multicultural Counseling and Development 40, no. 3
(2012): 156–73.
14. Lavina Dhingra Shankar and Rajini Srikanth, eds., A
Part, Yet Apart: South Asians in Asian America (Phila-
delphia: Temple University Press, 1998).
15. Prema A. Kurien, “To Be or Not to Be South Asian:
Contemporary Indian American Politics,” Journal of
Asian American Studies 6, no. 3 (2003): 261–88.
16. Stacey Lee et al., “The Model Minority Maze:
Hmong Americans Working Within and Around Ra-
cial Discourse,” Journal of Southeast Asian American
Education and Advancement 12, no. 2 (2017): 1.
17. Angela Reyes, Language, Identity, and Stereotype
Among Southeast Asian American Youth: The Other
Asian (Routledge, 2006).
18. Min Zhou and J.V. Gatewood, “Transforming Asian
America: Globalization and Contemporary Immi-
gration to the United States,” in Contemporary Asian
America: a multidisciplinary reader, eds. Min Zhou and
James V. Gatewood (New York: New York Universi-
ty Press, 2007), 115–38.
19. Prema Kurien, “Who are Asian Americans?” Asian
American Matters: A New York Anthology, ed. Russell
C. Leong (New York: Asian American and Asian Re-
search Institute, The City University of New York,
2017), 25–8.
20. Kurien, “To Be or Not to Be South Asian.”
21. Lee et al., “The Model Minority Maze.”
22. Bic Ngo, “Learning from the margins: the educa-
tion of Southeast and South Asian Americans in
context,” Race Ethnicity and Education 9, no. 1 (2006):
51–65.
23. Rondilla, “The Filipino Question in Asia and the Pacic.”
24. Le Espiritu, Asian American Panethnicity.
25. Fred Cordova, Filipinos, Forgotten Asian Americans: A
Pictorial Essay, 1763-circa 1963 (Kendall/Hunt Pub-
lishing, 1983).
26. Dawn Bohulano Mabalon, Little Manila Is in the
Heart: The Making of the Filipina/o American Commu-
nity in Stockton, California (Durham, NC: Duke Uni-
versity Press, 2013).
27. Nazli Kibria, “The racial gap: South Asian American
racial identity and the Asian American Movement,”
in A Part, Yet Apart: South Asians in Asian America,
eds. Lavina Dhingra Shankar and Rajini Srikanth
(Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1998), 69–
78.
28. Shankar and Srikanth, A Part, Yet Apart.
29. Mai-Nhung Le and Minh-Hoa Ta, “The Vietnam-
ese American Studies Center at San Francisco State
University,” in At 40: Asian American Studies @ San
Francisco State (San Francisco: San Francisco State
University, 2009), 91–5.
30. Le and Ta, “The Vietnamese American Studies Cen-
ter at San Francisco State University.”
31. Hui Wilcox et al., “Displacing and Disrupting: A
Dialogue on Hmong Studies and Asian American
Studies,” Hmong Studies Journal 16 (2015): 1–24.
32. Peter Nien-chu Kiang, “Checking Southeast Asian
American Realities in Pan-Asian American Agen-
das,” AAPI Nexus: Policy, Practice and Community 2,
no. 1 (2004): 48¬–76.
33. Shilpa Dave et al., “De-Privileging Positions: Indian
Americans, South Asian Americans, and the Politics
of Asian American Studies,” Journal of Asian Ameri-
can Studies 3, no. 1 (2000): 67–100.
34. Le Espiritu, Asian American Panethnicity.
35. Lee et al., “The Model Minority Maze.”
36. Anu Gupta, “At the crossroads: College activism
and its impact on Asian American identity forma-
tion,” in A Part, Yet Apart: South Asians in Asian
America, eds. Lavina Dhingra Shankar and Rajini
Srikanth (Philadelphia: Temple University Press,
1998), 127–45.
37. Kevin Nadal, “Why We Celebrate Filipino American
History Month,” Hungton Post, 05 October 2016,
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-we-cel-
ebrate-filipino-american-history-month_b_
57f564a7e4b087a29a54856a.
38. E.J.R. David et al., “An Open Letter To The ‘New
York Times’ Who Told Brown Asians They Don’t
Matter,” Hungton Post, 15 October 2016, https://
www.huffpost.com/entry/an-open-letter-to-the-
new-york-times-who-told-brown_b_5801ac3fe4b09
85f6d1570f1.
39. Kevin Nadal, “Why We Celebrate Filipino American
History Month,” Hungton Post, 5 October 2016,
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-we-cel-
ebrate-filipino-american-history-month_b_
57f564a7e4b087a29a54856a.
40. Wong, “Crazy Rich Asians: The lm burdened with
‘crazy’ Asian expectations.”
41. Katie Reilly, “A Lawsuit by Asian-American Stu-
dents Against Harvard Could End Armative Ac-
tion as We Know It,” TIME, October 2018.
42. Robert Teranishi, The Attitudes of Asian Americans
Toward Armative Action (National Commission on
Asian American and Pacic Islander Research in Ed-
ucation, 2017) [PDF le].
43. Nancy Leong, “The Misuse of Asian Americans in
the Armative Action Debate,” UCLA Law Review
64 (2016): 90–8.
44. Jonathan Y. Okamura, “Filipino American Access to
Public Higher Education in California and Hawai’i,”
in The “Other” Students: Filipino Americans, Edu-
Nadal | 11

CopyrightofAsianAmericanPolicyReviewisthepropertyofPresident&Fellowsof
HarvardCollegeanditscontentmaynotbecopiedoremailedtomultiplesitesorpostedtoa
listservwithoutthecopyrightholder'sexpresswrittenpermission.However,usersmayprint,
download,oremailarticlesforindividualuse.