Oppositions And Reconciliation In John Okada's No-No Boy
This review analyzes Stan Yogi’s “’You Had to Be One or the Other’: Oppositions and Reconciliation in John Okada’s No-No Boy,” agreeing with the main points and proposing additional suggestions to the argument’s claim. Yogi centers his analysis on Ichiro Yamada, a twenty-five-year-old Nisei who struggles to accept his wartime actions (63). Yogi strongly argues that John Okada eradicates the term “model minority”, or the overcoming of racial and cultural barriers that defines the Japanese-American community, by exemplifying the internal conflicts behind this praise. Moreover, Yogi analyzes the visible opposition to a “Japanese-American” identity and the embracement of “mutually exclusive” Japanese and American identities that John Okada presents (63-64). Conversely, according to Yogi, Okada explores the polarizing hostility between individuals and the community. Yogi concludes that healing is possible within both the Nikkei community and America (74). While the article provides a partially
…show more content…
convincing claim, my conclusion suggests that even as Yogi provides analyses of the other characters, these should not overshadow Ichiro’s self-identification crisis, since this is the main point that he issued from the beginning of the article.
According to Yogi, Ichiro answering “no” to the loyalty questions asked by the government reveals the falsification brought upon the allowance of only choosing one identity. Yogi states that the label “American” equates to whiteness. As a result, the Nisei create a narrowed definition of “American,” which results in the hatred of their parents’ culture (65). Consequently, Yogi argues that the scene between Ichiro and his mother intensifies the tension between these two identities. Ichiro realizes that his mother is using his decision as a way to shame one of the families they visit, pointing out that they could have prevented their son’s death by stopping their son from fighting on the American side. Ichiro reacts with disdain, referring to his mother as a crazy Jap (66). This disgusted response exposes his strong self-hatred towards Japanese culture.
Stan Yogi also states that the internment of Japanese Americans contradicts the rhetoric that America judges its citizens based on individual behavior; “Nisei realize Japanese-Americans are not seen as distinct individuals, but only as a reflection of a larger community” (67). Thus, by refusing military service, many Nisei veterans target “no-no boys” since their disloyalty ruins the whole community’s reputation. Furthermore, Yogi then points out the irony of this statement; most “no-no boys” answered “no” to confront the government’s injustice. Lastly, Yogi concludes that the Nisei veterans and “no-no boys” are not actually divided; the veterans chose to demonstrate their loyalty by fighting for the U.S, while the “no-no boys” confronted the government’s injustice in order to live according to American principles (67-68). In the end, even though Bull torments him, Ichiro reconciles with him, hoping that divisions between the Nisei veterans and “no-no boys” will diminish.
Through the literary evidence drawn from John Okada’s No-No Boy, the article proves the demolition of the Japanese-American “model minority” by highlighting the refusal of a “Japanese-American” identity and the possibility of America’s acceptance of it.
Other interpretations could benefit the claim as well. For instance, instead of dedicating paragraphs to the exclusion of the other characters, Yogi should put more emphasis on Ichiro’s exclusion. Discussing the scene in the novel where a church prohibits Ichiro and a friend from attending, with the realization that “… they weren’t welcome,” could strengthen the claim that internal conflicts still persist (203). The scene where Ichiro confirms that he only knows “’[a] little bit’” of Japanese to assert his American-ness could also strengthen Yogi’s overall claim (193). Otherwise, the article provided a convincing new perspective, one that made me agree with the opposition and reconciliation created within No-No Boy up to a
point.
convincing claim, my conclusion suggests that even as Yogi provides analyses of the other characters, these should not overshadow Ichiro’s self-identification crisis, since this is the main point that he issued from the beginning of the article.
According to Yogi, Ichiro answering “no” to the loyalty questions asked by the government reveals the falsification brought upon the allowance of only choosing one identity. Yogi states that the label “American” equates to whiteness. As a result, the Nisei create a narrowed definition of “American,” which results in the hatred of their parents’ culture (65). Consequently, Yogi argues that the scene between Ichiro and his mother intensifies the tension between these two identities. Ichiro realizes that his mother is using his decision as a way to shame one of the families they visit, pointing out that they could have prevented their son’s death by stopping their son from fighting on the American side. Ichiro reacts with disdain, referring to his mother as a crazy Jap (66). This disgusted response exposes his strong self-hatred towards Japanese culture.
Stan Yogi also states that the internment of Japanese Americans contradicts the rhetoric that America judges its citizens based on individual behavior; “Nisei realize Japanese-Americans are not seen as distinct individuals, but only as a reflection of a larger community” (67). Thus, by refusing military service, many Nisei veterans target “no-no boys” since their disloyalty ruins the whole community’s reputation. Furthermore, Yogi then points out the irony of this statement; most “no-no boys” answered “no” to confront the government’s injustice. Lastly, Yogi concludes that the Nisei veterans and “no-no boys” are not actually divided; the veterans chose to demonstrate their loyalty by fighting for the U.S, while the “no-no boys” confronted the government’s injustice in order to live according to American principles (67-68). In the end, even though Bull torments him, Ichiro reconciles with him, hoping that divisions between the Nisei veterans and “no-no boys” will diminish.
Through the literary evidence drawn from John Okada’s No-No Boy, the article proves the demolition of the Japanese-American “model minority” by highlighting the refusal of a “Japanese-American” identity and the possibility of America’s acceptance of it.
Other interpretations could benefit the claim as well. For instance, instead of dedicating paragraphs to the exclusion of the other characters, Yogi should put more emphasis on Ichiro’s exclusion. Discussing the scene in the novel where a church prohibits Ichiro and a friend from attending, with the realization that “… they weren’t welcome,” could strengthen the claim that internal conflicts still persist (203). The scene where Ichiro confirms that he only knows “’[a] little bit’” of Japanese to assert his American-ness could also strengthen Yogi’s overall claim (193). Otherwise, the article provided a convincing new perspective, one that made me agree with the opposition and reconciliation created within No-No Boy up to a
point.