A Modulating Racism

Prosperity, Success, And The Permissiveness Of Racism.

I came across an article in the New York Times that covered the racial experiences of minority groups at the University Of Michigan. What struck me about the piece was one comment by a black admin officer that I thought had significance in the intra-Asian-American dialogue on the model minority stereotype. This is the comment...

We’re clearly not postracial,” said Tiya A. Miles, chairwoman of the department of Afro-American and African studies. “Sometimes I wonder if having a black president lets people feel like that gives them cover. It absolves people of being prejudiced.

An interesting comment that sums up in a nutshell the experience of Asian-Americans.Whereas the the above comment mentions the "success" of having a black president serving as an excuse or cover for prejudice, for Asian-Americans, it is the notion of an economically and educationally high-achieving minority that excuses anti-Asian attitudes - what do Asians have to complain about when they are so successful?

Whereas much commentary focuses on how the minority model stereotype separates us in the eyes of our co-minorities, all too often we miss the fact that the stereotype's primary function serves to render an autonomous Asian voice invisible and downplay the fact that casual anti-Asian racism and hate crimes are regularly committed through derogatory cultural representations of Asians, normalizing such attitudes and further ingraining anti-Asian hostility into the cultural zeitgeist as the normal and acceptable mode of behaviour and conceptualization of Asian people.

While we spend our time decrying how the successes we achieve are an affront to other minorities, we fail to notice that this success - paraphrased as the "model minority" - serves as an excuse to legitimize America's casual cultural racism towards Asian-Americans. Many of the incidents cited by the article of racial intolerance and insensitivity towards black students are mirrored in commonplace experiences for Asian-Americans. In fact, not only are they common, American culture itself brazenly and unapologetically propagates this intolerance flagrantly distilling "Asian" characteristics down to a series of demeaning qualities that are recycled by subsequent perpetrators and even broadcast to international audiences.

Here are some examples of the intolerance cited in the article....

fraternity hosting the party, whose members are mostly Asian and white, had invited “rappers, twerkers, gangsters” and others “back to da hood again.”.....high-profile incidents — including a number of fraternity parties nationwide that have used racist symbols, including watermelons and gang signs....a black student at the State University of New York at New Paltz, shared a photo of a “colored only” sign that had been placed on a water fountain in his freshman year.

What is being described here echoes the kinds of media depictions that Asian-Americans complain about, the difference is that the article is acknowledging that these incidents may reflect an intolerance towards blacks, whereas the media's perpetration of the same kinds of insensitivities and dehumanization of Asians causes few eyebrows to be raised, and scarce criticism save from Asians themselves. Rarely, if at all, is the possibility raised that these intermittent but consistent depictions of Asians might reflect intolerance. The question is; what is the difference between "play-acting" at being a "gangsta" in a college frat-house and play-acting dehumanizing ideas about Asians on the television or movie screen?

One difference is that Asians are a model minority whose educational and economic achievements have enabled anti-Asian racism to find an acceptable avenue of expression - prosperity alleviates the effects of racism, so the prevailing wisdom goes, and, in fact, prosperity itself may reflect a reversal of racist attitudes such that racial insensitivities can be excused because the bottom-line has become the gauge of its prevalence. The logic is flawless and convenient; prosperity is an indicator that racism has diminished, therefore racially demeaning depictions of Asians simply cannot be racist.

The reality is that what the Asian-American experience can offer us - and it is an experience that we often miss in our attempts to distance ourselves from "internalizing" the model minority stereotype - is an insight into the future of all visible minorities who attain some level of prosperity. If we accept that prosperity is the line beyond which racism is judged to have disappeared - when our experience tells us it has not - then we have not really succeeded in changing ingrained racist attitudes, we merely allow them to exist in a more subtle or snide way that enables the permissiveness of racial harassment.

The model minority dialogue must provide more room for the exploration of this phenomenon of prosperity providing the legitimacy for the permissiveness of racial harassment. Instead of framing the Asian-American experience of achieving prosperity as primarily a story of a formerly aggrieved minority's ingratitude or indifference to other minorities who may be less successful than we, perhaps it would behoove us to explore the subtle, grudging, racisms that accompanies prosperity or even merely the appearance of prosperity, and in so doing, highlight the fact that racism does not end once a group has exhibits high college graduation or income levels. 

Fighting For Children's Rights

Helen Gym

I just thought that I would highlight someone whose focus might be - in my opinion - one of Asian-America's most significant issues today. Helen Gym is an Asian woman based in Philadelphia, who although an advocate for school reform in the Philly area, came to my attention back in 2009 when she was instrumental in the advocacy for Asian-American kids who had been suffering severe racially based bullying and harassment.

Her advocacy is significant for two reasons; firstly she is challenging apathetic attitudes towards dysfunction in the school system, and secondly (but most importantly from an Asian-American perspective) she has been, and continues to be, instrumental in defending the casually abused civil rights of Asian kids in Philadelphia High Schools. I have written about the experiences of the Asian kids in South Philly in several previous posts, and, in fact, it was my feeling that there seemed to be little interest in the violence directed at these kids amongst Asian-Americans that motivated me to start a blog. Of course, my writings explore issues beyond this, but it was my sense that there was a dearth in interest not only in the specific events in South Philly High School, but also there seemed to little exploration into the phenomenon of anti-Asian racism in American schools.

More specifically, my interest covers the intersection of Asian depictions and attitudes in American cultural endeavours, and the experience of racially inflected bullying, harassment, and violence that seems almost universal amongst Asians kids going through America's education system to one degree or another. For me, the possibility of universal casual racism perpetrated by non-Asian kids on their Asian peers in schools, ranks as one of the most significant issues that Asian-America needs to address. The reason is simple; if the casual anti-Asian racism (often in the form of casual retributive violence against deindivuated masses) modeled by American culture is emulated or reflected in the behaviours and attitudes of children, then these attitudes may easily form into habits of prejudice that manifest as casual anti-Asian discrimination in adulthood.

Certainly, addressing media racism directly is one avenue for changing this state of affairs, but I also believe that seeking accountability from school admins, teachers, and any other adult involved in the "care" of Asian kids in the school environment warrants some thought. All too often, anti-Asian racism in America's schools is dismissed as merely the actions of ignorant or insensitive kids, or is simply put down to the fact that "kids can be cruel". These might be sufficient explanations under normal circumstances, but, for Asian-American kids, not only are they dealing with "cruel kids", but with a culture that actually models (through media depictions) many of the racist behaviours that they are experiencing. That is a whole different ball-game.

In effect, America's casual cultural racism can only be normalizing the kinds of racist behaviours that are directed at Asian children, and because this process can actually be viewed as a conditioning process, what it means is that negative behaviours and attitudes towards Asian people become and remain ingrained. This is why I think school racism is one of the most important issues that we as a community need to highlight and address.

What Would You Do?

....Marginalizing Asian Men In The Fight Against Racism.

In a previous post wrote about an incident in Korea in which a couple of western ex-pats made a video of themselves harassing and abusing a Korean woman in a nightclub. It has since come to light that the video is most likely staged by actors, but that, in no way, changes the gist or points that I made in the original post, about the way that the incident was reported and how it seemed to deflect  responsibility back onto Koreans themselves. With that in mind, at the end of the Washington Post article was this paragraph.......

It’s not clear that the woman in this video was seeking out Western men — if anything, it looks like she was minding her own business when they set upon her — but it’s difficult to imagine what it must be like for other Korean women who see the video online. First they watch the young woman being harassed by two Western men, pushing her around like a disobedient animal, then they see her scolded on Korean social media and Web discussion boards, told by Korean men that she deserved what she got. The moment when she stands up and brushes off her assailants — with no help from anyone in the bar, it’s difficult to miss — is the closest this story gets to having a hero.

It is the final sentence that piques my interest;

"the woman brushed off her assailants, without help from anyone in the bar."

Thinking about what I would have done - that is, questioning whether I would have "helped" -  if I had witnessed this situation made me realize the depth of the divide between Asian men and women in America. I will be honest and say that I second-guessed myself about a situation which if it had involved any other demographic, I would likely have been far more certain about what I would have thought of as the "right" thing to do.

In light of previous posts that I have written, that deal with the dating choices of Asian women, specifically with regards to the degree to which some seem willing to overlook racialization or trivialize anti-Asian racism, this question of "would I have helped", requires a complicated answer. The two posts linked to above, in addition to other commentaries by Asian women seem to make it clear that some Asian women (with access to publications that can mainstream their bizarre ideas) view white racism and the struggle against it drastically differently than Asian men view it.

It has been plainly stated by some Asian women in mainstream and non-mainstream publications alike, that racism and demeaning racist behaviour are not necessarily grounds to reject romantic advances which, effectively, leaves anyone hoping to make a stand against it on shaky ground. Some Asian women seem to actually welcome anti-Asian racism as an opportunity to further territorialize the fight against it and expound on their views of Asian men as disruptors of the dating choice. For others, as in the case of the Jen An piece, the implication is that Asian women can overlook racism by adopting racist attitudes themselves and finding dating joy.

Here is the dilemma; for any Asian-American to "help" in a situation like the one portrayed in the video (where the Korean girl is being abused), one would have to consider this aspect of the situation. To me, this illustrates how making light of anti-Asian racism, or even racial slurs has damaged the credibility of Asian-American claims of prejudice - if Asians themselves present an ambivalent attitude to racism, and are even willing to forgive (or participate in) racism for the sake of a date or financial reward, then mainstream America cannot in all fairness be faulted for any ambivalence towards anti-Asian racism.

On a deeper level, these types of accounts and the resulting ambivalence, and casual dismissal of anti-Asian racism, that it creates, is simply another aspect of the process of feminization of the Asian-American voice. By creating this ambivalence, the masculine aspect of Asian resistance to racism is confounded and pacified - that is it becomes feminized in the worst possible way; the passive and co-dependent "I can change these men" way. So what would have been the "right" thing to do? I still don't really know because the way that some Asians themselves mainstream their ideas about racism, renders any notions of what is "right" into a far more ambivalent place than it might be reasonable. Seemingly there are some Asian women who accept a racist partner in the same way that they might accept a messy one - as little more than an annoyance.

At the end of the day, I think that we, as Asian men, are required to address this kind of racism - even when (perhaps, especially when) it might be unwelcomed as interfering in someone else's dating opportunities. The reason is that non-one - not even Asians themselves - has the right to tell us that there is "acceptable" racism. Most importantly, we are attacking this racism not on behalf of Asian women but for ourselves. Asian women are free to overlook or participate in anti-Asian racism if they want, but that doesn't mean that we have to accept it when they allow it to become a normalized, mainstream narrative.

Driven Out - An Asian-American Holocaust

The Forgotten War Against Chinese-Americans.

I bought the book "Driven Out" a couple of years ago, and tried several times to read it all the way through, but had been unable to because of the very harrowing nature of the work. The book - written by a Jewish-American academic - details the almost continuous barrage of racial attacks, pogroms, and riots, over a period of at least six decades, targeting the early Chinese immigrants to the US, beginning in the mid-nineteenth-century. I've finally, in recent weeks, made the decision of finish the book and I am now almost through it, but it is still not easy reading.

The book covers a period of American history from the 1850's through to the early decades of the 20th century, that has been completely white-washed from the mainstream and Asian-American historical consciousness alike. The first Chinese immigrants began to arrive in the US in the early 19th century following the forced opening of Chinese markets to the West. As is always the case, exchanges of products were accompanied by the transfer of people and communities, so, in part because Westerners began to colonize China and create economic and social disadvantages for the Chinese, many Chinese sought economic security and opportunities in foreign countries that were no longer possible at home. Many indentured themselves - the so-called "coolies" - and found work in far-flung places like South Africa, The Caribbean, Australia, and South America. The Chinese who came to America came as free men in search of opportunities and only a small minority came as indentured servants.

Since almost the beginning of the Chinese presence in the US, they were under attack - and it has to be said that even though it was white Americans who propagated the violence, there was some participation of other minorities. There were cases where Mexicans and Native peoples participated in the violence, and even some African-Americans took sides against the Asian immigrants in editorials in black publications (but it has to be said that other African-American commentators gave support to the Chinese). But the vast majority of attacks were initiated and carried out by whites.

The stories of violence and manifestations of hatred are almost unbelieveable - they are so savage, brutal, and sadistic, that the perpetrators and the violence that they committed sounds like little more than a caricature of a medieval warlord and his mob of rampaging peasants. If one were to write a novel - or make a movie - with these kinds of incidents, most people might find the characterizations to be too far-fetched. But these things did happen, and the sadistic brutality was real, yet, the entire episode has almost disappeared from the American consciousness. Certainly, I have heard people talking about the prejudice against the early Chinese, but it has always seemed to be strangely sterile in the telling - even Asians seem to downplay the sheer savagery of the violence. Even worse, this hugely significant episode in American, and Asian-American, history has been given no place in the consciousness of Asian-American cultural output, when in my opinion, it should form the basis for the ontology of Asian-American culture.

It is impossible to document all of the attacks against the Chinese in a single blog post - there were literally hundreds of episodes that affected thousands of Chinese - such was the level and degree of violent depravity of America's pioneers in the West.

Having come to America lured by the promise of work, or riches in the gold mines, the Chinese quickly established themselves as a more reliable and cheaper alternative than white workers in many of the West coast's fledgling industries. Fairly soon, small communities of Chinese - mostly men - sprang up throughout the West Coast. Almost just as soon, anti-Chinese sentiment began to emerge. Driven by labor movements, and local authorities, but legitimized by xenophobic politicians, the anti-Chinese sentiment played upon the sense of white entitlement to whip up hatred towards the peaceful Chinese. Significantly, then as now, the media played a huge role in galvanizing and promoting anti-Chinese feeling - using stereotypes, caricatures, and a general strategy of defamation, the media succeeded in dehumanizing the Chinese such that few people saw a moral contradiction between the brotherly love of their Christian faith, and the culture of murder and disenfranchisement that they allowed to occur in their towns, and in which many were happy to participate.

Laws came into being that made it illegal for the Chinese to own property, and they were "discouraged" or forbidden from renting near whites - the so-called "Chinatowns" were actually ghettos, that served as a means of racial segregation, in run down and decrepit parts of town, and in buildings often considered too dangerous for human habitation. Special "taxes" and "fees" were introduced with the aim of specifically targeting Chinese workers and business owners. Still, the Chinese endured. They made these areas their own, and soon Chinese merchants were in operation, providing services and products for the community. But this segregation didn't satisfy the bloodlust of the West Coast's white population. Anti-Chinese sentiment, given momentum by xenophobia of politicians, and fueled by a media campaign of dehumanization, stereotyping, and defamation, soon flared up into a full-scale ethnic cleansing that would last into the 20th century.

What is unsettling is how these actions of hatred and the methods and attitudes that drove them, seem echoed in the modern-day experience of Asian-Americans. Then, as now, American society exhibited a moral acceptance of dehumanization of the Chinese - most would not act on it, but seemed to be either apathetic about the moral dilemma at best, or at worst, willing to justify or downplay prejudice. Then, as now, Asians could build communities and businesses, and the mostly apathetic mainstream would go along with it without much fanfare. Yet, most often in the 19th century American West, a handful of determined people were able to galvanize public action, such that white Americans who had lived, worked, and become friendly with their Chinese neighbours in towns all over the west coast could either turn on them, or simply look the other way while mobs of angry white men burned Chinese communities, forced Chinese people to leave town, or simply beat and murdered them.

White agitators would protest the presence of Chinese communities in their towns, galvanize the support of the local community and its authorities, made businesses and landlords sign petitions promising to never employ or rent to the Chinese, made those who already employed or rented to the Chinese - through intimidation or simple persuasion - to promise to fire or evict them. Boycotts of Chinese businesses were used as a weapon (as it is today against Asian merchants and powerful Asian economies) to financially ruin successful businessmen. Once this base of support had been solidified, then the campaign against any given Chinese community would usually become violent and brutal. Mobs of men (but sometimes including women and children) would enter Chinatowns, forcing the Chinese out of their homes and businesses, they would be beaten (or killed) and then made to walk miles to the coast or railway stations where they would be forced onto trains and ships and removed from the town. Then the homes of the Chinese would be ransacked and burned. In some instances, Chinese homes and dorms would be set on fire with the Chinese men still inside, who were then shot at and murdered as they tried to escape the flames.

Often, local authorities would serve notices to the Chinese communities informing them of the decision to have them removed from town, and in some instances the Chinese agreed to leave, yet, sometimes, violence took place even when the Chinese agreed to leave town. By providing violent racism with the veneer of legalism, America made ethnic cleansing of the Chinese a respectable and justified endeavour. With only the most flimsy of justifications, Chinatowns throughout the west coast were eradicated, ransacked and burned, and the Chinese men who populated them were beaten, killed, or falsely imprisoned. In the six or so decades between the 1850's and the early 20th century, there were hundreds of such incidences, that drove Chinese communities out of dozens of American West Coast towns, killing many Chinese men and injuring thousands more. Following the so-called "dog-tag" laws in the 1890's that required the registration of all Chinese, the idea was floated that any Chinese who could not show that they were legal should be placed in "enclosures" - a disturbing foreshadowing of Japanese internment.

Yet, the Chinese were never passive in the face of this hostility, not only did they resist, they went on the offensive. They fought back with acts of civil disobedience, strikes, boycotts, and even used lawsuits and the legal system to win recompense for their material losses. Across the region, groups of Chinese men armed themselves with rifles and pistols, and defended their homes and properties. In some towns - such as San Jose - after repeated arson attacks that destroyed Chinatown, the Chinese community rebuilt in brick and stone, and surrounded their community with a high retaining wall accessible through a single guarded entrance gate. When local thugs tried to harass the local shop-keepers, the Chinese bought lawsuits against the perpetrators. These acts of self-defence and defiance sent clear statements of intent that they would not be intimidated into leaving, and that they were asserting their rights as American residents.

Lawsuits bought by the Chinese against local and federal authorities - several of which they won - served as the legal precedent for reparations paid to the Japanese for internment and to several native American groups. A lawsuit bought against the state of Califıornia by a Chinese family is considered one of the most important civil rights decisions in American history - it forced the states to provide public education for all of its children, regardless of their race or origin. Chinese resistance also tested the 14th amendment's provision for equal protection under the law. Yet, these civil rights precedents have disappeared form the American consciousness, and even worse, it has been forgotten or ignored in the Asian-American consciousness.

The experience of the early Chinese immigrants set the tone for America's attitude towards its Asian populations ever since. Subsequent populations of Asian immigrants - almost all male - like the Japanese and Filipinos, faced a similar campaign of violence. Both these groups faced segregation, violence, lynchings, and exclusion. Mobs attacked their neighbourhoods, and campaigns to prevent them from gaining employment and places to live were often successful. And even the big "Driving Out" - Japanese internment - can be viewed as simply a manifestation on a larger scale of the policy of excluding or driving out Asian populations from American towns.

It is almost a mirror image of the manner in which the Chinese were brutalized; agitation from local people, coupled with xenophobia from federal policymakers, resulted in notices being served that the Japanese would be driven from their homes and businesses, and their property would be basically ransacked and stolen by the white population. Japanese internment, violence against the Filipinos, and the driving out of the Chinese, reflect a single line of political and racial thinking that, because it has been forgotten or whitewashed from history, presents obstacles to any meaningful understanding of the attitudes and hatreds that lie at the foundation of anti-Asian racism that still inform America's attitudes towards Asians in the present.

It is eerie to realize that American culture still maintains this culture of dehumanization towards Asian people, that normalizes racism, and creates an attitude of low-grade resentment that can be manipulated to justify racist behaviour and violence. In this way, genuine engagement with the Asian community is never required, and society can distance itself from any moral consideration of Asian humanity, when political convenience, or economic resentments, necessitate the need for demonization of Asian people.

The latest episode in this decades-old cultural practice of maintaining moral distance from Asians, saw its most recent manifestation in the LA riots of 1992. America's cultural propagation of anti-Asian resentment of the 1970's and 80's, and the normalization of demeaning behaviours and dehumanizing stereotypes, created an environment in which a pogrom against Korean merchants and their businesses was largely deemed to be morally justified by the mainstream. There was little sympathy and almost no empathy for the Koreans, and they were even castigated for defending themselves. It is difficult to sympathize and empathize with a group of people about whom  that racial mockery, and dehumanizing resentments, are the standard manner of conceiving of them.

Understanding the experiences of the first Chinese immigrants, should help us to see how the attitudes that drove anti-Chinese violence were founded on a basis of low-grade, but pervasive, derogatory stereotypes that enabled communities to distance themselves from any moral consideration towards the Chinese. Although hatred drove the violence, it was the equally important culture of dehumanization that made possible the apathy, acquiescence and assistance of the majority. This culture of dehumanization of Asians is still going strong to this day, and the experiences of the Chinese shows me that even if you are an established community, this dehumanization leaves open the possibility for the kind moral distancing that makes violence inevitable.

I do  not think that it is coincidental that this early history of struggle by Asian immigrants has largely disappeared from the cultural consciousness of both Asian-Americans because these histories involved mainly Asian men, and in modern day America, it is the feminine voice that is the acceptable voice of Asian-America. As we all might agree, the feminine voice of Asian-America, generally defers to the importance the white male presence in Asian existence, whereas the facts of history of Asian-America implicitly marginalizes the white male as a vindictive, frightened, and violent savage, who attempted to murder, or persuade others to murder, his way to ethnic purity, and economic hegemony. This leaves no room for a history that not only shows that America engaged in ethnic cleansing against Asians, it also leaves no room for the preferred narrative in which Asian men are not the weak timid creatures who are easily pushed around. The early Chinese fought back in any way they could think of. That is probably why mainstream America prefers to forget, and Asian-Americans who strive for mainstream inclusion at all costs, generally acquiesce to pretending this history never happened.

Social Capital

Asian-American Cultural Poverty.

I think that few people are surprised by the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the trial over his shooting of Trayvon Martin. Although the story is probably well-known, I'll summarize it briefly. Zimmerman, who was part of a neighbourhood watch group, observed Martin walking through his neighbourhood and presumed that he was up to no good. In his own words, Zimmerman describes how he thought that Martin looked suspicious, and seemed like he was on "drugs or something". Having alerted the police, Zimmerman was told by them to not approach the "suspect", advice he ignored. Armed, he approached Martin, who apparently (and reasonably), according to reports, felt threatened by Zimmerman's approach. What happened next will never be truly known, but what is accepted is that a fight ensued, that was ended when Zimmerman shot Martin dead.

What has interested me is the way that race politics has played out during the case and in its aftermath. Initially, it seemed like an open and shut case of white on black violence until it was realized that Zimmerman is - according to commonly held standards of description - Hispanic. Yet, it has seemed to me that this nuance has been downplayed, seemingly by both the black and Hispanic communities and their leaders. Granted, I live on a different continent, so I may have missed some nuanced reporting, but it has definitely seemed to me that the mainstream and community leaders have downplayed Zimmerman's "Hispanic-ness".

This may be in keeping with the general tendency to downplay what some believe to be rapidly deteriorating black/Hispanic relations. But, it also highlights the way that the influence of America's various ethnicities is beginning to emerge.

As I wrote about here, there are some who believe that new racial demarcation lines are being drawn, that elevate Asians and Hispanics to a social level closer to America's whites, but leaving blacks rooted firmly at the bottom of the social hierarchy. I pointed out how simplistic that idea was - particularly regarding the Asian community, where there is a distinct disparity in cultural, social, and perhaps even political integration between the genders. Furthermore, one of the main factors used by that study to suggest a blurring of lines between whites and Asians was high outmarriage rates of Asian women, which I discount as a reasonable thesis based on the contradictory evidence of culturally normalized anti-Asian racism, disparate experiences based on gender (which the study did acknowledge), and pervasive racist attitudes and behaviours exhibited towards Asians by non-Asian children. The point here, is that a more holistic approach might paint a more accurate picture of how attitudes towards race might, or might not, be changing.

For example, it could be argued that blacks are almost fully integrated and accepted as participants in the political arena, and as cultural leaders. Anti-black racism - although rampant - is largely accepted as a moral infringement that is detrimental to society. Asians by contrast are largely culturally invisible, and have only recently begun to emerge as viable political leaders in any numbers. Furthermore, anti-Asian racism is normalized, and Americans conditioned to accept anti-Asian racism as normal, by America's culture, such that it considered appropriate to mock Asian victims of a plane crash - some of whom died in the incident. Clearly, if race lines are being re-drawn, then there it is more sensible to take into account several factors beyond high out-marriage rates, and perhaps even income levels.

Hispanics are an interesting case. My personal observation is that Hispanics are more readily accepted by white America than either blacks or Asians. In fact, my sense is that Hispanics are more readily accepted by Asians and blacks than Asians and blacks accept each other. This may sound like a strange thing to say but, again, if we look at culture, it seems as though there is more room for maneuver for Hispanics. To begin, I cannot imagine large swathes of white Americans supporting legislation that offers amnesty to eleven million undocumented Asian immigrants. Given that white parents can't stand the thought of their kids being around sizeable numbers of Americans of Asian descent in America's schools, it is reasonable to accept that Asians would not be welcomed in the numbers that Hispanics have been relatively accepted.

Of course, the cultural clues support this idea of white America's relative comfort with Hispanic people and "Latin" cultures. Hispanics have a strong political presence and, culturally, there are myriad numbers of Hispanic cultural figures - Hispanic males can and do take leading roles in film and television, in ways that blacks can do in limited ways, and Asians are excluded from doing. For example, Hispanic male leads are regularly cast as the love interest of white women, but black men are not, even though there have been several black male actors with huge box-office appeal - I'm reminded of the movie "Hancock", in which the superhero Will Smith, was portrayed as the soul-mate of Charlize Theron, but the nerdy white guy still ended up with her.

But what is the point here, and what does it have to do with the Zimmerman case? Well, first of all, the way that the black/Hispanic dynamic has been downplayed shows a political will, on both sides perhaps, to de-escalate conflict. Compare, for example, how in black/Asian relations, Asian racism is highlighted, and often exaggerated by both community leaders and the media. This is where the level of cultural inclusion speaks volumes about social status. Both Hispanics and blacks have an influential political, social, and cultural, voice, and, thus, any accusations leveled at their groups can be swiftly and effectively responded to by a number of voices from a number of outlets. Asians, by contrast, have no such luxury - because Asians are marginalized in culture, our "voice" is effectively whatever anyone wants our voice to be. Naturally, because anti-Asian prejudice is normalized, much of the defining of who and what Asian-Americans are about, emerges as the natural outcome of this hostile culture and is, thus, uncompromising, confrontational, and is absent suggestions of conciliation.

And this, to me, characterizes how America interacts with its Asian minority - uncompromising and confrontational, but with the understanding that reconciliation isn't necessary because reconciliation implies inclusion. Because Asians have little social and political capital - so to speak - there is no obligation to de-escalate tensions between Asians and other groups. That is why, for instance, the pogrom against Koreans during the LA riots were justified based almost solely on accusations of racism against the Koreans (even by Asians themselves), and both community leaders and the media stoked the flames of America's racial antagonism towards Asians, but there is no equivalent stoking - by any group - of Hispanic/black tensions in the aftermath of the Zimmerman acquittal. I don't think we will be seeing many people attempting to pillage and burn Hispanic enclaves in America's cities - and if it does happen, Hispanics won't be castigated for defending themselves as the Koreans were castigated for defending themselves.

I suppose one could see this equilibrium as a positive sign, yet, I cannot help but be disappointed to once again realize that moral obligation isn't always the fundamental driving force in the interaction between peoples. What drives it, is the careful balance between any given  group's ability to hurt or help you. It is a testament to poor social status of the Asian minority that conciliatory positions seem to be rarely promoted when conflict arises with other groups. Instead, we see an attitude of brow-beating and score-settling, which is easy to do because Asians have little or no control over how their community represented in culture.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that a black child was profiled, followed, and ultimately shot, by a gung-ho, wannabe hero, who in my view, provoked an incident that should have been avoided. To me, that makes Zimmerman as guilty as any of the hundreds of offenders who have been convicted of manslaughter after causing death while driving drunk.

We Don't Know Much!

Asian Attitudes And The Model Minority.

The folks over at the "Racefiles" blog have posted the findings of a study that they conducted that sought to..

...better understand the racial position of Asian Americans, and how Asian American identity functions in the realm of racial politics...

To accomplish this, they did the following.....

....conducted in-depth, confidential interviews with 82 Asian American organizers, leaders, intellectuals, and artists working in the racial justice field throughout the United States. We also talked to five non-Asian American racial justice leaders doing promising work that cuts across all communities of color. 

There is some good background information provided that offers a persuasive (but, in my opinion, incomplete) interpretation  of the historical background that has shaped the social hierarchy of 21st century America.

The latter part of the findings shifts focus somewhat to the interviewees' personal visions for mobilizing Asian-Americans. But, I'll begin by focusing on the report's findings on the racial attitudes and positions of Asian-Americans as represented by the interviewees.

In answer to the question of "how Asian Americans think about race, and whether we should work to build a more unified Asian American identity", the following was concluded......

They Don’t. It is significant that about one-third of respondents said that Asian Americans do not think about race at all. Some said this was because of the weakness of Asian American racial identity especially among first-generation immigrants and refugees, but others attributed it to the racial position of Asian Americans, especially those with class privilege, which encouraged the embrace of American individualism.

Asian American Racial Superiority. Many participants critiqued the model minority myth as a strategy to denigrate Blackness and distance Asian Americans from other peoples of color, in service to white supremacy.

 And one Mid-West organizer elaborates....

“I mean, Asians are racist… I don’t think that they think very highly of African Americans. I think that they largely think what they’re told about them, which is that they’re criminals, they’re undeserving, they try and feed off the system, they don’t work hard, they’re scary, all of those different kinds of things… It’s messed up.”

The next question asked; What do Asian Americans Think of Other Peoples of Color?

In general, there was a sense that Asian Americans had internalized negative stereotypes about Blacks and Latinos in particular, and took pride in the model minority myth, even if they did not think explicitly about race in their daily lives.......More than half of the people we interviewed said that Asian Americans exhibited a significant amount of anti-Black racism.

The piece goes on to describe Asian-American attitudes towards Latinos - generally slightly warmer than attitudes towards blacks, but still somewhat negative - and Asian-American feelings towards Native Americans, which turned out to be non-existent - Asian-Americans don't think about them much. But overall, the general consensus was that Asian/black tensions were the most significant manifestation of Asian-American feelings of racial superiority.

Although these findings are presented as representative of Asian-American attitudes, I was disturbed by the fact that nowhere were these conclusions supported by studies, surveys, or polls, conducted on the community. On the contrary, these findings were simply the opinions, perceptions, and guesswork of the interviewees. Now it may be the case that these interviewees were referring to studies but no studies were cited to support their statements.

The problem with this should be obvious. It is simply misleading to represent opinions about the attitudes and worldview of a group as the actual attitudes and feelings of that group. It doesn't matter that these people are activists or advocates, their opinions are just their opinions and nothing more. I don't doubt that the intentions of the study were noble, but without a legitimate study conducted directly with members of the community that reflect a representative cross-section of the demographic then the conclusions can only be misleading.

As I have written elsewhere, marginalization of Asian-Americans (and Asians) is often driven by misrepresentation by self-proclaimed experts - whose objectivity is never questioned and the subjectivity of their assertions never recognized - who often manufacture, skew, or over-generalize, information about Asia and present them as facts. This way of doing things is popular because the input of Asians is not required, and not even wanted, allowing any claims to be made (often resulting in best-selling books) without the inconvenient question of their veracity being raised. No-one wants Asians ruining the cultural Asian-marginalizing party by actually asking Asians to express and interpret their own ideas without the filter of a white expert's subjective opinion. Thus, Asians are often excluded from dialogue about themselves. The last thing that Asian-Americans need is to have our own advocates and intellectuals doing things in a similar vein.

Even if we were to accept the unlikely scenario that a handful of activists can know Asian-Americans well enough to make the kinds of sweeping statements that were made, the way it was reported is troubling. For example, in answer to the question "how Asian Americans think about race, and whether we should work to build a more unified Asian American identity", the study "found" that "Asians don't" think about it. The problem here is that even this is misleading - even if we do accept that the activists' opinions are an accurate representation of Asian-American attitudes. Only one-third of the interviewees believed that Asians don't think about race, this leaves at least two-thirds of interviewees who may believe that Asians do, in fact, think about race. So, even by their own criteria, it is inaccurate to say that Asians don't think about race - in fact, the opposite may well be the case and at least two-thirds do.

These criticisms are significant when we look at the latter part of the study which looks to answer the questions of the direction, character, and focus, of future Asian-American "resistance". The section begins as follows.....

Is It Strategic to Organize and Resist as Asian Americans?This question revealed deep conflicts and confusion, and it demands much more debate and discussion among racial justice organizers. There was a fairly even split between those who said “yes” we should work to build a unified API identity, and those who said “no,” “maybe,” or “I don’t know.” Among those who said that we should, one-third had significant qualifiers, sometimes contradicting their initial answer. Even those working at API organizations expressed doubts. One person said, “I don’t know if I would say yes to that. I mean, I’ve spent my 20 years doing so, but I don’t know.” Another person simply said, “I don’t even know what ‘API’ means.” 

It seems evident that Asian-American justice workers really don't have a clear-cut vision of what the goals of Asian-American advocacy are, what it would take to mobilize Asians politically, how we should co-operate with other peoples of colour, or even whether Asian-American identity is a good basis for organizing. Yet, nowhere is mention made of actually asking Asian-Americans themselves what their experiences are and how they see themselves in the racial dynamics of American society. And this is a serious omission from the thinking of our activists.

The reason is that what is actually missing is a body of work that tells us, with reasonable accuracy, what are the experiences of Asian-America that could inform their activism. What this means is that at this point in time, perhaps it would be more meaningful to focus on working on an ontology of Asian-America that allows us to move beyond the guesswork and opinion. Ontology can be defined as "a specification of a conceptualization", which means to establish a criterion for what does, or does not, exist. For Asian-America, this means removing the guesswork, over-generalized labeling, opinion, and supposition, from our dialogue, and establishing the fact from the fiction. This ontology could be informed by academic study, polls, or even journalistic investigation, but it has to exist in order for a meaningful vision to be established.

My final point of interest is in the stated feelings of the interviewees towards the model-minority stereotype. In the study, much time is spent on, and much reference is made to, the model-minority label and how it affects relations between Asian-Americans and other minorities. Many (perhaps all) interviewees decry the stereotype for "elevating" Asians above other minorities and causing division between them, implying that Asians don't do enough to "fight" the stereotype. But I think that this is simplistic and dangerous because it fundamentally asks that Asians answer for a stereotype that they didn't create and I don't think that it is fair, or appropriate. Even those successful Asians who supposedly "embrace" the stereotype are not obliged to answer for it.

Here is the irony; my observation is that it is mostly Asian-Americans who actually use the term "model-minority". In mainstream America, the term is hardly ever mentioned when referring to Asians. In fact, American culture is so poisoned with negative attitudes towards Asians that, culturally, we are far from being viewed as models for anything. Sure, there are the reports of Asian successes, but often these are presented with a tone of foreboding, and rarely as a celebration. White culture doesn't celebrate our successes - it is disturbed by them.

And this is where it gets uncomfortable because given that American culture demeans Asians (to the point of it becoming the cultural norm), any resentment has to derive from the apparent contradiction between these reported successes and the cultural attitude that Asians are society's losers. This goes beyond the simplistic notion of a "cause-effect" character of the model minority stereotype - it might be more likely that people resent Asians because pathetic Asian losers are not supposed to be successful.

This is problematic for those who wish to allay black resentment towards Asians caused by the stereotype by insisting that we show contrition for it, because the model-minority label doesn't really exist as the resentment-motivating entity that we seem to think it is. It is culturally normalized anti-Asian attitudes that make resentment and hostility the standard mode of interaction for mainstream America (of all colours) and its Asian minority regardless of any specific label - that is Americans are conditioned to view Asians with suspicion, hostility, and distrust, regardless of any particular stereotype.

This might be uncomfortable for some because it suggests that anti-Asian hostility from both black and white Americans derives from the same root cause of cultural conditioning and not from a specific stereotype that we have perceived to be uniquely designed for this purpose. That is why fighting the model-minority stereotype is like jousting windmills - the entire culture is set up to create a no-win and a no-way-in attitude towards Asians. People would find any excuse to resent us even if the model-minority stereotype didn't exist because the entire manner of America's cultural attitude with Asians promotes distrust and suspicion.

It is naive to react with horror (and surprise) that the white racism which produced the stereotype has induced a racist response from other minorities towards Asians. And it is self-deceiving to deny that  that is racist when people are resentful towards a group because of stereotypes, regardless of who is expressing it. It is almost always forgotten that the model-minority stereotype reflects how profoundly the Asian minority of America is culturally marginalized; an entire identity can be, and has been, created for us by media and cultural forces that excludes Asians from the whole process of its creation, yet which has been successful in defining what it means to be Asian-American in the popular consciousness. If other minorities hate us because of that, then that implies an uncompromising prejudice in a similar vein to that modeled by the white mainstream.

There are other, equally or more, pervasive representations of Asians that may have far worse consequences than the model-minority stereotype. American culture enacts and depicts racial harassment of Asian people as a normal and acceptable activity, and often engages in fantasies about committing sadistic violence towards, and mass-murder of, Asian people. Furthermore, there is resentment inducing political blaming of Asia and Asians for various economic or environmental "crimes", pervasive racial mockery in film and television, and casual assertions of Asian underhandedness and sneakiness in all their endeavours. I maintain that all of this cultural hostility has modeled resentment, hostility, anger, dislike, and uncompromising combativeness, as the normal and acceptable way of interacting with Asians.

What this means is that regardless of the specific racially inflected representation, the response is almost always going to be negative - tell people that Asians are the model-minority, then the response is resentment, tell people that Asian kids are the most bullied then the response is "its their own fault, Asians are anti-social", complain about anti-Asian racism in the black community and the response is "well Asians are racist and Koreans are channeling money out of the hood", and tell people that there is significant poverty amongst Asian-Americans and the response is indifference, or "blacks and Latinos have it worse!". The stereotypes are only the poisonous by-product of the underlying prejudices that enable Asians to be defined by people who at best are ignorant, or at worst, malicious.

This why I think that more evidence is required before we start asserting the model-minority label as the most significant cause of tensions between Asians and other minorities. If we stop reacting and look at the situation rationally, we might notice that America's culture of combative disassociation, casual racial harassment, and vindictive resentment, is more likely to shape people's reactions and interactions with Asian-Americans far more effectively than the specific model-minority label. This pervasive culture of dehumanizing and demeaning Asians - which also conditions other minorities in their behaviour and attitudes - more than outweighs any supposed positives stemming from the model-minority stereotype and probably shapes reactions to it.

My final thought on this is that I question the degree to which the model-minority stereotype actually influences federal and state policies towards other minorities. The narrative is as follows; the model minority stereotype is used as some kind of leverage by white America (usually GOP white folks) to justify cutting minority programs. But is this really true, or even reasonable to presume that the stereotype is even considered when policy changes are being discussed and put forward, or even that it influences such policy discussions? Certainly, an argument can be made that this label is bandied about (perhaps mostly by Asians who oppose it) in popular dialogue, but I see little reason to believe that the model-minority stereotype is used to justify any policy of any level of government. I think that it is somewhat grandiose to believe that this establishment actually needs model Asians to justify policies that affect other minorities, or even that the establishment uses this argument to establish a legal basis for "anti-black" policies.

So, in summary, the study highlighted the ontological gulf that exists between advocates and the community it seeks to represent. This gulf is apparently often filled with subjective opinions about the nature and character of Asian attitudes in lieu of a significant ontological basis. Furthermore, the study itself somewhat misleadingly reports these opinions as the actual attitudes and feelings of the community, which I recognize as a common phenomenon in Asian-American "culture" in which subjective thoughts and attitudes are unreasonably generalized as community or culture wide realities. Finally, the interviewees' attitudes towards the model-minority stereotype reflect what I have observed amongst many Asian-Americans; guilt for which they feel a need to show contrition, but it might also reflect an exaggerated and inflated notion of the actual influence that the stereotype may exert over the political process.

It does a disservice to Asian-Americans to downplay the fact that the model-minority stereotype reflects the degree to which the Asian voice is overpowered by the structures of racism in America - the white mainstream can shape our social identity and make it the basis upon which the Asian minority is perceived. Focusing on how the label affects other minorities' opinions of us instead of how the label reflects this damaging, profoundly embedded and overwhelming culture of hostile misrepresentation, is itself marginalizing Asians from their own experience. Communities come together when they recognize common experiences, at the root of the Asian experience is the notion that a shared humanity with Asians is impossible or unwanted - and it is unreasonable to believe that this mainstream position is rejected by other minorities. Giving weight to resentment caused by the label, as opposed to the racism that produces it is actually distancing Asians from any commonality with these other minority groups, and actually empowers the structures of racism.

Here is the link to the study..........
http://changelabinfo.com/reports/ChangeLab_Left-or-Right-of-the-Color-Line.pdf

Slipping Through The Cracks.

Asian Students And Critical Thinking.

During my research for my recent post called "Seven Things", I revisited the essay of Wesley Yang from a couple of years ago in which he detailed with angst-driven-drama the follies of raising Asian kids the "Asian Way". Overall, I found Yang's piece to, frustratingly, rely too heavily on presumptions informed by racial stereotypes rather than legitimate research. Yet, in re-reading the article, one point stood out for me which I didn't address in my original commentary on the piece........

It’s racist to think that any given Asian individual is unlikely to be creative or risk-taking. It’s simple cultural observation to say that a group whose education has historically focused on rote memorization and “pumping the iron of math” is, on aggregate, unlikely to yield many people inclined to challenge authority or break with inherited ways of doing things. 

This was an intriguing point and one that seems to present a fairly common belief about Asian cultures and the minds that they produce. I hear this a lot in Asian-America as one explanation for a number of seeming deficiencies in the Asian character that hinder our abilities to function effectively in American society, from attaining leadership positions, to being supposedly uncreative, poor critical thinkers, or just being unable to "pick up chicks". The sentiment being expressed here is that Asian culture as manifested through "Asian" educational systems churn out automatons with no charisma, leadership skills, or critical thinking skills. In my "Seven Things" post I already outlined how the "Asians are compliant" axiom fails to correspond to the reality of the historical record, or the regularly reported fact of Asian non-compliance in their (oftentimes life-risking) engagement with their governments.

Funnily enough, though, in Yang's case (and most for Asians raised in the US)  the school systems in Asia are not - indeed cannot possibly be - the problem here. What no-one seems to notice is that Yang (like most Asians raised in the US) was actually educated in American schools by American teachers using the American educational curriculum, yet, somehow through some unspecified process - apparently metaphysical in nature - the ghost of "Asian" education supersedes and exerts a greater influence over the abilities of children who never went through any Asian system than the eight-or-so-hours-a-day, five-days-a-week spent in American schools since first-grade.

Let's be clear about what is being said here; despite being entirely educated in the American education system, Yang implies that some of the character qualities and thinking abilities of some Asian-Americans may be more heavily influenced by the education system of some country thousands of miles away, where they never actually attended school, than the twelve years, or so, of the education they received in the American system by American teachers. This is plain nonsense.

It is actually a somewhat commonly accepted notion that Asian-American students lack a creative spark and the ability to reason critically that puts them at a disadvantage in the real world. This is most commonly heard in discussions on college admissions policies that reportedly find Asian-American students wanting in these areas, and also in discussions on the dearth of Asians in leadership, or management positions. The "Asian" system of rote memorization is often blamed yet, it is never explained how this could possibly affect Asian-Americans whose schooling took place entirely (or almost entirely) in the US - where, I'm told, education prizes critical thinking and creativity.

This raises some uncomfortable questions about how American educators engage with students of Asian descent in the school environment - if it is true, then why are Asian-American students graduating from American secondary education, and even college, without the ability to think critically or creatively? The nonsense of placing blame on Asian education systems allows us to conveniently avoid looking at the other, more probable, possibility that American schools and the educators who run them are failing the Asian students they are charged with educating. Usually it is the children themselves who are blamed, yet, it is difficult to imagine how students who, generally, have sufficient IQs, full family and community support, and who (by all accounts) are extremely attentive in the classroom, could not be capable of learning critical thinking skills or even creativity.

No, there has to be a problem in the way that Asian students are engaged by educators in the education system. If it is true that Asian students come through the American system without these important skills, then there are two possibilities; either the system itself is over-rating its own ability to teach children how to think, or educators are engaging with Asian students in such a way that these skills are not being imparted. The former point doesn't carry much weight because - again I'm told - that there are plenty of non-Asians who go through the system who have learned amazing thinking skills, so, apparently, the system works for some. This leaves the educators themselves and the way that Asian students are engaged in the classroom.

A common theme of my blog is to examine the profound anti-Asian hostility embedded in American culture - and acknowledging this may give us some insight into the nature of interactions between Asian-American students and American educators. In American culture, Asians are almost universally dehumanized and vilified in the rhetoric of its politicians. This cultural racism is so pervasive and accepted that it serves as the model for the permissiveness of racist behaviour towards Asians - as evidenced by the permissiveness of comfortable anti-Asian racist behaviour and sentiment in broadcast media. Furthermore, it limits the scope of how Asians can be conceived of such that mainstream America can "know" about us - and act accordingly - based entirely on their own cultural misrepresentations. I see no reason why educators would, as a rule, have a way of conceiving of Asians that is different or less demeaning than what is accepted as the cultural norm.

I'm not necessarily saying that educators are explicitly demeaning Asian students (although I don't rule this out), just that their engagement with the Asian students may be reinforcing stereotypes, and racial hierarchies. For example, have any of you Asian readers ever been in a situation - like I have - in which you came up with a great idea in your job, that everyone in the room ignored, only to have some white dude suggest exactly the same things minutes later and for everyone to jump on it like it was the most fantastic thing ever? The truth is - and we all know it - that American culture exalts the contributions of white males but downplays those of everyone else. There are studies that show that educators give more weight and attention to the input of boys than they do to girls - possibly because culturally we are conditioned to believe that boys (particularly Caucasian boys) have more value. It may be that this same process may be skewing how educators engage with Asian students in the classroom. For example, white boys may be given more time and opportunity to speak up in the classroom than their Asian counter-parts, and perhaps their input receives undue greater positive reinforcement than that of Asian students.

Given that we know this phenomenon exists across gender, it doesn't seem far-fetched that race might be a factor in educator engagement in the classroom - particularly for a group that is openly derided and dehumanized. Furthermore, given that American culture models racist behaviour towards Asians as normative, the question has to be asked how much racism is considered permissive in the classroom. If it is normal and acceptable for American culture to mock and deride the racial characteristics, contributions, or even achievements, of Asian people, then one wonders if this attitude is somehow reinforced in the classroom - hierarchies being reinforced by permitting demeaning behaviour towards Asian students.

In summary, we have a situation in which American students of Asian descent are charged with lacking creativity, and the ability to think critically. At the same time we know that as a general rule that the students in question (those with college potential) record high IQ levels, strong family support, strong community culture of educational attainment, as well as strong participation in extra-curricula activities. Bear in mind also, that America's educators take great pride in the fact that they have been able to take black and Latino students from impoverished, violent, criminal, abused backgrounds, with no parental, or community support, and turn them into good students.Yet, despite their seemingly advantageous background, Asian-American students are graduating high schools across the country supposedly unable to think or innovate? Even more implausibly still, it is implied - by Asians like Yang, and non-Asians alike - that the "Asian System" of rote memorization may bear some responsibility for this state of affairs.

I maintain that this is a ludicrous theory and that if Asian-American students are, indeed, failing to learn critical thinking in the American school system, then it is the American system and/or the American educators who bear responsibility for this - not some foreign school system thousands of miles away. Of course, there are those who would move the goalposts and argue that "Asian" culture teaches non-questioning compliance and, so, this is to blame. But what this would mean is that Asian parents are actively telling their children to not comply (like the irony?) with their American teachers' methods of supposedly teaching critical thinking. We all know that this is nonsense.

A more likely scenario is that anti-Asian prejudice is seeping into the classroom environment and may be shaping the manner in which American educators engage with Asian students. This is not far-fetched given that we know that Asian children experience higher levels of racial bullying in American schools - that in itself may partially account for why some Asian kids stay silent in the classroom, and itself raises questions of how much racist behaviour is permitted in the classroom.

Of course, blaming Asian culture is moot if it turns out that Asians have no problem thinking critically, and that these accusations exist solely as a means for justifying discrimination in the workplace and college admissions. With that in mind I will leave you with this link to a study that purports to show the abilities of students around the world to......

......to apply knowledge and skills in key subject areas and to their ability to analyse, reason and communicate effectively as they pose, interpret and solve problems in a variety of situations.

...that is, think critically. Korean students scored highest (along with Finns), and Japanese students were in the top five.

Seven Things.....

...That Hurt Our Feelings.

I came upon this article at a site called Diversity Inc., via the 8Asians blog, that relates seven things people (non-Asians presumably) should never say to Asian executives - although I think Asians in any field or position of employment would be equally troubled by them. There are a couple things about the article (and 8Asians blogpost) that are of interest, and illustrate how I believe - and have written about in several posts - the way that Asian-Americans engage in race dialogue ultimately misses the point when it comes to commentary on anti-Asian prejudice.

The first point of interest is how "offensiveness", once again, defines and characterizes the way that we talk about our experiences of racism. According to the 8Asians post, the Diversity Inc. article shows why these questions are potentially offensive, and although the article itself makes brief mention of how expression of these stereotypes could reveal underlying discrimination, it doesn't really explore this notion in the ensuing article. As I've written about in several places, our tendency to react and respond to racism by being offended misses the point of how stereotypes can affect us. On a side note, I would conjecture that this type of Asian-American commentary has a feminine character possibly due to the fact that it is Asian female perspective that has come to dominate the Asian-American narrative, and it is the feminine voice that has modeled our commentary on race.

If racism is simply "offensive" to us, then we really have no cause or reason to organize against it because the fundamental solution to being offended about something is to grow a thicker skin. In turn, this means that the cultural and social structures that promote and propagate racist attitudes towards Asians have no real reason to change because the problem is our feelings. Racist attitudes against Asians in the media, culture, and politics, all point to a culture of casual racism that is comfortably low-key, yet often potentially casually life threatening or violent. Continuing to present our experiences of casual racism, or racial insensitivity, as a mere affront to our emotions is inappropriate and to continue to think of and explore anti-Asian racism through this filter offers only intellectual stagnation.

I won't go into each question in detail, but here is a list of the questions (copy pasted directly from the 8Asians post).

• "You must be the IT person.".  
• “You aren’t like them” or “You don’t act very Asian.” 
• “Asian Americans are not risk takers.” 
• “Where are you from? No, where are you really from?” or “When are you going to go  home?” or “How often do you go home?” 
• “Oh, you speak English good!” or “Do you speak your language?” 
• “You’re not a minority because all Asians are rich and successful.” 
• “You’re not Asian, you’re from India.”

Here's rub; in and of themselves, most of these questions are not even all that offensive - granted that could be my subjective opinion, but I think that if we are really honest with ourselves we would admit that most of these questions have no real profoundly offensive quality - although we would have cause for concern. Yes, when we are asked these questions we can justifiably roll our eyes, and sigh to ourselves that we may be dealing with another individual who may be honestly ignorant, or just plain rude, but to become offended is, in some ways, accepting loss of control over yourself. These questions are, however, problematic because they hint at a profound, casual, and even a dangerously oblivious, discrimination.

In reality, far from merely causing offence, these questions reveal some deep-rooted beliefs that mainstream America takes as axioms which may indicate that Asians are being casually (but profoundly) discriminated against because of socially acceptable stereotypes derived from racist attitudes. In short, if you encounter people in your place of work who make remarks like these - particularly those in supervisory positions - then you probably have good cause to think that the people who believe these stereotypes may also be limiting your opportunities. So, don't become offended - that is just inappropriate, and diminishes the potential severity of the issue.

The second, and more significant, point of interest about the article is its brief allusion to management and leadership qualities. This is what the article says.....

Not only are they (Asians) stereotyped as not leadership material, but their cultural norms are interpreted by U.S. born executives as proving the stereotype.....“In America, the leadership skill is defined by how confrontational, direct and aggressive you are,”

I just don't agree that aggressiveness, or being confrontational, are as significantly valued leadership qualities in the West as this quote would seem to suggest. Unless you are in a martial profession, or sports, or any line of work that specifically requires aggressiveness, then aggression and confrontation, just don't go down too well with co-workers or underlings alike. In fact, if you are in a service profession, then these qualities definitely put you at a disadvantage as a leader if you are in the business of keeping customers happy. Leadership requires far more than testosterone for it to be considered successful and this idea that aggression and confrontation are highly valued is little more than a red-herring. Yet, it seems to me that in an extremely ironic twist, some Asian-Americans seem to have a caricatured, stereotyped, notion of  leadership as it is practiced and conceived of in western cultures.

My experiences in the workplace leave me skeptical about claims that non-Asians ( i.e. white dudes - let's be honest) have some kind of superior aptitude for leadership. Most of the white dudes that I've worked with have actually been poor leaders who attained their position through kissing the right superiors' butts, and shitting on their co-workers at opportune moments. Asians forget that massaging the right peoples' egos gets you noticed more than actually possessing leadership qualities. Of course, once in a leadership position the facade often falls away and any shortcomings are quickly and painfully revealed.

Some might say that this simply shows that white dudes are better at maneuvering themselves into leadership positions - supporting the idea that culturally they are better suited to leadership. The problem here is that having the skills to manipulate yourself into a leadership position doesn't equate to having aptitude for leadership once you are there. And let's be honest; the path to consideration for leadership for a white dude is significantly smoother than for other demographics - neutral or positive presumptions and such.

Unless a white dude has an arm growing out the side of his head, it is safe to assume that he will be more readily accepted without too much questioning - there are few (if any) negative race specific preconceived stereotypes about white males and so it is likely that face value goes further. So the system fosters ease of integration into leadership circles. Asian-Americans also overlook the fact that American culture is as much about bluster as it is about substance. Only seeming to have the talent and drive to achieve fame, wealth, or positions of leadership, is what most of us mistake for good leadership skills when, in fact, the bluster is most often greater than the substance. This is almost like the American version of the "Asian" phenomenon of "face-saving".

This isn't to say that there are no good white leaders - that would be absurd - I'm simply saying that we tend to mythicize leadership qualities instill by American culture to such a degree that we lose all perspective second-guessing our own abilities. The real question is; do Asian cultures produce individuals who lack aptitude, or is America's cultural antagonism towards Asians conditioning Asian-Americans to believe that they have no inherent leadership qualities?

According to the "general consensus" - to which many Asian-Americans themselves adhere - Asian cultures instill compliance and deference to authority. Asians are, thus, followers, and not leaders. Given this axiom, we should expect to find few, or no, examples of rebellions, or uprisings, in Asian histories - compliant people don't revolt because they are, well, compliant. Yet, Asian history is full of rebellions and uprisings against unpopular or unjust rulers and officials. Even more tellingly, further evidence that Asian compliance is a myth can be seen in the often volatile relationship between Asian societies and their governments.

It is often said that Asian compliance manifests as a lack of active engagement in politics. Yet, history and the news - for those who notice - provides ample evidence to the contrary. Asians engage with their government through protest all the time - that is, they are extremely outspoken in challenging authorities in their own societies. Even in China - I say "even" because China actively suppresses dissent on top of being, supposedly, a culture of compliance - I am always reading about some protest somewhere in which average Chinese citizens are risking their lives to express their dissatisfaction with government. All over Asia you might notice that Asians routinely stage protests against their own leaders - even in countries where they might face death for doing so. Does this sound like compliance? No, it actually sounds like a culture of non-compliance. When you start to notice these things it becomes increasingly difficult to not believe that the "Asians are inherently compliant" type explanations are little more than cheap throw-away justifications for discrimination.

I think, therefore, that it is more likely that Asian-Americans do not make it into leadership positions because American culture has conditioned many of them to believe that they are unsuited to it, has conditioned mainstream America to think of Asians predominantly in demeaning ways, and thus, devalues any authority or leadership qualities that some of us may possess. My sense is that mainstream America is so conditioned to think of Asians derogatorily that this perspective overcomes their ability to objectively assess leadership qualities of Asian-Americans. The result is that because of such profound conditioning, both mainstream America and Asian-Americans themselves believe Asians to be less suitable for authority even though evidence to the contrary may be staring them in the face.  What this suggests is that if culture does play a role in shaping leadership qualities then for Asian-Americans it is American culture as much as anything else that provides the impediments to Asian-American leadership potential.

In summary, I would say that Asian-Americans are doing themselves a disservice by seeming to mythicize leadership in such an unrealistic way. The reality is that the entire culture of America is set up to ensure that white males succeed and that the door never closes on them the way it does on others. This is not to dismiss the idea that there may be some cultural conditions affecting smooth integration of Asians, but I believe that we, and mainstream America, are exaggerating the degree to which this may be the case. By doing this we are enabling the justification of discrimination.

I will finish by saying that cultivating a state of mind that responds to racial insensitivity, or discrimination, with offence is, funnily enough, not a quality becoming of a leader. The reason is, that being offended draws a line in the sand but offers no solutions. A leader,on the other hand, will assess the situation at hand, identify the ramifications of it, and find ways to get passed it, go around it, or overcome it. Being offended has no place in the fight against discrimination or in the skill-set of strong-minded leaders. It is also fundamentally a feminine stance that has no meaningful place in the dialogue and that also happens to offer little by way of solution.

Self-Censorship.

Because I'm Asian!

It should go without saying that racial stereotyping of Asians in American culture remains a significant issue that promotes negative attitudes and behaviours, and is a prominent factor in maintaining our cultural invisibility and marginalization. One way that negative stereotypes work is by promoting the idea that personality characteristics can be applied to an entire group so that members of that group are no longer viewed as individuals but as people whose character can be largely deduced from their racial grouping. In other words, stereotypical thinking overlooks individual qualities and promotes a simplified and dehumanized conception of a given group. The results of this simplification enables prejudicial behaviour on all levels, ranging from petty racism and harassment to violence or genocide.

For Asians in 21st Century America, this process of de-individuation is especially pertinent because it has become an axiom of modern American thinking that Asians are a fundamentally "group-oriented" - which is the acceptable way of saying that Asians lack individualism. The reason for this is tied up with decades (centuries even) of xenophobic thinking, fears of growing Asian global economic and political clout, and notions of Asian inferiority lingering at the core of western philosophical thought. Asserting that Asians are a "hive" - that is, submissive to and unquestioning of authority, as well as void of personality and creativity - serves to alleviate these fears by factualizing racist stereotypes; yes, Asian economies are strong, but Asians can't think, or Asians can't innovate, or Asians aren't creative, and so on.

The results of this process are starting to slowly reap an increasingly confident harvest of voices that seem to promote a kind of liberal institutional racism affecting Americans of Asian descent. For example, at all levels of education the "Asian Question" is being debated. Under question is the legitimacy of Asian-Americans' academic achievements - the increasingly general consensus being that the Asian lack of creativity and personality nullifies their high test scores, thus, making their high college attendance rates a kind of unfair obstacle to the rightful attendees - Latinos, blacks and whites - whose creativity and personalities are more deserving of college places, even though testing might show that many are not up to scratch academically.

Of course, entertainment provides us with a wealth of examples of how the notion of lack of individual personality qualities in Asians are both reflected and propagated through the medium of popular culture. Representations of Asian people (particularly Asian men) in America's media are heavily restricted to just a few limited types; enemy, arch-villain, side-kick, nerd, loser, yet almost never an individual with human or even humane qualities. The extent of this extreme limitation in imagery is so acute that it could be said to resemble censorship in its scope and practice. Naturally, these commonly accepted truths about Asian people leads to negative behaviours that have become socially acceptable modes of interaction for mainstream America with its Asian minority. Such is the acceptance of stereotypical thinking towards Asians that racial harassment of Asian at all levels of American society is openly and gloatingly reflected (and perpetrated) in film and television.

Yet, for me the worst aspect of this process of de-individuation is that many Asian-Americans themselves seem to adopt this way of thinking. For example, I watched a reality show recently - Hell's Kitchen if you need to know (don't judge!) - in which an Asian-American contestant was talking about a mistake he had made cooking a dish with fish and miso. His comment was that he shouldn't have made the mistake because "he was Asian" and he should know how to cook miso and fish. Yes, I know it was supposed to be light-hearted and cutesy, but this manner of expression actually reinforces de-individuation - in truth, the Asian chef should have known how to cook fish and miso because he is a chef with years of experience, not because he is Asian.

This way of thinking and expressing one's experience seems to be common amongst Asian-Americans. You see it on internet forums, you see it on blogs, you even see it coming from our "intelligentsia". Any number of qualities, characteristics, or experiences are explained (in whole, or part) as being, fundamentally, the result of "being Asian". Expressing our experience in this way is an implicit denial of individuality and, thus, a reinforcement of stereotypes. In a  fairly recent infamous example of this - as I wrote about here - Tiger Mom's brief flirtation with child-bullying infamy was littered with agency and individuality denying caveats - her action were implied to be somehow pre-determined by her culture or Asian-ness, and therefore mitigated by factors outside of her control. Yet, it is the expression of our individuality that we need to be nurturing because that is the predominant way that stereotypes dehumanize minorities.

This may seem like a minor peeve and an ungenerous criticism of a casual or playful way of expression, yet it could be seen to be a measure of the degree to which Asians are racialized in American culture. The first and most significant aspect of this process reflects the one-sided representation, and fundamentally hostile, manner of the cultural marginalization of Asians. Culture provides individuals with a reinforcement of their sense of inclusion and belonging to a society. Thus, culture reinforces (as well as propagates) beliefs that individuals have about themselves, their group, and their society by depicting recognizeable qualities and characteristics of society via archetypal characterizations and heroes with whom viewers can identify and hopefully recognize those qualities and characteristics within themselves.

In America, this avenue of identification doesn't exist for those of East Asian descent - in fact, the very opposite occurs; Asians (particularly Asian men) are explicitly excluded from identifying with America's cultural and social identity either via invisibility or racial-baiting. And perhaps it might be that with this very limited racialized frame of cultural self-reference for Asian-Americans becomes the only means through which they know how to view themselves - thus incorporating the very language and thinking that is the means of their exclusion. And this highlights the second aspect of of this phenomenon; Asian-American culture itself.

If it is true - as I've suggested - that culture promotes a kind of identity-consciousness of a society by presenting ideas, and language which enables individuals to explore, and develope their personal sense of individual identity, then the implication is that Asian-American culture still has a way to go before it can be said to have a similar influence on Asians' self-perceptions that mainstream culture has on the mainstream. Is our burgeoning Asian-America, and the culture it reflects, providing a language of self-description, that we can then recognize in others like us, and find community through the means of the language of individuality?

This obviously a loaded question and one to which I will say that I don't know the answer. But casual observation of Asians interacting with mainstream America suggests that many of us have adopted the language of stereotype and de-individuation, as opposed to the language of personal empowerment, and individual agency. This is a form of self-censorship - one that may even be unconscious most times - and it illustrates the power that demeaning imagery can exert on the mind.

Feminine Asian Guys

Mainstream America Reaping The Rewards Of Racial Stereotyping...

Saw this on Angry Asian Man recently.............




As you can see, a group of American guys of Asian descent apparently attack a couple of white guys in a parking lot somewhere in Boston. Initial reports - here and here - strongly hint that the two white guys were innocent victims of a motiveless attack. Of course, it could all be a drink-driven brawl amongst random club-goers but I have my doubts.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some casual racism - as modeled by America's culture - directed at the Asians by the white guys who probably didn't realize that they didn't have numerical superiority. My guess would be that the aggressive comeuppance wasn't expected by the white dudes because Asians are timid! If I'm wrong in my conjecture, then apologies ahead of time.

I'm not condoning violence, but I certainly believe that if there were racial epithets and baiting taking place, then the reaction of the Asian guys is perfectly normal for American culture. The problem, naturally, derives from America's culture which normalizes racist behaviour towards Asians, and, through stereotyping, creates the belief that Asians are soft targets who will not respond to harassment.

My sense is that persistent depictions of Asians as timid pushovers coupled with media deomnization and dehumanization, lay the groundwork for hostility and promotes overly-aggressive behaviour towards Asian people. In the coming years, as Asians become more vocal and confident both as individuals and a group, I fully expect to see the anti-Asian hate-crimes perpetrated in America's media become increasingly implicated in stoking violent confrontations between mainstream Americans (conditioned to believe that anti-Asian racism is normal) and culturally marginalized - but increasingly confident - Americans of Asian descent who refuse to be treated like society's whipping boys.