What My Six Decades in America Taught Me
I immigrated to America on June 6, 1965, from Taiwan, carrying with me big dreams and expectations, mingled with fears of the unknown. I was 17, and it was at the height of the Vietnam War. A year later, I enlisted in the Air Force and instead of being sent to the frontlines, I was deployed to England for three years to do aircraft maintenance.
Coming home from military service, I saw an America that was full of opportunities. I spent a year working on Wall Street but was drawn to public service, which landed me in the New York City Department of City Planning as an economic development researcher.
While in that job, I also moonlighted as a writer for a Chinese-language newspaper, where I noticed that many Asian American small businesses were confined to small ethnic enclaves, competing among themselves. Asian American professionals working for major corporations were trapped in their jobs and regarded as good workers but not managers.
U.S. flags flying in the wind are pictured.
U.S. flags flying in the wind are pictured.
Getty Images
The small businesses lacked political clout and unity, making it difficult to get the attention of the government for resources and support. Many of the professionals were short on social skills and further hampered by cultural barriers that prevented them from rising to leadership positions.
And yet, it was a time of profound societal change. During the 1970s and 1980s, I witnessed America's convulsions: civil rights marches, Vietnam War protests, and the rise of technology. These influenced me to be involved in community, social and civic affairs, and to take actions to affect changes in my community. I wanted to expand Asian enterprises into broader markets and create opportunities with other communities. I wanted to raise the representation of Asian American professionals in corporate leadership.
This became the catalyst for the work of the Asian American Business Development Center (AABDC), which I founded in 1994 to be a bridge between Asian American corporate professionals and entrepreneurs to the larger society and to foster better integration of Asian Americans into mainstream society by deepening mutual understanding and collaboration.
For decades, I believed in the alchemy of participation—I showed up at city council meetings, lobbied for fair lending policies, drafted proposals for minority business grants, and sat on boards where I was the only Asian American.
Together with like-minded allies across the color spectrum, we worked for better representation in corporate boardrooms, pushed for equitable access to capital, and created programs to help Asian-owned businesses expand beyond ethnic niches. For decades, we worked with the belief that America was slowly, painfully, but inevitably moving toward inclusion.
And then—the backlash. Just as we began to see the fruits of our labor—more Asian American executives, more cross-cultural business partnerships, more recognition of our community's contributions—the political winds shifted. Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), once framed as moral imperatives, were suddenly branded as divisive. Policies we championed were dismantled under the guise of "colorblindness," as if decades of exclusion could be erased by pretending race didn't matter. Politicians who once paid lip service to multiculturalism now stoked fears of Asian Americans as "perpetual foreigners" or threats to "American values" and even to national security.
This is more than disappointment. But disappointment does not mean defeat. The AABDC's work continues, not because the path is easy, but because it is necessary. I have spent 60 years in this country—40 of them fighting for a seat at the table. I will not now, at this stage of my life, let that table be overturned. I know there are others from all corners of society who feel the same, but perhaps are being silenced by the winds of change.
I'm far from my 17-year-old self. But I still have big dreams and expectations, and a belief that this is still a land of opportunity for everyone. We belonged then. We belong now.
John Wang is the founder and president of the Asian American Business Development Center (AABDC), which promotes recognition of Asian American professionals, entrepreneurs, and business leaders. AABDC bridges cultures, drives economic opportunity, and connects U.S. and Asian businesses.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
3 hours ago
Japan and South Korea mark 60 years of ties despite lingering tension and political uncertainty
TOKYO -- TOKYO (AP) — Japan and South Korea are marking the 60th anniversary of the normalization of their diplomatic relations Sunday. The two Asian powers, rivals and neighbors, have often had little to celebrate, much of their rancor linked to Japan's brutal colonial rule of Korea in the early 20th century. Things have gotten better in recent years, but both nations — each a strong ally of the United States — now face political uncertainty and a growing unease about the future of their ties. Here's a look at one of Northeast Asia's most crucial relationships, from both capitals, by two correspondents from The Associated Press. South Korea's new liberal president, Lee Jae Myung, is determined to break sharply from the policies of his disgraced predecessor, Yoon Suk Yeol, who now faces a trial on charges of leading an insurrection over his imposition of martial law in December. Relations with Japan, however, are one area where Lee, who describes himself as a pragmatist in foreign policy, may find himself cautiously building on Yoon's approach. Before his removal from office in April, the conservative former president tried to repair relations with Japan. Yoon wanted to also tighten the countries' three-way security cooperation with Washington to counter North Korean nuclear threats. In 2023, Yoon announced a South Korea-funded compensation plan for colonial-era forced laborers. That decision caused a strong backlash from victims and their supporters, who had demanded direct payments from Japanese companies and a fresh apology from Tokyo. Yoon's outreach boosted tourism and business ties, but there's still lingering resentment in South Korea that Japan failed to reciprocate Seoul's diplomatic concession by addressing historical grievances more sincerely. While advocating for pragmatism and problem-solving in foreign policy, Lee has also long criticized Japan for allegedly clinging to its imperialist past and blamed that for hurting cooperation between the countries. Some experts say the stability of the countries' improved ties could soon be tested, possibly around the Aug. 15 anniversary of Korea's liberation from Japanese colonial rule at the end of World War II, when Lee is expected to publicly address the nation's painful history with Japan. Some in Seoul want Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba to mark the anniversary with a stronger statement of remorse over Japan's wartime past to put bilateral ties on firmer ground. While wartime history will always linger in the background of Seoul-Tokyo relations, Lee and Ishiba may face a more immediate concern: U.S. President Donald Trump's rising tariffs and other America-first trade policies. South Korea's Hankyoreh newspaper in an editorial this week called for South Korea and Japan to 'collaborate immediately' on a joint response to Trump's policies, arguing that the proposed U.S. tariffs on automobiles pose similar threats to both countries' trade-dependent economies. Ishiba, eager to improve ties with Seoul, has acknowledged Japan's wartime aggression and has shown more empathy to Asian victims than his recent predecessors. His first encounter with Lee seemed positive, despite worries in Japan about South Korea's stance under a liberal leader known for attacks on Japan's wartime past. Lee, in that meeting with Ishiba at the G7, likened the two countries to 'neighbors sharing the same front yard' and called for building a future-oriented relationship that moves beyond their 'small differences and disagreements.' Ishiba and Lee agreed to closely communicate and to cooperate on a range of issues, including North Korea's nuclear and missile development. Under a 1965 normalization treaty, Japan provided $500 million in economic assistance to South Korea, saying all wartime compensation issues were settled. However, historical issues including forced labor and sexual abuse of Korean women during the war have disrupted ties over the decades, while South Korea has become an Asian power and a rival to Japan, and while Tokyo, especially during the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe 's rule, has promoted revisionist views. Japan has since offered atonement money twice for the so-called 'comfort women,' an earlier semi-private fund and a second one unilaterally dissolved by former South Korean President Moon Jae-in's liberal government. Things have improved in recent years, and Japan is watching to see whether Lee sticks with his conservative predecessor's more conciliatory diplomacy or returns to the confrontation that marked previous liberal governments. Cooperation between the two sides is 'more essential than ever' to overcome their shared problems such as worsening regional security and Trump's tariffs that have shaken free trade systems, Japan's largest-circulation newspaper Yomiuri said in a recent editorial. At a 60th anniversary reception in Tokyo, Ishiba said that he sees 'a bright future' in the relationship. He expressed hope also for cooperation in 'common challenges' such as low birth rates and declining populations.
Atlantic
3 hours ago
- Atlantic
The United States Bombed Iran. Now What?
President Donald Trump has done what he swore he would not do: involve the United States in a war in the Middle East. His supporters will tie themselves in knots (as Vice President J. D. Vance did last week) trying to jam the square peg of Trump's promises into the round hole of his actions. And many of them may avoid calling this 'war' at all, even though that's what Trump himself called it tonight. They will want to see it as a quick win against an obstinate regime that will eventually declare bygones and come to the table. But whether bombing Iran was a good idea or a bad idea—and it could turn out to be either, or both—it is war by any definition of the term, and something Trump had vowed he would avoid. So what's next? Before considering the range of possibilities, it's important to recognize how much we cannot know at this moment. The president's statement tonight was a farrago of contradictions: He said, for example, that the main Iranian nuclear sites were 'completely and totally obliterated'—but it will take time to assess the damage, and he has no way of knowing this. He claimed that the Iranian program has been destroyed—but added that there are still 'many targets' left. He said that Iran could suffer even more in the coming days—but the White House has reportedly assured Iran through backchannels that these strikes were, basically, a one-and-done, and that no further U.S. action is forthcoming. (In a strange moment, he added: 'I want to just say, we love you, God, and we love our great military.' Presidents regularly ask God to bless the American nation and its military forces—as Trump did in his next utterance—but it was a bit unnerving to see a commander in chief order a major military action and then declare how much 'we' love the Creator.) Only one outcome is certain: Hypocrisy in the region and around the world will reach galactic levels as nations wring their hands and silently pray that the B-2s carrying the bunker-buster bombs did their job. Beyond that, the most optimistic view is that the introduction of American muscle in this war will produce a humiliating end to Iran's long standing nuclear ambitions, enable more political disorder in Iran, and finally create the conditions for the fall of the mullahs. This may have been the Israeli plan from the start: Despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's warnings about the imminence of an Iranian nuclear weapons capability and the need to engage in preemption, this was a preventive war. The Israelis could not destroy sites such as Fordow without the Americans. Israeli military actions suggest that Netanyahu was trying to increase the chances of regime change in Tehran, while making a side bet on dragging Trump into the fray and outsourcing the tougher nuclear targets to the United States. The very worst outcome is the polar opposite of the optimistic case. In this bleak alternative, the Air Force either didn't find, or couldn't destroy, all of the key parts of the Iranian program; the Iranians then try to sprint across the finish line to a bomb. In the meantime, Tehran lashes out against U.S. targets in the region and closes the Straits of Hormuz. The Iranian opposition fades in importance as angry Iranian citizens take their government's part. One dangerous possibility in this pessimistic scenario is that the Iranians do real damage to American assets or kill a number of U.S. servicepeople, and Trump, confused and enraged, tries to widen his war against a country more than twice the size of Iraq. Perhaps the most likely outcome, however, is more mixed. The Iranian program may not be completely destroyed, but if the intelligence was accurate and the bombers hit their targets, Tehran's nuclear clock has likely been set back years. (This in itself is a good thing; whether it is worth the risks Trump has taken is another question.) The Iranian people will likely rally around the flag and the regime, but the real question is whether that effect will last. The Iranian regime will be wounded, but will likely survive; the nuclear program will be delayed, but will likely continue; the region will become more unstable but is unlikely to erupt into a full-blown war involving the United States. But plenty of wild cards are in the deck. First, as strategists and military planners always warn, the 'enemy gets a vote.' The Iranians may respond in ways the U.S. does not expect. The classic wargaming mistake is to assume that your opponent will respond in ways that fit nicely with your own plans and capabilities. But the Iranians have had a long time to think about this eventuality; they may have schemes ready that the U.S. has not foreseen. (Why not spread around radiological debris, for example, and then blame the Americans for a near-disaster?) Trump has issued a warning to Iran not to react, but what might count as 'reacting?' Second, we cannot know the subsequent effects of an American attack. For now, other Middle Eastern regimes may be relieved to see Iran's nuclear clock turned back. But if the Iranian regime survives and continues even a limited nuclear program, those same nations may sour on what they will see as an unsuccessful plan hatched in Jerusalem and carried out by Washington. Diplomacy elsewhere will likely suffer. The Russians have been pounding Ukraine with even greater viciousness than usual all week, and now may wave away the last of Trump's feckless attempts to end the war. Other nations might see American planes flying over Iran and think that the North Koreans had the right idea all along: Assemble a few crude nuclear weapons as fast as you can to deter further attempts to end your regime. Finally, the chances for misperception and accidents are now higher than they were yesterday. In 1965, the United States widened the war in Southeast Asia after two purported attacks from North Vietnam; the Americans were not sure at the time that both of them had actually happened, and as it turns out, one of them probably did not. The region, moreover, is full of opportunities for screw-ups and mistakes: If Trump continues action against Iran, he will need excellent intelligence and tight organization at the Pentagon. And this is where the American strikes were really a gamble: They were undertaken by a White House national security team staffed by unqualified appointees, some of whom—including the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense himself—Trump has reportedly frozen out of his inner circle. (Given that those agencies are run by Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Hegseth, it is both terrifying and a relief to know that they have no real influence.) The American defense and intelligence communities are excellent, but they can only function for so long without competent leadership. Trump has had preternatural luck as a president: He has survived scandals, major policy failures, and even impeachment, events that would have ended other American planes dropped their payloads and returned home safely. So he might skate past this war, even if it will be hard to explain to the MAGA faithful who believed him, as they always do, that he was the peace candidate. But perhaps the biggest and most unpredictable gamble Trump took in bombing Iran was to send American forces into harm's way in the Middle East with a team that was never supposed to be in charge of an actual war.
Hamilton Spectator
3 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Japan and South Korea mark 60 years of ties despite lingering tension and political uncertainty
TOKYO (AP) — Japan and South Korea are marking the 60th anniversary of the normalization of their diplomatic relations Sunday. The two Asian powers, rivals and neighbors, have often had little to celebrate, much of their rancor linked to Japan's brutal colonial rule of Korea in the early 20th century. Things have gotten better in recent years, but both nations — each a strong ally of the United States — now face political uncertainty and a growing unease about the future of their ties. Here's a look at one of Northeast Asia's most crucial relationships, from both capitals, by two correspondents from The Associated Press. The view from Seoul, by Kim Tong-hyung South Korea's new liberal president, Lee Jae Myung , is determined to break sharply from the policies of his disgraced predecessor, Yoon Suk Yeol , who now faces a trial on charges of leading an insurrection over his imposition of martial law in December. Relations with Japan, however, are one area where Lee, who describes himself as a pragmatist in foreign policy, may find himself cautiously building on Yoon's approach. Before his removal from office in April, the conservative former president tried to repair relations with Japan. Yoon wanted to also tighten the countries' three-way security cooperation with Washington to counter North Korean nuclear threats. In 2023, Yoon announced a South Korea-funded compensation plan for colonial-era forced laborers. That decision caused a strong backlash from victims and their supporters, who had demanded direct payments from Japanese companies and a fresh apology from Tokyo. Yoon's outreach boosted tourism and business ties, but there's still lingering resentment in South Korea that Japan failed to reciprocate Seoul's diplomatic concession by addressing historical grievances more sincerely. While advocating for pragmatism and problem-solving in foreign policy, Lee has also long criticized Japan for allegedly clinging to its imperialist past and blamed that for hurting cooperation between the countries. Some experts say the stability of the countries' improved ties could soon be tested, possibly around the Aug. 15 anniversary of Korea's liberation from Japanese colonial rule at the end of World War II, when Lee is expected to publicly address the nation's painful history with Japan. Some in Seoul want Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba to mark the anniversary with a stronger statement of remorse over Japan's wartime past to put bilateral ties on firmer ground. While wartime history will always linger in the background of Seoul-Tokyo relations, Lee and Ishiba may face a more immediate concern: U.S. President Donald Trump's rising tariffs and other America-first trade policies. South Korea's Hankyoreh newspaper in an editorial this week called for South Korea and Japan to 'collaborate immediately' on a joint response to Trump's policies, arguing that the proposed U.S. tariffs on automobiles pose similar threats to both countries' trade-dependent economies. The view from Tokyo, by Mari Yamaguchi Ishiba, eager to improve ties with Seoul, has acknowledged Japan's wartime aggression and has shown more empathy to Asian victims than his recent predecessors. His first encounter with Lee seemed positive, despite worries in Japan about South Korea's stance under a liberal leader known for attacks on Japan's wartime past. Lee, in that meeting with Ishiba at the G7, likened the two countries to 'neighbors sharing the same front yard' and called for building a future-oriented relationship that moves beyond their 'small differences and disagreements.' Ishiba and Lee agreed to closely communicate and to cooperate on a range of issues, including North Korea's nuclear and missile development. Under a 1965 normalization treaty, Japan provided $500 million in economic assistance to South Korea, saying all wartime compensation issues were settled. However, historical issues including forced labor and sexual abuse of Korean women during the war have disrupted ties over the decades, while South Korea has become an Asian power and a rival to Japan, and while Tokyo, especially during the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe 's rule, has promoted revisionist views. Japan has since offered atonement money twice for the so-called 'comfort women,' an earlier semi-private fund and a second one unilaterally dissolved by former South Korean President Moon Jae-in's liberal government. Things have improved in recent years, and Japan is watching to see whether Lee sticks with his conservative predecessor's more conciliatory diplomacy or returns to the confrontation that marked previous liberal governments. Cooperation between the two sides is 'more essential than ever' to overcome their shared problems such as worsening regional security and Trump's tariffs that have shaken free trade systems, Japan's largest-circulation newspaper Yomiuri said in a recent editorial. At a 60th anniversary reception in Tokyo, Ishiba said that he sees 'a bright future' in the relationship. He expressed hope also for cooperation in 'common challenges' such as low birth rates and declining populations. ___ Kim reported from Seoul, South Korea. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
