By SoEun Park
Governance & Society
Introduction
In the early 20th century, the Korean diaspora community was the largest immigrant group in the United States after the Mexican and Filipino communities (“History of Korean Immigration to America”). A major contributing factor was the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act, which marked a turning point in U.S. immigration history, ultimately resulting in a wave of Korean immigration. Fueled by Korean immigrant entrepreneurs who wanted to create a place of ownership and ethnic representation, the 1970s and 1980s saw the rapid birth and development of Koreatown, especially in Los Angeles. Koreatown became a source of pride, yearning, and dreams of Korean people that introduced Americans to Korea. Several narratives were presented about Koreatown; it was portrayed as a revitalization of a neglected area and as one of LA’s newest neighborhoods, erasing non-Koreans’ presence (Lee). Thus, this allowed these entrepreneurs the flexibility and freedom to build Koreatown in a way that suited them to sell Korean culture to Los Angeles.
However, as Korean immigrants took the opportunity to purchase property and transform the area to serve their other minority groups, including Black communities, they continued to face increasing segregation, urban poverty, and displacement (Lee). It was a combination of tension between Korean immigrants and black communities and a variety of other factors that led to the Los Angeles riots of 1992, which included looting, armed assaults, and arson following the acquittal of four white LAPD officers for excessive force in the videotaped beating of Rodney King. This nearly weeklong, widespread rioting “killed more than 50 people, injured more than 1,000 people, and caused approximately $1 billion in damage, about half of which was sustained by Korean-owned businesses” (Lah). With the acquittals, long-simmering cultural tensions between Korean immigrants and African-American customers flared to the surface, resulting in the LA riots. Here, Marx would argue that tensions between Korean Americans and African Americans are primarily caused by competition of economic interests between the two groups, showcasing a dyadic relationship; on the other hand, James would argue that there were hostile relations between black and Korean American Americans and that Koreans were caught in the middle of historical struggles based on race relations between white and black Americans, especially regarding policing showcasing a triad relationship. James’ theory, however, better captures the tension than Marx’s theory because he describes the nuanced relationship between the three groups. Ultimately, Marx emphasizes class as part of the dyadic relationship, whereas James emphasizes race and class as part of the triad relationship.
Dyadic Relationship?
According to Marx, there is an overlap between race and economic position where Korean business owners and entrepreneurs in Koreatown are more likely to be regarded as bourgeoisie, while Black communities around them are regarded as proletariat. Marx concentrates on society as being determined and structured by economic systems; he sees society as inherently divided, with individuals in different groups restricted by their positions. He claims that “two great hostile camps,” thereby “two great classes are directly facing each other”: the bourgeoisie and proletariat (Marx 474). According to Marx, the bourgeoisie owns the means of production, and the proletariat works for them (and does not own the means of production). One of the reasons that Koreans were targeted in the LA riots was the hostile business-customer relationship between Korean and Black communities. Many of the Korean businesses were in Black-dominated communities, and middle-class African Americans had sold their business to new immigrants like the Korean immigrants.
However, relationships between Blacks and Koreans were not amicable; Black communities felt as if Koreans were taking their businesses that they could not afford, leading them to view themselves as the proletariat who worked for them and did not own the means of production. According to “Violence and trauma as constitutive elements in Korean American racial identity formation: the 1992 LA riots/ insurrection/saigu,” Kim illustrates a Black participant in the riots who elucidated that ‘the riots were not riots at all, but a rebellion aimed at throwing off perceived economic and social oppression” and that they “wanted to hurt [Koreans] physically, economically” (Kim 2014). Thus, Marx would argue that these Black communities saw Koreans as the oppressors and the problem who had more power than them because they owned the means of production and the businesses.
On the other hand, Korean business workers were also terrified. However, there was a lethal combination of their view on the Black community: they had genuine reasons to be afraid of attacks with past experiences, but they also reinforced these stereotypes (Kim 2014). Nevertheless, it is also essential to acknowledge that not all business-customer relationships between the two groups were terrible; in fact, friendships were formed as well. However, Marx would argue that the hostile relationships that existed between these groups were due to the fact that Korean immigrants held more economic power than Black Americans, who were more likely to be “proletariat.”
Furthermore, Marx would argue that the LA riots were inevitable due to the nature of the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Two theoretical concepts are critical in society: base and superstructure. These two concepts are inextricably linked. The superstructure captures everything not directly related to production but all other aspects of society, including but not limited to art, family, culture, religion, philosophy, media, politics, science, and education; on the other hand, the base captures everything directly related to the production including the mean and relations of production. Moreover, these two concepts reinforce each other; the superstructure maintains and shapes the base, while the base also shapes and maintains the superstructure. This showcases how the proletariat can utilize its strategic position within the production of revolution; they have the power to overthrow the mode of production in capitalism and the bourgeoisie’s position as well. This means the whole base will come crumbling down, and everything will become stagnant. As consumers and lack of owners of production means, Black communities could overthrow Korean businesses strategically if they were to leverage their positions.
Moreover, Marx emphasizes that the bourgeoisie’s “fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable” (Marx 483). He showcases that change is inevitable if the proletariat’s reliance on the bourgeoisie is so great and they are codependent on each other. If their conflicts differ and the bourgeoisie can no longer tolerate the power difference between the two, revolution and liberation are likely to occur. Marx adds that in society if the bourgeoisie exploit the proletariat, there will inevitably be a fall and victory when the Proletariats become conscious of their own power. The LA riots showcase this revolution as the “more violent racialized upheavals seem inevitable, for when people feel angry and oppressed by violence, they respond by destroying symbols of power” (Kim 2016). Hence, this reinforces the idea that the LA riots were inexorable because the Black community could no longer tolerate this power difference, leading them to attack vulnerable Korean businesses; these Korean businesses were vulnerable due to their class position relative to the Black communities.
However, Marx is not capturing the whole picture, leaving out an essential group in relation to the group of Black Americans and Korean Americans when considering the causes of the LA riots. When considering the superstructure and the base, he would have regarded racial relations as part of the superstructure, such as ideology, religion, education, and so on, that maintains and shapes the base. He would not have considered race relations as part of the base that includes the means of production and relations of production that, in turn, shape and maintain the superstructure when looking at the race relations between Korean and Black Americans. His explanation of Korean business owners as Bourgeoisie and Black communities as proletariat, along with the inevitably of revolution as the LA riots, has its merits. However, it does not consider the historical struggles and disputes between white and black Americans that significantly influenced the relationship between Koreans and Black Americans. Marx misses the nuance of a triad relationship that ultimately escalated to the riots as there is a more profound basis in which white Americans inflicted the oppression of Black Americans that built up resentment within the Black community. Thus, looking at James might provide a better understanding of the necessary sources of the riots.
Triad Relationship
According to James, the conflict between the Korean business owners and entrepreneurs in Koreatown and Black communities that eventually led to the “uprising” of the LA riots was significantly influenced by the historical context of slavery, policing, and oppression of Black Americans. He would emphasize that ignoring this historical context would be detrimental to the comprehension of the more complicated relationship between the Koreans and Black communities at the time of the LA riots. Although in “The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L’Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution,” he mainly explores the French Revolution and the working class and socialist movements, there is much parallelism in these French colonies and America regarding slavery. He would argue that the modern-day policing of Black Americans, including at the time of Rodney King, can be traced back to slavery and the “Slave Patrol” with the goal of “establish a system of terror and squash slave uprisings with the capacity to pursue, apprehend, and return runaway slaves to their owners” (NAACP). According to James, the owners would call the enslaved people by every opprobrious name,” and it was “sentiments such as these that they strove to justify the abominable cruelties they practiced” (James 17). Thus, the policing during the 20th century and even now can be traced back to the historical context of the dehumanization of enslaved people.
In addition, he underscores that there is a distinct difference between the two groups, that “one is born to own slaves” and “one is born to be a slave” (James 45). Despite the Emancipation Proclamation and Thirteenth Amendment being important milestones in the long process of ending slavery in America, the remains of slavery can still be seen in the 1990s, where the “one born to own slaves” were the whites and “one is born to be a slave” are the black Americans. As systemic racism and history persist, Black communities are still treated as enslaved people in the modern policing and criminal justice system. In the case of Rodney King, it was evident that nobody deserved to be beaten as brutally as Rodney King was, and even more shocking, the white police officers were not found guilty, resulting in no justice being served (Shyong). Thus, this event ultimately instigated the LA riots, which evoked the anger and resentment of Black communities that attacked a lot of Korean businesses in Koreatown.
According to Frank Shyong, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, “because Korean Americans lacked representation in the mainstream media, Korean American shopkeepers became the victims and villains of the riots, racism’s symbols, and scapegoats” (Shyong). This showcases the contrasting reasons Marx versus James views Korean businesses as vulnerable. While Marx would argue that it was class relations that put Koreans in a vulnerable position, James argues that race relations did. Marx would have thought of the media as the superstructure, not as the root of why the riots happened, but as the end product of the Korean business’s economic position. Furthermore, Marx would have argued that people who produce media are bourgeoisie and have more economic power; on the other hand, James would have emphasized that the lack of representation in the media put Koreans in this vulnerable position. Moreover, James would highlight that, in some ways, Koreans were caught in the middle of historical struggles between Black Americans and White Americans, especially relating to policing.
Moreover, James would argue that the LA riots could be seen as a revolution led by the Black community. When discussing the French Revolution, James argues that prosperity “would lead to revolution” (James 46). Furthermore, he argues that the “Negro Question” is a central part of the American class struggle and that any revolutionary perspective in the United States must be grounded in this question (Cole). Blacks were not simply poor victims of oppression in the Americas; in fact, they were a vibrant and conscious population that found numerous ways to resist oppression, assert themselves as human beings, and periodically seek their liberation despite oppression. In a resolution in 1939, he wrote that “The American Negroes, for centuries the most oppressed section of American society and the most discriminated against, are potentially the most revolutionary elements of the population” (Cole). In this particular context, the perceived prosperity of Korean entrepreneurs from the Black community, in addition to the resentment and fury they felt from the injustice of policing, would have been the base of the revolution. Their oppression and their willingness to find ways to resist their oppression in any way for liberation ultimately led to widespread rioting. Thus, in order to better understand the scapegoat position of Korean entrepreneurs, James would argue that it is imperative that White and Black communities and the historical context of slavery and policing should be considered as a triad relationship.
Further, James would emphasize the division between Korean entrepreneurs and Black communities around them, which allows the white population to control minority ethnicities more effectively. Although James highlights that class is more important than race, he underscores how neglecting “the racial factor as merely incidental, is an error only less grave than to make it fundamental” (James 283). Moreover, he claims that the creation of “a small privileged caste” of enslaved persons by the plantation owners was a strategic move in dividing the enslaved persons and preventing them from realizing the common enemy was the plantation owners (James 19). While Koreans and Black Americans might have been in different economic positions at the time, James argues that the history behind race relations is so powerful that people who are in similar economic positions may be unable to realize their common interests because of the underlying history behind race relations. Race has become an essential factor in dividing them up according to their race and ethnicity, and the white population used this strategy as a strategy to retain their privilege. With popular media representations that reinforced stereotypes of Koreans who are only concerned with money and violent Black Americans, these representations eventually led to the creation of the “privileged caste” of Koreans that divided up the minority populations of Koreans and Black Americans.
In addition, James showcases the complicated social position of mixed-race people who were initially afforded the same rights as white people but were soon revoked (James 80). Despite the fact that these mixed-race people were economically powerful, they were excluded and discriminated against politically and legally because of the color of their skin (James 340). This fluidity of the rights of mixed-race people was a dividing strategy that was meant to prevent Black people from outnumbering white people. Because slave societies were based on a strict racial hierarchy, white people detested these people because of their darker colored skin. This complicated social position of mixed-race people is equivalent to the Korean entrepreneurs. The model minority myth––the detrimental stereotype that Asian Americans are more “academically and financially high achieving than other minority groups”––also extends to the Korean entrepreneurs (The Annie E. Casey Foundation). Although Asians and Korean entrepreneurs are not considered white, their socioeconomic position resembles that of the white position.
However, they are still excluded and discriminated against on a political and legal basis, and the “model minority myth functions as a political mechanism of control that alters one’s sense of reality to justify the unequal social order” (Park). Thus, this illustrates how the white population has used media representations and the model minority myth further to divide the Korean entrepreneurs and the Black communities to keep them from outnumbering them. In drawing parallels between mixed-race people and Korean entrepreneurs, James would argue that the divisions between minority groups, which were facilitated by the white population to control them, facilitated the hostile relationship between Blacks and Koreans and eventually instigated the LA riots.
Conclusion
Hence, Marx and James would have viewed the causes of tensions between Korean Americans and African Americans that ultimately led to the LA riots differently, as the former viewed it as a dyadic relationship influenced by class, while the latter saw it as a triad relationship influenced by both race and class. Despite this, James’ theory provides a clearer explanation as it includes the white population as a third group, thus showing the nuanced relationship between the black and white populations and the impact on the Korean population based on historical context and media portrayal. It is imperative to note that although James is a Marxist and thinks that class is a significant factor when considering inequalities, his penetrating analyses of the interrelationships of class and race are a component that Marx overlooked. This is especially important in the context of the LA riots when the long-simmering cultural tensions between Korean immigrants and African-American customers flared to the surface. Considering the relationship between Koreans and Black Americans without examining other factors, such as the relationship between Black Americans and White Americans, may result in inaccurate analysis because it focuses on one-sided theories that fail to dig deeper than the surface of the situation. By taking into consideration race as a consequential factor and the interrelationship between class and race in the LA riots, we can connect seemingly diverse realities and transcend merely black-and-white descriptions.
Photo: David Longstreath/AP File
Works Cited:
Cole, Mike. New Developments in Critical Race Theory and Education: Revisiting Racialized
Capitalism and Socialism in Austerity. Palgrave Macmillan, 2017
“History of Korean Immigration to America, from 1903 to Present.” Boston University School of
Theology, Boston Korean Diaspora Project,
sites.bu.edu/koreandiaspora/issues/history-of-korean-immigration-to-america-from-1903-to-present/. Accessed 15 Dec. 2023
James, C.L.R. 1989 (1938). Pp. 3-26, 36-41, 45-47, 57-61, 81-82 in The Black Jacobins:
Toussaint L'Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution New York: Vintage Books
Kim, Rose M. “Violence and trauma as constitutive elements in Korean American Racial
Identity Formation: The 1992 L.A. riots/insurrection/saigu.” Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 35, no. 11, 2012, pp. 1999–2018, https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2011.602090
Lah, Kyung. “The LA Riots Were a Rude Awakening for Korean-Americans.” CNN, Cable News
Network, 29 Apr. 2017, www.cnn.com/2017/04/28/us/la-riots-korean-americans/index.html
Lee, Shelley Sang-Hee. Koreatown, Los Angeles Immigration, Race, and the “American
Dream.” Stanford University Press, 2022
Marx, Karl. 1978. "Manifesto of the Communist Party." Pp. 469-491 in The Marx-Engels
Reader. 2nd ed., edited by Robert C. Tucker. New York City: Norton Press
Park, Lisa Sun-Hee. “Continuing Significance of the Model Minority Myth: The Second
Generation.” Social Justice, vol. 35, no. 2 (112), 2008, pp. 134–44. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/29768492
Shyong, Frank. “Column: What We Got Wrong about Black and Korean Communities after the
L.A. Riots.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 27 Apr. 2022, www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-04-27/journalist-reporting-after-la-riots-black-korean-conflict
The Annie E. Casey Foundation. “Education and the Asian American Model Minority Myth.”
The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 23 Aug. 2023, www.aecf.org/blog/education-and-the-model-minority-myth
“The Origins of Modern Day Policing.” NAACP, 3 Dec. 2021,
תגובות