The report for the Int. Conference „Anti-Asian Racism: History, Theory, Cultural Representations and Antiracist Movements“ at the University of Tübingen from July 7–8, 2023 was first published on the science portal H‑Soz-Kult on September 6th, 2023, Link: www.hsozkult.de/conferencereport/id/fdkn-138368. We thank the author Sander Diederich and HSozKult for the kind per­mission to repu­blish.

Initiated by the Tübingen con­fe­rences on Asian German Studies in 2022 and on anti-Asian racism in 2023 the anthology “Anti-Asian Racism in Transatlantic Perspectives: History, Theory, Cultural Representations and Social Movements“ (working title) is in pre­pa­ration for early 2025. Tune in here for updates.

Soon after the Covid-19 pan­demic began, reports of racism against (East) Asians, Chinese in par­ti­cular, erupted worldwide. The model minority abruptly trans­formed into the scapegoat for the fearful and angry masses seeking a simple expl­anation for their new­found reality. It seemed that Asians were expe­ri­encing unpre­ce­dented racism. They were not only being belittled, glo­rified, or exo­ti­cized, but also threa­tened and assaulted. For many, this ‘actual racism’ repre­sented a new phe­no­menon marking the emer­gence of ‘anti-Asian racism’ in the German main­stream discourse.

Not sur­pri­singly, anti-Asian racism has a deep history and colonial legacy. The con­fe­rence can be understood as an expression of the necessity and interest of the Asian German com­munity in the subject as well as a con­tri­bution to the decon­s­truction of Whiteness and colonial modernity by desta­bi­lizing and reinter­preting the boun­daries between Whiteness and Asianness. Perspective is crucial to cri­ti­cally under­stand what ‘Asian’ and ‘Asianness’ can or should signify in the face of racial ima­gi­naries and anti-Asian violence.

ROTEM KOWNER (Haifa) shed light on European Colonialism, race theories, and racism using examples from early modern and modern con­ti­nental Asia. Racism was essential for legi­ti­mizing colo­nization, streng­thening racial hier­ar­chization in Europe and its colonies. According to Kowner, China, the center of global com­merce, had long been more than an equal rival for the ‘most civi­lized’ society. He argued that the opening of the Suez Canal brought Asia closer, and steam­ships gua­ranteed European naval supe­riority in the Opium Wars. This revealed China’s vul­nerability and bols­tered European self-confidence. Thus, the nar­rative of China as the ‘country of wonders’ gra­dually gave way to ima­gi­naries of deceitfulness, dys­func­tion­ality, and ‘the yellow peril’. KIEN NGHI HA (Tübingen) noted that (East) Asians were usually ranked second after Europeans in the racial hier­archy. Kowner sug­gested this resulted from China being the last obs­tacle to European world domi­nation, the color choice yellow reflecting the (East) Asians‘ ‘almost Whiteness’ whereas South Asians were clearly depicted as brown.

LOK SIU (Berkeley) con­tinued the dis­cussion by tracing 240 years of Asian pre­sence in the United States, focusing on con­tested belonging, exclusion, and recurring waves of anti-Asianism by ana­lyzing dif­ferent phases of immi­gration and rest­riction through eco­nomic impe­ra­tives and poli­tical struc­tures. The Proclamation of Emancipation in 1863 marked the formal end of slavery and the beginning of mass (inden­tured) labor migration from Asia, notably China and India.

LUCAS POY (Amsterdam) depicted an Era of Mass Migration (1880–1930), high­lighting Chinese exclusion from labor orga­niza­tions and blame for harsh con­di­tions and lowered White working-class stan­dards. Chinese inden­tured labor migrants were blamed for the effects of the eco­nomic impe­ra­tives by which they them­selves were being sub­ju­gated. Their unfree labor status was natu­ra­lized and inscribed as racial cha­rac­te­ristics of pas­sivity. Poy deemed this an important com­ponent for the con­s­truction of Whiteness, as Asians were rele­gated to the second place in the racial taxonomy on the grounds that they posed a threat pre­cisely because they were diligent but lacked the capa­cities of the White subject to organize.

Siu described how the trinity of ima­gined cul­tural, eco­nomic, and bio­po­li­tical threats posed espe­cially by the Chinese dif­fused regio­nally in North America and the Caribbean, fueling scores of anti-Asian riots. This leads to incre­asingly rest­rictive Exclusion Laws sub­se­quently encom­passing not only Chinese but all Asians, labeling them as ‘per­petual for­eigners’ unable to inte­grate into society. These laws were repealed only in 1960 but by this time had already sparked orga­nized resis­tance and a sense of coll­ective Asian subjectivity.

Amid the civil rights movement, the nar­rative of the ‘model minority’ was spawned, splitting and pitting racial mino­rities against each other. According to Siu, in this context, debates on Whiteness can be better understood as gen­dered, classed, and racia­lized nego­tia­tions of belonging and citi­zenship. Today, she argued, the waters seem to be murkier, as there is a resur­gence of the ‘deserving model minority’ trope on the one hand, while on the other hand, it is being uti­lized to strengthen Whiteness by dele­gi­ti­mizing affir­mative action.

QUINNA SHEN (Bryn Mawr) traced the role of early German film in per­pe­tuating a variety of Asian racist ste­reo­types and found a clearly gen­dered notion of Asianness. According to Shen, Asian women were por­trayed as hel­p­lessly attracted to White men, who were ima­gined as sexually superior to Asian men. Asian men, in turn, were framed as tre­acherous, lurking, mur­derous rapists who used immoral means such as opium to attain their lowly revenge against the White heroes. Shen con­cluded that while some films did cri­tique British colonial rule, they simul­ta­neously por­trayed Asian libe­ration struggles as under­handed, cri­minal, and ignoble. Additionally, the films con­veyed the message that colonial romance leads to tragedy if not death, and as such, that ‘the other’ will always remain ‘the other’.

A second type of dis­cursive media ana­lysis was under­taken by ANNO DEDERICHS (Tübingen), who focused his research on the images of China por­trayed in the German poli­tical arena over the course of several decades. He found that the dif­ferent topoi of threat, rival and partner were repeated over time but were always embedded in their spe­cific his­toric context. Dominant themes for depic­tions seemed to be related to colonial (yellow) or com­munist (red) imagery. Dederichs showed great interest in the ease with which ideo­lo­gical dif­fe­rences were overcome with the pro­spect of eco­nomic prowess, and how the nature of the threat posed by China changed from ideo­lo­gical (com­munist), to moral (auto­cratic), to tech­no­lo­gical, geo­po­li­tical, and bio­po­li­tical threat (Covid-19). He con­cluded that the depic­tions of China tell us more about German needs and fears rather than the actual situation in China.

Another focus of the con­fe­rence was Asian dia­sporic com­mu­nities and their liveli­hoods, self-organization, and resis­tance. YOU JAE LEE (Tübingen) empha­sized the importance of inter­na­tional exchange on the issue of anti-Asian racism, espe­cially since Asian dia­sporas in Germany have failed to form a coll­ective sense of Asianness. They remain divided as ethnic or national mino­rities in their respective struggles instead of com­bining their efforts or fighting alongside each other. Using families of Korean labor migrants in Germany as an example, he depicted a shift occurring over the course of three gene­ra­tions, in which the expl­anatory value of meri­to­cracy dwindled, and expe­ri­ences of dis­cri­mi­nation are incre­asingly understood as con­se­quences of (anti-Asian) racism.

In con­trast, the situation in France was regarded as more hopeful by YA-HAN CHUANG (Paris). She depicted three his­toric phases of Asian com­munity orga­nizing, namely, the struggle for (1) ethnic soli­darity, (2) reco­gnition, and (3) ack­now­led­gement. Currently, she sees chances of cross-community soli­darity with Arab and African mino­rities by building coali­tions through nar­ra­tives of deco­lo­nization. Chuang comes to a similar con­clusion as You Jae Lee con­cerning the gene­ra­tional dif­fe­rences within the Asian dia­sporic com­mu­nities but did not regard dif­fering posi­tio­na­lities as a fun­da­mental hurdle for orga­nizing. Instead, she found potential for syn­ergies by uti­lizing these gene­ra­tional dif­fe­rences stra­te­gi­cally to intervene in the dominant discourse.

By focusing on the insti­tu­tional dimension of anti-Asian racism in Germany, Kien Nghi Ha explained how a dis­re­mem­bering of anti-Asian racism could occur despite the pogrom in Rostock-Lichtenhagen. Ha argued that German state insti­tu­tions coll­ec­tively failed to provide safety for the Vietnamese guest workers due to the ongoing poli­tical project of the state to revise laws on poli­tical asylum. According to Ha, the pogrom could only unfold due to the failure of the police and the judi­ciary and gains texture against the backdrop of natio­nalist revival fol­lowing German uni­fi­cation, as well as the high unem­ployment in East Germany at that time.

In oppo­sition to this, CUSO EHRICH (Gießen) follows an aboli­tionist per­spective as it enables thinking about necessary societal trans­for­ma­tions in the future. From this per­spective, the police would not be attri­buted failure but instead success according to the racist logic of the nation-state. Finding ori­en­tation in self-organized refugee groups or Women in Exile, Ehrich pro­poses to regard the logic of punishment as neither pre­venting crime nor rein­stating justice, as it does not meet the victims‘ needs. Additionally positing that inc­ar­ce­ration is classed and racia­lized, thus leading to the per­pe­tuation of struc­tural ine­qua­lities. Instead of these des­tructive prac­tices, they plead for life-affirming per­spec­tives and imple­menting aboli­tionism on the ground by bringing people tog­ether to find solu­tions outside of state logics while being aware of attempts of neo­li­beral take­overs. FENG-MEI HEBERER (New York) added that regarding politics of Asian self-representation through German grass­roots orga­niza­tions in limbo should not neces­s­arily be understood as failed. Instead, dis­ruption and slowness should be com­pre­hended as con­ti­nua­tions of self-organization.

SARA DJAHIM (Berlin) and TAE JUN KIM (Berlin) ques­tioned the utility of the terms ‘Asian’ and ‘anti-Asian racism’ altog­ether. In a similar manner to Rotem Kowner, they posited that racism is the grounds upon which the cate­gories of race, such as ‘Asian’, emerge and become salient, but that ‘Asianness’ itself is not essential to the over­ar­ching issue of racism. As the sub­jec­tivity of ‘Asianness’ is dependent on the con­ti­nuity of ‘anti-Asian racism’, they do not deem ‘Asian’ as a useful coll­ective identity category for a long-term anti-racist struggle. Their idea not being that there are no spe­cific con­se­quences for people marked as ‘Asians’, but rather that ‘anti-Asian’ sen­timent is not necessary for the mani­fes­tation of racist effects against them. If decon­s­tructed con­se­quently, they con­cluded, there are no ‘Asians’, only people per­ceived as ‘Asian’.

In regard to this issue Jee-Un Kim stressed the rela­tional utility of poli­tical labels such as ‘Asian’ or ‘Asian German’. According to her, it is pivotal to express the societal con­di­tions while decon­s­tructing them at the same time. Depending on who we are pitting our­selves against, certain com­mo­n­a­lities have to be under­lined, whereas some­times it is more pro­ductive to high­light par­ti­cular dif­fe­rences. Thus, the usage of ter­mi­nology such as ‘Asian’, ‘anti-Asian racism’, or ‘dia­sporic Asians’ must be situa­tional, stra­tegic, and always rela­tional. Kien Nghi Ha added that the term ‘Asian German’ is an offer to the com­munity that may be ignored or con­tested, as there is also no sin­gular way of under­standing it. Instead, it poses an oppor­tunity to deal with spe­ci­fi­cally German anti-Asian for­ma­tions in a playful manner.

In summary, the con­fe­rence encom­passed a diverse array of inquiries, spanning from fun­da­mental dis­course on ter­mi­nology to the exami­nation of theo­re­tical under­pin­nings and his­to­rical origins of the phe­no­menon. The pro­cee­dings also encom­passed empi­rical inves­ti­ga­tions into dis­course dynamics and the poli­tical ori­en­ta­tions of grass­roots move­ments. Moreover, You Jae Lee expressed concern over the absence of a dedi­cated aca­demic disci­pline focusing on Asian German Studies, while Lok Siu empha­sized the scho­larly duty to engender know­ledge that con­fronts societal con­cerns and fosters utopian perspectives.

Rotem Kowner observed that, con­tingent upon the chosen metrics, Asians con­stitute a demo­graphic per­centage ranging from eight to ten percent of the total German popu­lation, con­se­quently forming the most pro­minent racial minority. Kowner further asserted that mere sen­si­tization to anti-Asian racism is insuf­fi­cient; instead, a resolute and com­pre­hensive effort against racism as an over­ar­ching con­s­truct is imperative.

While marking the inception of the first-ever con­fe­rence on anti-Asian racism in Germany, the panels effec­tively addressed fun­da­mental ele­ments, thereby situating the phe­no­menon within the German aca­demic dis­course. Regrettably, the exten­si­veness of coverage was cons­trained by prac­tical limi­ta­tions, which led to the omission of deli­be­ration on the Asianness of Arabs, and spe­ci­fi­cally Turks and Kurds in Germany. Nonetheless, the signi­fi­cance of this subject to the Asian com­munity was made visible through the diversity of attendees, including young non-academics from various regions of Germany. This con­fluence faci­li­tated syn­er­gistic dis­cus­sions between scholars and cul­tural pro­ducers, both during and sub­se­quent to the con­fe­rence, paving the way for further exchange and dia­logue. Notably extending from the pre­vious year’s con­fe­rence, cen­tered on the fea­si­bility of a disci­pline in Asian German Studies, the incor­po­ration of an inter­na­tional deli­be­ration added nuance and con­trast to the dis­course. Ultimately, the impli­ca­tions and con­se­quences of anti-Asian racism persist as a con­ten­tious topic both within aca­demic spheres and on the ground.

Conference overview:

Introduction

Kien Nghi Ha (Tübingen) / You Jae Lee (Tübingen)

Keynote History
Chair: Bernd-Stefan Grewe (Tübingen)

Lok Siu (Berkeley): Making Asians Foreign: Methods of Exclusion and Contingent Belonging

Panel History
Chair: Jee-Un Kim (Berlin)

You Jae Lee (Tübingen): Discrimination, Resistance, and Meritocracy. Korean Guest Workers in Germany

Kien Nghi Ha (Tübingen): The Pogrom in Rostock-Lichtenhagen as Institutional Racism

Keynote Theory
Chair: Antony Pattathu (Tübingen)

Rotem Kowner (Haifa): The Intersections between European Racial Constructions and Modern Colonialism: Theoretical Issues and the Place of Asia

Panel Theory
Chair: Bani Gill (Tübingen)

Lucas Poy (Amsterdam): Socialists and Anti-Asian Sentiment in the Era of Mass Migration (1880–1930)

Cuso Ehrich (Gießen): Abolitionist Perspectives on Demands of Asian-German Formations

Keynote Cultural Representations
Chair: Fei Huang (Tübingen)

Quinna Shen (Bryn Mawr): Racialized Screen in Early German Cinema: What Asian German Studies Can Address

Panel Cultural Representations
Chair: Zach Ramon Fitzpatrick (Madison)

Feng-Mei Heberer (New York): Anti-Asian Racism and the Politics of Asian Self-Representation in Germany: the Asian Film Festival Berlin

Anno Dederichs (Tübingen): Opportunity and Threat: Ambivalent Reporting on China in Der Spiegel, 1947–2023

Panel Antiracist Movements
Chair: Yewon Lee (Tübingen)

Sara Djahim (Berlin) / Tae Jun Kim (Berlin): “Take Off Your Masks“: The Invisibility and Visibility of Anti-Asian Racism in Germany

Ya-Han Chuang (Paris): Yellow is the new Black? Emergence and Development of Asian Antiracist Activism in France

Round Table: Challenging Anti-Asian Racism in Society and Academia
Chair: Kien Nghi Ha

Panelists: Quinna Shen, Lok Siu, Rotem Kowner, You Jae Lee

Author
Sander Diederich is a socio­logist enrolled in the master’s program Diversity and Society at the University of Tübingen and is a member of UnKUT (Undisciplined Knowledge at the University of Tübingen). Their work has cen­tered around the moral dimen­sions of (tran­si­tional) justice, anti-Asian racism, and the inter­ac­tional dis­cri­mi­nation of trans­gender persons. Their inte­rests range from feminist epis­te­mo­logies to utopian per­spec­tives and the nor­mative aspects of (aca­demic) scho­larship. Currently, they are exploring notions of ‚the good life‘, with a spe­cific focus on under­standing the con­s­truction and effect of commonalities/differences using lenses such as com­mu­ni­ta­rianism, soli­darity, diversity, and belonging.