In Hisaye Yamamoto’s A Fire in Fontana, she brings up issues racism towards African Americans in America “not long after the Second World War” (150) from the point of view of a Japanese American woman. Though the story is about racism towards African Americans, she brings up Asian issues as well. One thing that struck me in her story was how little attention Asians and Asian Americans got—most of the racism in the story was focused on African Americans. In the story, there are several examples of how Asians were ignored, to some extent. For example, toilets were “labeled either Colored or White.” (151) Being Asian, she was unsure of what to do, as the word “colored” (151) referred to African Americans, so she “dared to try White first, and no one challenged [her], so [she] continued this presumptuous practice at all the way stations of Texas.” (151) As an Asian American woman, the narrator was unsure of which group she should identify with, because she was neither “white” nor “colored.” Asians in this story are portrayed as a sort of in-between race. When she was given a “long look” (151) by an African American cleaning woman, she concluded “for the sake of [her] conscience, that the Negro woman had never seen a Japanese before.” (151)

This assumption reminds me of Esther’s reaction in Wilshire Bus, when upon hearing the drunk man openly bash the Chinese couple, Esther “found herself wondering whether the man meant her in his exclusion order or whether she was identifiably Japanese… but it did matter, she decided, because she was Japanese, not Chinese, and therefore in the present case immune.” (36) In this story, the main character initially felt a rapport with the couple, but once they were targeted as a subject of racism, she immediately separated herself from them in her mind, to get away from the discrimination. In A Fire in Fontana, the cleaning woman probably resented the narrator for separating herself from the African Americans and the discrimination that they had to deal with every day. Presumably, the woman thought the narrator was being presumptuous by using the “white” toilet, and therefore identifying herself as a “white” person, which separated her from the “colored” people.

The narrator tells us about how while working at the newspaper, “the inexhaustible topic was Race, always Race” (153) and that “more than once [she] was easily put down with a casual, “That’s mighty White of you,”” (152) Apparently, her coworkers saw her, at least in some sense, as being an oppressor, as being white, in that she didn’t seem to sympathize with their plight (yet). Because she didn’t argue strongly for African American rights and couldn’t see why they always had to talk about race, they saw her as against them. Similarly, in Wilshire Bus, the Scottish/French man apologized on behalf of the drunk man, but his apology held no weight for the Chinese couple, because he had not stood up for them.

On the other hand, there are also examples of racism towards white people, for example, Miss Moten, upon hearing about the Shorts’ story, said, “I hate White people! They’re all the same!” (153) This outburst, though more justified, in my opinion, than white Americans openly declaring their hate for African Americans, is also an example of racism, in which all white people are blamed for the actions and attitudes of some white people. The story even gives an example of a white priest who spoke out against the police theory on the fire. As a result of this man’s rebellion against the dominant views of his culture, he “was suddenly transferred to a parish somewhere in the boondocks of Arizona.” (154)

After the fire, an investigation was conducted and “the official conclusion was that probably the man had set the gasoline fire himself” (154) reminded me again of Vincent Chin’s case, and the fact that neither Nitz nor Ebens ever went to prison for their crimes, for obvious reasons. Both are examples of how the justice system works for whites and against people of other racial backgrounds.

I wonder why Yamamoto focused almost entirely on the racism directed at African Americans, when, as we saw in Who Killed Vincent Chin?, there was also substantial racism towards Asians. Though the Vincent Chin incident occurred well after the time A Fire in Fontana was set in, I would think that racism would have been stronger the earlier the time period.

I was also struck by the fact that a Japanese person was referred to as “a Japanese” (151), as if Asians, and Japanese people in particular, are not human, and therefore it isn’t necessary to add the word “person” to “Japanese.” On a similar note (or not so similar, I’m not quite sure why this particular thing reminded me of it…), In Who Killed Vincent Chin?, I noticed that many of the people who were interviewed referred to Ronald Ebens and Mike Nitz as Mr. Ebens and Mr. Nitz, while referring to Vincent Chin as Vincent or Vincent Chin. I’m not sure why they did this. Often, the title “Mr.” is applied to older men, but I was under the impression that Nitz was younger than Chin at the time, so I don’t know why people would refer to the two white men with the title “Mr.” while referring to the Asian man as Vincent or Vincent Chin. My only theory is that as a man of Asian descent, they viewed him as more of a child than Michael Nitz. Any ideas?