[lang_en]To Be “Hapa” or Not to Be “Hapa”: What to Name Mixed Asian Americans?

Preface: I have been struggling for several years with this apparently un-resolvable issue: what to do about “Hapa”? I finally decided I had to start writing about it, had to start engaging the dialog. The essays and talks I have been giving on this issue represent my commitment to be fully involved in this dialog, this journey, no matter where it might take us.

Asian American Studies was founded by student and community activists in the Bay Area who proposed the revolutionary idea that positionality—how people are situated within, on the edges of, and in opposition to various kinds of groupings is a valid perspective from which to shape analysis, scholarship, and critical inquiry. The positionality of mixed race and mixed heritage Asian Americans became more solidly located within Asian American communities at least partially through the naming of them/us as a coherent, identifiable group through the use of the Native Hawaiian term “Hapa.” “Asian American” itself is a term of collective identity that grew out of a political movement—before 1968, one was “Oriental” or Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, or Korean. Asian American as a term provides a space in which these diverse ethnic communities can come together—but it also creates it’s own sense of identity—what Yen Le Espiritu calls “Asian American pan-ethnicity.” As opposed to ethnic-specific terms like the Filipino “mestizo” or the Japanese “haafu,” “Hapa” is a word that specifically situates mixed Asian Americans within this pan-ethnic Asian American community. “Hapa” also provides the important function of giving mixed Asian Americans a safe space. Growing controversies over the use of the Native Hawaiian word “hapa” to identify mixed race Asian Americans could possibly destabilize this unifying identity—or could provide an interesting opportunity to push out the boundaries we may have drawn around ourselves in the process of coming together.

~Wei Ming Dariotis[/lang_en]