I am not going to lie. I did not know what to write about for this blog post. We discussed race, phenomenology, and the relationship between other races and Black people. The term racial triangulation was tossed into the conversation, and I mentioned something about affirmative action. Dr. Kate had said something to the effect of “That is a great blog post,” so here I am. Welcome to my book report about how racial triangulation is to blame for why the Supreme Court ended affirmative action.
“Racial triangulation” was coined by Dr. Claire Jean Kim, an American political scientist. I will heavily rely on her journal, “The Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans,” for this post’s majority, if not all. Racial triangulation “occurs by means of two types of simultaneous, linked processes: (1) processes of ‘relative valorization,’ whereby dominant group A (Whites) valorizes subordinate group B (Asian Americans) relative to subordinate group C (Blacks) on cultural and/or racial grounds to dominate both groups, but especially the latter, and (2) processes of ‘civic ostracize’ them from the body politic and civic membership” (Kim, 1999, p. 107). White supremacism makes the stereotypes and societal standings for both Black and Asian people, then pit each community against the other. Most importantly, white people see “each racial group as a fixed cultural-biological entity…” (Kim, 1999, p. 109), or these stereotypes follow each racial group and will never change. Before the Civil War, Chinese immigrants in California were not subjected to slavery so that California could be a free state in the Union but were seen as a source of cheap and plentiful labor. Asian Americans were seen as temporary guests and not citizens, meaning they were not entitled to a political opinion. They were subjected to the same discrimination as black people in California. However, racial discrimination against Asian Americans was not enforced consistently, and they were seen as having a culture and intelligence that Black people did not. As workers, Asian Americans are more appealing because they are more controllable and less demanding than black people. For these reasons, Asian Americans were seen as better than Black people but not good enough for White people.
But what does this have to do with affirmative action? After the Civil Rights Movement, schools had to integrate, and colorblindness was how to deal with race. In reality, colorblindness is just a way to mask the current racial inequity and continue white supremacy. Instead of using biology to justify racism, white supremacy insisted that “certain cultures” are better at leading society than others. Moreover, because Asian people are seen as having some respectable culture, they become the model minority, something others should look up to but never good enough to be “White.” In the 1980s, Asian American application rates to Ivy League schools increased, but acceptance rates did not. Asian Americans claim schools are only meeting their racial quotas and preserving their schools’ traditional whiteness. White conservatives took the momentum against affirmative action. They twisted the narrative: affirmative action turned into a program that benefited Black and Brown students and unfairly discriminated against Asian American students. Thus, it turned into a Black and Asian issue; while White conservatives side with Asian Americans against black demands, they can appear as sticking up for what is right and un-racially motivated.
I guess my point is that nothing is unintentional. That everything happens exactly how it is designed to. In the beginning, there were two races (Black and White), and when a new third option presented itself, it fell in line with the white supremacist system.




