Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1939476136-scaled

The long, sickening history of anti-Asian violence in America

The recent murders in Atlanta have roots that date back centuries.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
google cta
google cta

The sickening spate of recent anti-Asian hate, most dramatically highlighted by the horrific murders in Atlanta, is not anomalous, but is the current manifestation of an undercurrent of murderous racial violence against Asians that has long plagued the country. Atlanta was a wake-up call to confront that history of anti-Asian sentiment, often over-shadowed by the horrific histories of Native genocide and anti-Black violence.

Cowards and thieves preyed upon individual Chinese in California’s mountains and mining areas in the mid-19th century. Perhaps hundreds were murdered in cold blood for profit and sport. Mobs viciously and brutally killed others throughout the West: 18 Chinese were lynched and mutilated in Los Angeles in 1871; at least 28 were shot and their bodies burned in Rock Springs, Wyoming in 1885; villains killed 34 Chinese in Hells Canyon, Oregon in 1887. These acts of mass murder were blatant, sadistic, and committed with impunity of legitimate authority.

In the 1930s, Filipino farm workers were commonly brutalized in California’s Central Valley. Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor were attacked as looking like the enemy, with their homes, shops, and persons assaulted. Assailants walked up to Japanese-appearing individuals and shot them in public or right in the beds of their own homes. Other Asians, taken as being Japanese, were victimized too.

The most infamous example of anti-Asian racism is the murder of Chinese American Vincent Chin in 1980. Two unemployed white auto workers bludgeoned Chin to death on a Detroit street after accusing him of being Japanese and stealing their jobs.

In 1989, a gunman in military fatigues opened fire on a Stockton, California elementary school. He killed five Asian children between the ages of 6 and 8. He wounded more than 30 others, most also of Cambodian and Vietnamese background. Their ethnicity was not an issue: only their “race.”

In 1996, two white supremacists used a butcher knife to slaughter Thien Minh Ly, a young Vietnamese American who was rollerblading by himself in a Tustin, California playground. They had gone out to kill an Asian and had not known Ly previously.

In 2012, a heavily armed, avowed white supremacist attacked a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin with automatic weapons. He killed seven worshippers, including a priest. In the years after the attack on the New York City World Trade Center, Sikhs were often taken as Muslim and attacked.

This is an all too incomplete summary of acts of particularly vicious violence against Asians and does not even consider state violence, such as the Chinese Exclusion Acts or the wholesale incarceration of Japanese Americans in World War II.

Several features mark the recent history of the anti-Asian violence: violence is ethnic but also racial, that is, not consistently focused on one ethnicity. Chinatown residents have been frequently targeted — Filipinos, Japanese, South East Asians, Koreans, and South Asian Americans have also been brutalized and verbally with anti-Yellow taunts. Others who appeared Asian, but were Latino or other backgrounds, suffered too. Assaults have been brazen, often in broad daylight in public spaces.

The shameless perpetrators seem unconcerned with videoing. Many of the incidents are fully recorded. The perpetrators have not been connected to state authority, such as police as in the assaults on African Americans, but have been individuals acting on their own, or with associations, to attack others unknown to them (except possibly in Atlanta) and selected apparently at random, except for their racial identity.

Most heart-rending, the victims have in most cases been especially vulnerable members of the community: they have been the elderly out on their own, isolated individuals in empty stores, and women. Figures compiled this past year on anti-Asian violence show that female victims were twice as many as males.

The pattern of the recent incidents is consistent with historical racist perceptions of Asians. Asians in America are a peril and a threat: biologically, medically, socially, and religiously. They are offensive. But they are also inoffensive, weak, and deserving of insult and assault. In America, Asians could be “picked on” because, it was assumed, they could not, or would not, respond. The cowardly assault of elders and females is an exact expression of this contemptuous attitude.

Former President Trump’s association of COVID-19 with race (the “Chinese virus,” the “kung flu”) opened the can of racial scapegoating. He legitimized the anti-Asian violence that steadily mounted this past year. The Atlanta atrocity emphasizes the danger of stigmatizing Asians as social threat and the implications of international politics on U.S. domestic life: the emotional rhetoric that has accompanied the sharp decline in U.S.-China relations has fueled racial hatred. Many make no distinction between Beijing and Asians in America.

Asian Americans, from well-known celebrities to grandmothers in Chinatown, have responded with unprecedented public expressions of anguish and anger. They are condemning the violence and asserting their humanity. Asian Americans will not be picked on with impunity.


Photo: Ringo Chiu via shutterstock.com
google cta
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.