Thursday, December 4, 2014

Where Am I?

Just wanted to post an update on my low blog activity of recent weeks. I have been focusing my attention on putting the finishing touches to my book and have not had the time to focus on the kind of in-depth commentaries that I like to post on this blog.

The book is all but finished - the story itself has been completed - but because there are some twists and turns in the plot, some of which don't work with parts of the book I wrote several months back, I am going through aligning all of the loose ends, and doing some preliminary editing.

Once this is complete, my wife will go through it and do a proper edit, and then we'll see! My plan is to self-publish, but I recently learned of a publisher that focuses on Asian-American themes, so I may be interested in going that route.

Anyways, hope to resume normal broadcasting soon!

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Interracial Dating And The Disparity.

Are Asian Male Concerns Justified?

There was an interesting discussion over on the bigWOWO website that began as a post about the increasing visibility of black female and white male pairings in popular cultural productions. Naturally, the discussions moved rapidly onto the Asian-American disparity in interracial dating. The most interesting point to be raised concerned the idea of whether there is merit to the, sometimes, zealous, concern exhibited by Asian men for the reportedly-higher-than-usual-outmarriage/dating-rates-of Asian women and the documented reluctance of women of all races to consider Asian men as suitable partners. Or, is the subject unworthy of exploration, that can and should be dismissed as mere navel-gazing for a "privileged" demographic?

Some suggest that by way of comparison to other issues like discrimination in the workplace and race-engendered poverty, the complaints of Asian men on their stereotype-hampered dating and marriage opportunities are merely trite distractions from more significant issues. On the face of it, the idea that discrimination in the workplace is more significant than attitudes in dating choices that discriminate against specific racial groups seems logical. Denying or hampering people's opportunities to find gainful employment or be treated fairly in the promotion process seem vastly more important than whether any given Asian man is able to get a date. Yet, the two issues are interconnected and more similar than most of us are willing to acknowledge.

Institutional racism no longer exists. There are no laws that mandate racial discrimination in employment and housing - in fact, those found to have pursued a practice of prejudice can be, and often are, levied with penalties and legal judgements for doing so. What this means is that in the hiring/promotion process, housing, and any other activity of society, prejudice is only - can only - ever be practiced as a matter of personal choice. If an employer decides before he or she has interviewed an applicant that they will not be hired because of the race of said applicant, then that is personal-choice discrimination, which may be based on ideas and beliefs derived from cultural stereotyping that shape the employer's attitudes and willingness to work or live in close proximity with minorities. The similarity to racialized partner choices is obvious.

Stereotypes and preconceived notions shape people's decision making in hiring and housing just as much as they shape their decisions in personal relationships. Refusing to hire or rent to a minority person because you don't want to spend eight-hours a day with them in the office, or see them next door every morning and evening when you come and go from your home, is fundamentally the same process as dismissing minorities as life partners. This is especially true when both actions could arguably be the result of an adherence to casual media racial stereotypes that propagates ideas of things like minority criminality or diminished masculinity.

Ostensibly, it might seem absurd to consider dating and marriage opportunities to be anywhere near as significant as workplace and housing discrimination. Yet, underlying dating and marriage is the biologically-driven function of procreation and partnering, which happen to be one of the primary functions of most of the animal and plant life on the planet. In fact, apart from the survival instinct, the drive to procreate and partner is probably one of the most fundamental drives in human nature - and sometimes the drive to leave progeny outweighs even the survival instinct, as evidenced by accounts of people risking their own lives to save their own, or even other people's, children. Concerns about prejudices and derogatory stereotypes that hamper one's capacity to find a partner and engage in the function of procreation taps into and threatens an extremely profound human physiological function. Clearly, this is not a laughing matter, nor is it necessarily less significant than issues of discrimination in other areas of life, and neither should these concerns be summarily dismissed as merely the whines of men who can't get dates.

In fact, there is no moral difference between personal race-based preferences in employment and housing and in personal race-based choices in whom people choose to date and marry. The difference is one of legality, yet, it raises uncomfortable questions about the role that civil society plays in maintaining racist attitudes and hierarchies, particularly in the creative arts industries that possibly exert the greatest influence over society's conception of racial minorities and these minority's capacity to fully enjoy the fruits of democratic life.

A comparison to the struggle for gay marriage rights and illustrates the powerful role that civil society can play in bringing about political change. Promotion of gay marriage rights has occurred both in the legislative and judicial branches of government but, interestingly, has also seen a strong promotional drive amongst private institutions particularly cultural institutions. In other words, not only has the fight for gay marriage rights had a legal component, there has also been a significant drive within civil society to promote it, especially in the media.

An article in the online magazine Wired suggests that this drive in civil society to present positive images of gay men and women that normalize their life-choices has correlated with an increase of tolerance and acceptance of gay marriage. This is what it says...
Back in 2008—clearly a big year for LGBT rights—the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and a research team from Harris Interactive did a survey of more than 2,000 U.S. adults 18 and older and found that two in 10 of them had changed their views of gays and lesbians in the previous five years to a more favorable one. 
Their reasons? Some said it was because they knew a gay person, some said news programs shifted their views, others noted that family or friends had persuaded them. Also, 34 percent said their views were influenced by seeing gay or lesbian characters on TV, and 29 percent said it was by a gay or lesbian character on film.
What is significant here, is this interplay between the work of governing institutions and the activities of civil society. Healthy democracies adhere to a strict separation of government influence in civil society, yet, as the article above illustrates, the activities of civil society have the potential to create shifts in public opinion to the extent that it can affect the degree of support any given issue receives and, hence, the political dialogue itself.

Since the fight for gay marriage rights has involved, both a political activism to legalize it and the social activism of civil society to create more positive perceptions of, and accepting attitudes for, gay partnerships in general, it is inconsistent to claim that society and politics view people's personal relationships - or more specifically, their opportunities to pursue relationships unhindered by political or societal sanction - as somehow irrelevant or less significant than other issues. The two-pronged assault on anti-gay prejudices that is legally discriminatory and socially hampers their pursuit of meaningful and open relationships offers a clear indication that both politics and civil society views freedom to pursue relationships, unhindered by prejudices, as a significant issue.

Thus, Asian men's concerns about the negative impact that racist attitudes and civil society-driven stereotypes have on their capacity to pursue meaningful relationships are far from insignificant. It is merely a measure of the marginalization of the Asian-American experience that these concerns are scorned by both the mainstream, but even more significantly, within Asian-America itself. What this amounts to is that even Asian-Americans are utilizing the structures and sensibilities of mainstream America to participate in the marginalization of Asian men.

The process of choosing a partner is one of the most significant decisions one can make in life, and is arguably the most important decision that many people will ever make, and for most people is the single most defining decision of their lives. Is it funny or deserving of eye-rolling impatience when Asian-American men notice that this primordial drive, that is fundamental to almost all biological existence, is being hampered and hindered by a civil society that normalizes dehumanizing stereotypes of them, and a political culture that plays off xenophobic doubts of Asian humanity to win votes? After all, limiting the growth, influence, and identity of any minority through demeaning them culturally is as serious as racist immigration policies that seek to do the same.

At this point, it is worth noting that there may be a specific demographic component that contributes to the heated nature of much of the dialogue on this issue that takes place mainly on internet spaces. My observation and sense is that those Asian men who complain the most vehemently about the disparity seem to hail largely from one of two age-groups; the mid- to late-teens (or high school graduate age), or the late-teen to early-, mid-twenties age range.

If this observation is accurate, this is significant because such young adults represent a demographic that we could call the "pre-accomplished" and that partnering anxieties amongst Asian men in this demographic may be amplified and interwoven with the normal maturation stage experienced by men of all groups during which they strive to discover a mature identity. In other words, at an age when there is a biological and cultural shift into a life stage when it is normal to notice and want to connect with the opposite sex, young Asian men discover that culture and society have created an environment that hampers this normal process.

What this could also suggest is the possibility that the shift from childhood into young adulthood, and from high-school to college, for Asian-American men marks a first direct acquaintance with the outcome of gender-specific anti-Asian racism. That is not to say that young Asian-American boys do not experience racism prior to high-school graduation - which many, perhaps most of us, do. It means that for many young Asian-American men the shift into the college and young adult environment comes with a realization that all of that casual racism they may have experienced throughout childhood from peers reflects far more than merely "kids being mean", and may, in fact, reflect a pervasive conditioning process for American society that demeans Asian people and their cultures, but also normalizes and legitimizes mainstream America's intrusion into our personal and private sexual particulars as well our opportunities to fulfill fundamental human drives like partnering and procreation.

Those (specifically, within the community) who condemn and ridicule young Asian men for reacting angrily to such a process are not only skirting the negative side of moral behaviour, they are launching a fundamental attack on the wider process of Asian-American empowerment and efforts towards normalization of our community issues. For instance, we pay lip-service to the poor state of mental health awareness within the community and decry the culture of shame of this issue within Asian-America. Yet, all too often - actually more often than not - Asian men are dismissed as pathetic and annoying for reacting angrily to what is an injustice as significant as workplace discrimination. All of the emotional and possibly psychological processes that go hand-in-hand with that be damned.

In summary, given that personal choice drives both workplace discrimination and partnering choices, it seems arbitrary to claim some kind of moral primacy for one issue over the other. Thus, Asian male concerns about the cultural and social hampering of their partnering opportunities are legitimate concerns - as legitimate as concerns about cultural and social stereotypes that make some people not want to live near or hire minorities. Both are about personal choice. Granted, the aggressive and sometimes abusive approach of some Asian men - usually on internet spaces - is not conducive to dialogue, but to label even this type of reaction as merely some kind of bitterness or lack of game, avoids the possibility that there may be a poorly mapped road for how to deal with anti-Asian racism in general, and gender-specific, anti-Asian male racism in particular. In short, a summary dismissal of the subject is tantamount to marginalizing a demographic because they have not figured out a way to address the racism in their lives.

Asian male concerns about casual racist beliefs that hinder their partnering opportunities arguably derive from the same process that drives workplace discrimination, and, thus, deserves a more empathetic response from the community, as well as a more significant place in the Asian-American dialogue on our racialized experiences. To do otherwise is to uphold racism.

Friday, October 31, 2014

The Asian Artistic Tradition

The Power Of Narratives.

There has been an interesting discovery of prehistoric art made in caves of the Indonesian island of Sulawesi that has thrown some doubt on the long-accepted narrative of how art originated as a practice and as an indicator of the development of abstract thinking in the evolution of the human mind. Until this most recent discovery, the oldest examples of cave art had only been found in Western Europe and have been dated back to around forty-thousand years. The Sulawesi cave art is at least as old - if not older - than all of the cave art found in Europe.

Although interesting in and of itself, there is another aspect to the phenomenon of prehistoric cave art that is worth talking about. I have written many times about how history and the historical experience are cornerstones of culture and identity. Personal history defines our individual view of the world and is further shaped and given context by the norms outlined by cultural narratives of society that are drawn from the historical experience. For instance, our American historical experience of fighting against unjust British rule contributes to the ongoing cultural narratives of  freedom-loving American individuals who reject and stand up to tyranny at home and in the world, fostering a national identity of a society of individuals who are fundamentally on the proper side of moral choice who make personal decisions based on an internal mechanisms of reason, and not some social conditioning determined by factors beyond our immediate consciousness. It's all about the narrative.

As this interesting documentary from the BBC suggests, cave art marks a point in human cognitive development when the race began to see, and express through art, deeper meanings in the objects and things around them and thus expand their understanding of their place in the world through abstract thinking about the real world. In other words, cave art reflects an awareness of differences between humans and other animals, hence, art is the indication of an evolving or developing agency. In Western thinking, this notion of personal agency has been a huge influence on social and political ideas.

On the positive side, personal agency lies at the root of the idea of individualism and the concept of individual rights. At the same time, imperialism and white supremacist thinking have justified themselves partly by denying or downplaying the existence of, or potential for, personal agency among the world's non-white races. Although these ideas existed long before the discovery of prehistoric European cave art, the idea that Europeans "invented" art and, thus, became the first group or race to make the cognitive leap into a more sophisticated conceptualization of agency, fits nicely into the narrative of the mature and superior agency of the white race.

As this BBC article covering the story suggests, European cave art marks a significant milestone in human cognitive ability, the implication being that there was some kind of tradition of European reason that can be traced all the way back to the prehistoric era......
For decades, the only evidence of ancient cave art was in Spain and southern France. It led some to believe that the creative explosion that led to the art and science we know today began in Europe.
Similarly, the BBC documentary proposes a narrative that implies a continuity of creative lineage from the cave art of prehistoric France to the remarkable sculpted megaliths of Gobekli Tepe in southern Turkey several thousand years later, that extends further back into antiquity the more familiar  narrative of Western Civilization beginning in what is now Iraq - a region that somehow was "western" in antiquity, but is now Middle Eastern.The narrative implies continuity and associations that can only be described as hopeful and tenuous. But it all supports the narrative and that is what is important.

The BBC article again.....
The discovery of 40,000-year-old cave paintings at opposite ends of the globe suggests that the ability to create representational art had its origins further back in time in Africa, before modern humans spread across the rest of the world........"That's kind of my gut feeling," says Prof Stringer. "The basis for this art was there 60,000 years ago; it may even have been there in Africa before 60,000 years ago and it spread with modern humans".
The cynic within wonders if the idea of an Asian origin to art and reason is such anathema to the western narrative (and present-day political sensibilities) that accepting Asia as the birthplace of creative expression is like daylight to a vampire. No, if Europe can't be the birthplace of art (and subsequently science), then the Asians certainly won't be allowed to claim it! They would rather give it to Africa.

Yet, the BBC documentary contradicts this hypotheses that there needs or is likely to be  common African origin. According to it, the imagery of cave art is the result of stimuli on the human brain that is experienced during "trance-like" episodes. That's why, it is suggested, cave art from 30,000 years ago in France resembles cave art from Africa 2,000 years ago - shaman enter the trance-like state and return with trippy ideas that they then paint onto the walls of caves. Similarity between cave art as distant as France is from Indonesia need not mean a common origin elsewhere - it could be the result of a common human physiological response to trance-like states possibly induced by hallucinogens (why else would - or could - anyone crawl into the deepest, darkest, recesses of prehistoric caves to draw polka dot covered animals and stencils of their hands unless they were fucked.up).

But cynicism aside, it is hard not to notice the parallel of the white-washing of Asians out of this country's  cultural narrative (itself occasionally a feat of historical revisionism) and what seems to amount to a similarly aversive ad-hoc denial of Asia as the birthplace of art. If it makes people feel any better about it, it is likely that the Asians who produced this ancient rock art were of a different ilk to present-day Asians.

Friday, September 12, 2014

Lost Without You.....

Ferguson And Are Asian-Americans Stupid?

I generally avoid topicality in my blog posts particularly when it comes to race issues because, all too often, I find that it is all too easy to get caught up in the cycle of reacting and emoting so much that not much else gets offered or if it is, it is drowned out by the passion of the moment. The recent tragic shooting death of Michael Brown by a white police officer (Darren Wilson) is one such case where I felt it would be better to put some time and space between the killing and any commentary. A couple of posts by Asian-Americans in particular caught my attention.

An "aggregator" piece in The Bamboo Post ran with the headline  "Asians Should Care About What's Going On In Ferguson!" - exclamation mark mine - and wrote......
But even though many Asians (I’m sure) are following the story, they may not know how it affects them.
Meanwhile, Soya Jung over at Racefiles writes a piece titled;  "Why Ferguson Matters to Asian Americans which fills Asians in on why Ferguson is important to them.
Japanese and Chinese American organizations and leaders were active in creating the model minority myth, and they embraced anti-blackness. But Asian American identity was forged in the crucible of the black liberation struggle, and also centered demands to end imperialism and war. This is what it means to be Asian American. I choose resistance.
Even though I question the assertion that embracing the model minority myth is an implicit embrace of anti-blackness (and the assertion that Asian-American identity is heavily dependent on the black struggle), what I struggle with most is the implication in the Jung piece, and the explicit sentiment in the Bamboo Post piece, that Asians somehow just don't know how to make moral decisions without the guiding wisdom of activists or are somehow incapable of forming a meaningful or sympathetic opinion about social issues in general and the Ferguson case in particular.

In all fairness, it should be mentioned that the Racefiles had in mind an article written by an African-American journalist in The Root, who was shocked that the Asian-American Journalist's Association (AAJA) had failed - at the time the Root piece was written - to issue any statement of condemnation for the heavy-handed policing in Ferguson, particularly with regards to their suppression, intimidation, and abuse of journalists covering the events. But the actions of journalists cannot possibly be used as a gauge of the general attitudes of the whole community, as the apparent response of the Hispanic community to the events in Ferguson shows.

Despite the satisfactorily swift condemnation by both the respective African-American and Hispanic journalists associations, general interest amongst the general communities of both groups has apparently been dramatically different. According to the Pew research Center, whilst 54% of blacks had "shown most interest" in the events in Ferguson, only 27% of whites, and 18% of Hispanics have shown a similar interest. At the same time, 80% of blacks and 50% of Hispanics, and 37% of whites, believe that the Brown shooting raises questions about race. Asian-American opinions were not solicited for the poll - LOL!

The point here is that it is impossible to make any meaningful assessment of Asian-American attitudes toward the incident since they are - as usual - not included in polls that cover the issue, they are sometimes somewhat disconnected from the activists and media who claim to represent them, and thus, any attempt to portray their attitudes must be mere guesswork and probably not too constructive. In fact, it seems as though it would behoove us to take the position of investigators into Asian-America rather than using guesswork and projection to act as shapers of perceptions about them. The Pew study shows a remarkable apathy amongst non-blacks on the subject of Ferguson, as well as a false presumption that the reactions of journalist associations in any way reflects the general attitudes of the communities they represent.

We simply do not know what Asian-American attitudes and responses to this issue are, and very few of us are in any position to claim to be able to speak on behalf of, or even merely claim that their particular viewpoint - which no doubt for Asian-American bloggers must be more enlightened than those of the rank and file drudge Asians - is not shared by, or any different than, "mainstream" Asian-American attitudes.

I came across an interesting article in the online National Journal publication that covered a Chinese School in St Louis that has become part of the city's desegregation drive. As a public school, students who live in the city attend free of charge, and lessons are entirely in Chinese for the first three years of attendance. Started by educator Rhonda Broussard in 2012, the school offers opportunities for multilingual education in a multi-ethnic setting for kids - many of whom come from deprived backgrounds. As you can see from the article, Asians are playing a significant role in the drive to help end the cycle of poverty and poor educational experiences by giving kids skills that they might not normally be exposed to.

The point here is that it is all well and good to make sweeping statements (pointing no fingers here) about how Asians should or could behave, but the real work gets done when people set up the structure whereby Asians can make a meaningful contribution using skills that they already possess and are willing to impart to those who might not have the same opportunities that they had. Put another way, instead of telling Asians that they don't do enough, or that they don't do enough for our personal tastes, why not actually present a method and a means by which Asians can - and most certainly would be willing - to play a role?

For those who designate themselves as activists - online or otherwise - is it more helpful to decry supposed moral or behavioural shortcomings of Asian-Americans than it is to actually present a realistic course of action that can inspire and motivate them to participate? Certainly, it is much, much easier to employ rhetoric that wins internet fans and kudos, but after all of the oratory, is there any structure in place that puts the strong words to practical use? My sense is that the Asian teachers in the Chinese Immersion School are having a greater positive effect on race-relations than anything I or any other cyber-observer could possibly have regardless of how eloquent we might be. But, don't talk about them, or the experiences of the countless other Asian-Americans whose lives are directly intertwined with those of the racialized poor. We simply seem content to project our own privileged ideologies onto them.

It seems to me that efforts to contextualize the Asian experience through incidents like Ferguson, merely distract from the tragic event itself by shifting focus away from it. If people want to analyze the issue, then good, but to then spill about the Asian experience, or racialize your feelings, seems to somehow be stealing the attention away - even though that may be completely unintentional. It should be enough - and possibly more potent - to simply voice support without trying to shoehorn the Asian experience into it to give one's empathy more credence. It reminds me of how Vanilla Ice always asserted his credibility by talking about how he "came from the street". The sad part is that there is nothing more beautiful and profound than people who have vastly differing experiences, backgrounds, and beliefs, who through tragic events suddenly find that what gives you pain also gives me pain regardless of how much we have, or don't have, in common from our respective backgrounds.

Friday, August 22, 2014

Do Asian Men Exist In Asian-American Movies?

Well...... It Depends!

I came across an old post from 2010 on the YouOffendMeYouOffendMyFamily blog that asked some uncomfortable questions about possible invisibility of Asian men in Asian-American literature.  As this YOMYOMF post from a few years back suggested, there may well be bias in some Asian-American produced literature in which Asian men are rarely given romantic prominence opposite Asian female protagonists. Uncomfortably, those novels listed in the YOMYOMF post are all written by Asian-American women. But, this got me thinking about Asian-American film, and how the Asian-American gender relationship plays out in that particular cultural arena.

Wikipedia has a page devoted to Asian-American films that provides a convenient list (and links) of one-hundred-and-twenty-seven films deemed to belong in the category. I took the liberty of doing a casual study of the listed movies to try and gauge how we represent ourselves. Since I was hoping to gauge the degree to which Asian-American films represent Asian men in leading or love-interest roles, I decided to slim down the list to include only those movies that are full-length and have narratives that call for a (archetypally) masculine lead or love interest. So, I omitted documentary works, short-films, films in which an Asian male lead (i.e. a "masculine" lead) was not really called for (e.g family movies, or girl power movies - like "Eden") and older movies (because when these films were made pre-1970's, the Asian race dynamic was vastly different than what it became post 1980).

I ended up with around 66 full-length narrative films, from which I extrapolated the following information; gender and race of the writer (either screenplay or novel derived), the race and gender of the leading male and female characters. Bear in mind that I have not watched all (or even most) of these movies, but instead read the plot outlines on their respective Wikipedia pages, or Internet Movie Database site - not perfect, but I think sufficient enough for a rudimentary study that I hope will lead to more questioning within the community. I admit that I discovered some interesting things.

Out of 66 films, 19 were written by women, and 47 by men. Interestingly, even though the category is "Asian-American Films", a significant number of these 66 films were written by non-Asians - of the 19 films with female writers, 2 of those were white women, of the 47 written by men, 18 were written by white men, and 3 were white/Asian male collaborations. So, even though there appears to be an ostensible gender disparity in these productions, once we subtract those "Asian-American films" written by non-Asians, then this disparity decreases significantly. And, of course, since so many of the listed movies were written by white males, there are some questions about what actually makes a movie "Asian-American", a subject which I will not delve into in this post.

Of the 26 movies written by Asian men, 15 had both an Asian male and Asian female lead/prominent roles and 4 had an Asian male and white female lead (the rest either did not specity any female leads or their presence was difficult to gauge from the Wiki Plot outlines). Of the 21 Asian movies written by white men (or Asian male white male collaboration), 13 had Asian male leads, 3 of which were Asian male/female co-leads, and 8 were written with white males as the love interest or main lead opposite Asian female characters. Of the movies written by white women, one featured an Asian male lead with a white female lead (Restless), the other featured Asian male/female co-leads (Eat A Bowl Of Tea - based on a novel by an Asian woman).

But, it is the movies written by Asian women that are the most interesting. Of the 17, a whopping 12 feature either a white male lead or love interest with an Asian female lead, or even when there is a prominent Asian male role, their characters are somehow not eligible as love interests. This means that even white dudes have a better record at writing lead roles for Asian men in Asian themed movies. Interestingly, I included two gay themed movies with Asian male writers (Colma The Musical and The Wedding Banquet), and in one of those, the love interest is also a white male (but there is an Asian male lead). Here's a rundown of the Asian male devoid Asian female written films......

Bam Bam and Celeste        No prominent Asian male roles
The Beautiful Country        Asian lead character is a child - the leading
                                           "men" characters are white
Falling for Grace
                Asian female, white male love interest
                                          Asian male "lead" character is Asian
                                          female's brother
                            Two Asian male leads, one is the brother
                                          of the female lead,the other gay, white
                                          male love interest for main Asian female
The Joy Luck Club 
            Asian men are bastards. No explanation
The Mistress of Spices
       Indian Asian female, white love interest
The Princess of Nebraska
 White gay male lead character, no apparent
                                           prominent Asian male roles
Red Doors
                         Asian male character a family member,
                                          white male love interest for eldest daughter
The Sensei
                        White male love interest.
Thousand Pieces of Gold 
White male love interest plus, Asian male
                                          character is a bastard.
Thousand Years of Good Prayers
  White male love interest
Tie a Yellow Ribbon
            Asian woman seemingly in love with her
                                          adoptive white brother.
One of the films written by Asian females feature an Asian man in lead roles with a white female love interest - Never Forever - and a three of the movies - Golden Gate (David Henry Hwang), Charlotte Sometimes, and Disney's Wendy Hu (Victor Cheung) - are written by Asian men, or have Asian men as part of the writing team, and they also feature white male leads and love interests for the Asian female leads. But, overall, it seems that Asian men are underrepresented as leads and/or love interests in movies written by Asian women. On the other hand, the majority of Asian-American films written by Asian-American men seem more inclusive of Asian females and provide opportunities for Asian female actors. Again, I offer the caveat that I have not watched most of these films and so I cannot make any qualitative assessment of how any of the characters were portrayed (regardless of race).

But, based on the plot lines, it seems as though films written by Asian women, for the most part, follow in the footsteps of the mainstream media's habit of excluding Asian males from roles where they can be the love interest. Even white dudes - when they write serious "Asian"- themed screenplays - seem to have a better record at giving Asian men lead roles in Asian-themed films. Ouch!

Here is the list of movies written by Asian men that feature prominent Asian female roles....
Asian Stories, Better Luck Tomorrow, Catfish In Barbecue Sauce, CharlotteSometimes, Close Call,  The Debut, Fakin Da Funk, Kissing Cousins, Living On Tokyo Time, The Rebel, Robot Stories, Undoin, West 32nd, Wendy Hu, Yokai King
And the rest of the movies written by Asian men that I used in the survey....
Amerasian, Baby, Colma The Musical,  Golden Gate, Green Dragon, Miami Connection, Shanghai Calling, Shanghai Kiss, Supercapitalist, The Wedding Banquet, Yellow,
Movies written by white dudes which have a white male lead/love interest opposite an Asian female character......
China Girl, Come See Paradise, Heaven & Earth, Lani Loa, Make Your Move, Redwood Curtain, Snow Falling On Cedars, GranTorino.
White male writers with Asian male leads or prominent roles....
Americanese, The Corruptor, Dark MatterDim Sum Funeral, Drive, Fast and Furious, Harold And Kumar (2 Movies), Replacement Killers, White On Rice, Chan Is Missing, Revenge Of The Green Dragons, TakeOut 
Movies with Asian female writers that feature prominent Asian male male leads/roles....... 
Never Forever, The Picture Bride, Raspberry Magic, Shangri La Cafe, Strawberry Fields 
To be fair, The Joy Luck Club did have prominent Asian male leads, but qualitatively, the roles were somewhat negative overall.

The two movies written by white women that feature Asian male leads...
Eat A Bowl Of Tea, Restless                

Sunday, August 17, 2014


..Arthur Chu Gets It Right.

In the past I have criticized Arthur Chu for some aspects of his writing, but his latest piece is written with the kind of oppositional spirit that is all too-often lacking in Asian-American writers who have access to mainstream exposure. To me, Chu's piece should typify the Asian-American approach to writing about our experiences and not be the exception

I won't reprint the piece here, but here are some excepts......
It was a moral that explained many things. It explained, for instance, why he never went to parent-teacher association events, never integrated himself into “the community.” Why he consistently obeyed Rule #1, a rule that my friends’ white suburban parents had never considered—a rule I would not hear from others until I actually met people who’d grown up urban and poor when I got older—Never Talk to the Cops. (In the Bill of Rights it’s actually Rule #5.)........Why he urged me to choose a career specialization based on objective assessment of skills and achievements, one where success was quantifiable, one whose practitioners were organizationally indispensable. To take an “Asian” job like engineer, scientist, programmer. One where there was little room for subjectivity, where the personal impression of the interviewer counted less. To stay away most of all from fields where I would be judged purely based on how well people could relate to me, like direct sales, like middle management, like the performing arts........To never, ever, ever put my livelihood in a position where I depended on white people liking me.
That lesson was: This Is Not Your Country.........You can live here. You can make friends. You can try to live by the law and be a decent citizen and even maybe make a lot of money.....But you will never, ever belong. You will never, ever be one of them. And you must never, ever trust them. 
I swallowed it all. As much as I could. I swallowed things that tasted foul and struggled to keep them down, but I did the best I could, to prove I could, to prove that I could swallow anything. I stomached the Chinese Exclusion Acts and the Riots of 1871. The gold miners and the borax miners and the railroad workers. I held my nose and I ate Jack London and the Yellow Peril and the coming war with China. I swallowed H.S. Tsien's deportation and Cold War paranoia and Joe McCarthy and the Yellow Peril and the coming war with China. I choked down Wen Ho Lee’s arrest and Vincent Chin’s murder and Iris Chang’s suicide and Andrew Breitbart and the Yellow Peril and the coming war with China. 
The historical atrocities and the daily microaggressions. Kids who screamed “Chinese Pig!” and adults who asked in an exasperated tone “I mean where are you from originally?” John McCain and the gooks he could never forgive.
The white racist looks at me and sees a stolen job or the slow decline of national prominence, but he doesn’t see a rapist, a thug, a barbarian at the gate. I fear being snubbed and sometimes spat on but rarely shot. And that is a very important difference.
Please go over there and read the whole piece, I don't think I have read many pieces like it that are so honest about the Asian experience.

The only caveat I have is that it would be easy to view the piece and the sentiment as a mere tag-on or afterthought in the story of African-Americans, and whilst I see some value in intersectionality, the fact remains that the Asian racial experiences that Chu describes are sufficiently serious and do not require the intersectionality with the black experience to be given more credibility.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Drake's Impersonation Of Manny Pacquiao

Is It Offensive?

There's a video that has been making the rounds that shows the singer, Drake, impersonating Filipino boxer, Manny Pacquiao. The skit shows Drake - as Pacquiao - in the recording studio talking about his love of music amongst other things and, well, just watch......

What do you think? I thought the skit was hilarious and not in the least offensive or racist, but the video has apparently caused offense amongst some Filipinos. The Facebook site of the Philippine newspaper, Inquirer, has asked readers if they consider the skit to be racist, to which most have answered "no". This link shows some reactions to the skit - mostly positive, but a few not so much. Another Filipino blogger has written a post explaining why he thinks the skit was racist - here - calling it a type of blackface.

Whilst I understand the sentiment of those who are uncomfortable with the skit or have found it racist or offensive I don't agree with them. Where I agree with those who are offended is that we have a responsibility to examine these kinds of representations of Asians in the media because the vast majority of the time those representations are overwhelmingly demeaning and negative. In this case, however, I think that we have to look at the context and the big picture in order to be able to truly assess the intent of the skit.

There is a major difference between the Drake skit and the typical "comedy/satire" that mock and demean Asians. We have to remember that the usual demeaning representation of Asian people de-individuates us, meaning that this kind of racism relies not so much on observation of particular individuals, but rather draws from the library of stereotypical and racist conceptions of Asians - some of which are decades old - that are based more on the product of the mainstream racist imagination than on any real interaction with Asian people. After all, you cannot know Asian people and be their friend if you interact with them the in the way modeled by the media. So, all the "ching-chong" representations of Asians are not based on observations of individuals, but are mostly drawn from mainstream-created unrealistic stereotypes the purpose of which is to demean and dehumanize Asian people.

Drake's impersonation of Manny Pacquiao, by contrast, does the exact opposite to the above. Firstly, it is an impersonation based on the observed behaviour, mannerisms, and speech of a real person and not merely a regurgitation of tired stereotypes. Manny's love for singing is parodied, and his "renaissance-boxer-man" approach to life is cleverly satirized, and it is all delivered using an accurately executed Filipino accent and a well-observed Pacquiao humility. In other words, whoever wrote the piece actually bothered to observe aspects of Pacquiao's character and demeanour and was thus able to produce a clever personalized parody of a real, individual, Asian person instead of the typical dehumanizing allusions to slant eyes, and gibberish language imitation.

That to me is the crux of why the piece was not racist; instead of saying the usual "look! An Asian! Ching-Chong!", the piece was individualizing an Asian man through parody, instead of de-individuating and dehumanizing him. Whether this was by design or if it was merely a happy accident I do not know but I think that, in a sense, the skit  is one of the most normalized depictions of an Asian man that I have ever seen, simply because it is based on the actual observation of a real, individual Asian man.

H/T FlipFob