The Language Of Inspiration...

...And Asian-American Feminism.

Well the latest big Asian-American news is that twitter exploded awhile back at the initiation of a feminist tweeter named Suey Park. Although consisting of a general rant (if that is the right word) about racist stereotypes about Asians that took the form of snappy twitter one-liners, the "trend" was hailed as an awakening for Asian-American feminists who are calling for a space dedicated exclusively to raising the voice of Asian-American feminism. I don't usually care to post content on topical subject matter, simply because all too often it is little more than a reaction and comes across as such, and it is often wise to see how any given situation plays out before passing comment. That said, at this early stage, some interesting things emerged from within the Asian-American community that I think are worth some commentary.

Specifically, long-time Asian-American feminist blogger Jenn Fang at Reappropriate posted an interesting commentary in this blog post at her site, but even more interesting was the ensuing conversation that I engaged in with her in the comments section at her blog. In particular, I had two initial points of interest that I raised with Jenn; the idea of "institutional sexism" within the community as well as what Jenn's thoughts were on the most significant issues of sexism facing asian-american women in 21st Century America. I was thrown by Jenn's response to the latter. This is what she listed as her most significant issues.....

1) that Asian Americans have the highest gender income gap of all races. APIA women make 73 cents to every dollar that an APIA man makes, which is the lowest of all other races by more than 5 cents.
2) mental health issues which we’ve discussed, which I would like to maintain a focus on APIA women, but which the community largely doesn’t talk about, and
3) human trafficking/immigration rights. Asian Americans, particularly women, are the second largest undocumented immigrant population in the States and growing, and worldwide, most trafficked sex workers come from Asian nations. Yet, this is an issue the community — either the APIA community or the feminist community — pretty much ignores.

I think that most reasonable Asian-American men (and  most Asian-American men are likely reasonable) would agree that these are immensely significant issues that they would happily lend support to with little reservation. Surely there would be little conflict about the merits of addressing these issues? But the reason I was thrown by the above list, is that the body of the Reappropriate piece made mention that the fact......

..of our community is also that institutionalized sexism has long silenced the voices of Asian American feminists.

As hard as I tried, I found it extremely difficult to find meaningful connection between institutional sexism within Asian-America and the list of most significant issues facing Asian feminism. From an Asian-American male's point of view, Asian misogyny, stifling of Asian women's voices, and rampant sexism resulting in limited opportunities, have been the most common charges leveled at Asian men, so naturally I would presume these charges might form a significant part of any priorities in feminism. Yet, the three most important issues - at least for one feminist - has seemingly little to do with any of these problems. As I pointed out in the comments over there, mental health issues are a taboo subject regardless of who suffers from them, and trafficking is a subject that most people, Asian or otherwise, are simply ignorant of, but would most likely be quite willing lend support to see it end. I see little connection between any suggested silencing of feminist voices and these two issues, and frankly see no reason why Asian men would not support it. As for Asian women's lower salary levels, again I doubt that Asian men would think that this is a fair state of affairs, and I see little reason to believe that it is caused mainly by Asian men's sexism.

And this is what threw me about the list; if these listed most significant issues (and I agree that they are significant) facing feminism have little ostensible connection with sexism in Asian-America, then where does this sexism fit into the Asian feminist dialogue? More precisely, how does using the language of first and second-wave feminism to describe what is obviously not first and second-wave feminist issues in Asian-America advance the Asian feminist cause? If we accept that any reasonable movement would have as its ultimate goal a synthesis, or adoption into mainstream attitudes and behaviours, of its tenets, then how pragmatic is it to use language that apparently repels rather than recruits Asian men to this end?

Surely trying to conceive of the gender dynamic in Asian-America using terms formed by a (predominantly white) feminist movement that was not complicated by race issues (specifically gender issues complicated by racism) is both intellectually lazy and unoriginal? Jenn writes...

The argument is that Asian men a) recognize that male privilege has afforded them an easier time to get where they are than is afforded to women, even if they are still disadvantaged based on race, and b) if they are in positions of achievement to be sensitive to Asian women who are working without male privilege to achieve.

As it turns out, the fight for gender equality is not as simple as presenting issues to the community and garnering support with passionate oratory, persuasive arguments, and outlining of goal-oriented courses of action. In fact, those methods take a back seat and in their stead, what seems to be required is soul-searching and contritious confessions of the sin of privilege. Specifically, male privilege, and even more specifically, Asian male privilege as, apparently, conferred through the structures of the white patriarchy. That is, it seems to be the case that only via the cathartic process of acknowledging or owning male privilege - Asian male privilege - can Asian men be motivated or able to genuinely fight for equality and empowerment for Asian women. I question this line of reasoning, and submit that to speak so casually about Asian male privilege as some kind of trickle-down benefit deriving from white patriarchy is to simply not comprehend the experience of Asian men in the US, despite paying lip-service to the contrary.

Quite simply, the very essence of the Asian male experience of racism is one of dehumanization, and along with this is a denial of Asian men's masculinity and, hence, their "maleness". How does male privilege exist when maleness is denied? Sometimes the phrase "bro-culture", is used to describe the inclusive culture through which privilege is shared amongst the patriarchy, yet, it is difficult to see how Asian men are conceived of as "bros" in American culture. In fact, the opposite is probably more true and Asian men are most certainly not generally conceived of as "bros" at all. Sure, some of us may get past the prejudice - without, that is, ending it - but the reality of any supposed Asian "male privilege" is surely far more complex than a simple assertion that our gender makes achievement easier. Asking me to "own" it carries with it an implicit assertion that I - and other Asian men - have somehow benefitted from the racism we have experienced. We haven't.

And that might be one of the reasons why we have a paradox where Asian men roll their eyes at the rhetoric of Asian-American feminism, yet would almost certainly support efforts to rectify the issues listed above. I am perfectly willing to lend support to the above causes, yet I am able to do so because I feel that there is justice in fighting for equal pay for Asian women, the mentally ill deserve sensitive consideration, and trafficking is an abomination. That should be enough motivation for me and it should be sufficient to accept my support on those grounds alone. To insist that I also confess to what any reasonable person should see as dubious privilege is merely pointless chest-beating. Even worse though, it is counter-productive and at the end of the day amounts to self-sabotage. At some point, you have to stop the rhetorical calls to battle and actually start talking to people. That includes talking to Asian men.

The proof is in the pudding. After forty-eight comments and a fairly in-depth back and forth of ideas, the actual subject of the most significant issues for Asian-American feminism went almost completely unaddressed. Instead, the conversation was pretty much focused on why it is believed to be necessary to adopt a strategy of labeling and insisting on proclamations of contrition ahead of finding the most effective language and argumentation to recruit the support that might be required to create the kind of social awareness that these issues deserve. I have serious doubts that the vast majority of Asian-American men would refuse to participate in advocacy for these issues because of sexist attitudes. A little search on several of the blogs that I link to - bigWOWO, Nikkei View, Eurasian Sensation, Angry Asian Man - have carried supportive content on the sexism faced by Asian women, and I know of no Asian-American blogs, writers, or artists, who are hostile to Asian women, Asian feminism, or Asian women's issues - save, one. So whilst I would not deny that sexism exists and that there are some Asian men who do troll Asian women in cyber-space, I would submit that almost all of the most respected and read Asian male bloggers, writers, artists, and activists, are open to lending support to the cause of equality, indeed, they do that very thing.

All groups that experience marginalization or injustice seek primarily to have their experience not only heard, but also validated. By approaching Asian men in a manner that fundamentally dismisses their experience of prejudice by re-framing it as privilege, explicitly places us into an oppositional position and marginalizes us such that a group who would most likely happily throw their support behind such issues as the ones listed, are instead forced into defending themselves from presumptions that not only diminishes their experience of racism, but also tries to make the ludicrous claim that the very basis of anti-Asian-male prejudice (emasculation and denials of maleness) carries some kind of as yet vague flip-side of privilege.

No, Asian men have a sense of justice, we have compassion and even empathy! It's true! And Asian-Americans - particularly the younger generation I would certainly bet - would be open to hearing about these issues. Although it makes for great copy to utilize hyperbole and labeling to draw attention to a cause, it does little to actually motivate participation simply because the presumptions it entails serves to bulldoze agency and steamroller the experience of people who may themselves feel as though their stories are marginalized. Worst of all, this strategy seems to be little more than manipulation that over-rides extant goodwill and willingness to contribute.

To summarize, there has to be a point where the language of ontology and theory ceases and the language that enables positive and meaningful engagement - that is, language that fosters inspiration and commitment - becomes more useful. Language that reaches people who are not in the choir and inspires them to want to see the same changes you want to see, would seem obviously more potent. And that is something that I sense is lacking in Asian-American feminism as it relates its issues to those not ostensibly a part of it - it lacks the substance of language to inspire. To be fair, I have a general sense that the ways that Asian-Americans present their experiences are generally uninspiring (for example, we are always highlighting our "offence", but why should anyone care that we are offended?) to those not in the community.

Furthermore, it belies the nuanced spirit of third-wave feminism to stick to such strategies seemingly based on rigid, unnuanced language, when  third-wave feminism itself calls for a widening of concepts of feminism and the experiences that go with it. By shifting away from this approach, it might create the possibility of engaging with people in such a away that humanizes them, instead of turning them into a series of labels and negative characteristics. For any group that has felt the pinch of marginalization, invisibility, and prejudice (Asian men included), humanizing them will most likely get you further than continuing the strategy that fundamentally dehumanizes them further by what amounts to gross generalizations.

On a very final note, I cannot help but find irony in the guilt-by-association charge of "maleness" transcending race and somehow privilege emerging from the emasculation and anti-male attitudes towards Asian men. If white male privilege is imparted by mere association, then what privileges are conferred through personal relationships of dating and marriage? This is a serious problem for those Asian feminists who insist that people own privilege, after all, who is it out of all women of colour that engages in and seemingly pursues inter-racial relationships with white men most of all? That's right, it is Asian women, who alone out of all groups do not discriminate between white men and men of their own race. This is an inconsistency problematic for Asian feminism; if Asian men are privileged by sharing gender, and must therefore own it before they can genuinely support the fight for justice, then surely marrying into whiteness confers degrees more privilege that must be acknowledged as well?

As I wrote here, social scientists maintain that inter-marriage is the final barrier into full acceptance into the mainstream. That is, once intermarriage between groups becomes normalized - as it more or less has for Asian women and white men - then it is believed that the last barrier into whiteness has been crossed. That is to say that by marrying into the white mainstream, Asian women are implicitly beneficiaries of white privilege. This is awkward in the extreme. Defending dating choices of Asian women (that is the right - privilege? - to date and marry white men) has become an integral aspect of the Asian feminist dialogue, but with no mention of the implicit privilege doing so confers. To me, this represents an almost fatal blind-spot for Asian-American feminism, particularly at times when charges of privileges are being so casually thrown around.

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.

Apocalypse Now.

The Power Of Habit.

I was surprised to discover that the recent anxiety-fest whipped up by mischievous media disseminators over the supposed Mayan prediction of a December 21st Doomsday, was actually a global phenomenon, and not limited to scare-buzz-thirsty America. Chinese authorities arrested Doomsdayers for who knows what reason, but even here in Muslim Istanbul I was surprised to discover that there was some degree of anxiety amongst the locals (at least the ones I know). As it turned out, the 21st did prove to be somewhat calamitous, albeit not quite the Doomsday that was predicted.

Unfortunately for myself and my neighbours our building did, in fact, make an attempt to destroy us on the one day where any event out of the ordinary might be received with greater anxiety than it might otherwise deserve. As Doomsday became Dooms-evening the building lost power accompanied by a loud explosion-sounding noise. Since the city experiences regular rolling black-outs, and transformers tend to blow-up occasionally (because the grid was designed to provide power for five, not seventeen million who actually live here), I didn't pay much attention - the transformer is three streets away, after all. It was only when I heard a second and third "explosiony" noise - accompanied by some terrified yelps - that I decided to step onto the balcony and look out, which was when I noticed several neighbours from the lower floors had evacuated to the street.

I also noticed that the hub where all of the electricity wires of the building connect was sparkling like a firework. In short, what had happened was that a broken pipe was leaking water into the electrical works causing the arcing and mini-explosions. This was my cue to get out of the building. It so happened that their were around eleven other neighbours - all women, all wearing headscarves - who had the same idea, yet, instead of going down from my top floor apartment, they were coming up. What I didn't realize was that they were trying to escape via access from an adjacent building - I confusedly presumed that they were simply going up to give themselves as much time as possible for emergency crews to rescue them, so I indicated for them to enter my home for respite. This is where it became interesting.

Fully panicked - and some even hyperventilating with hysteria - this group of women simply followed my instructions even though they knew that wasn't the way of escape; one by one, following custom, they removed their shoes and politely entered my home. Finally we sorted out the actual plan of escape, and everyone got out from the adjacent building. Meanwhile, those neighbours who had already escaped downstairs were standing around bewildered and dazed, huddled together in a group that moved in herd-like unison in response to the instructions of the recently arrived fire department. Absurdly, in those moments I had the profound (for me!) realization that I had just witnessed the process by which fear becomes foundational for those seeking to manipulate a group or society, and it clarified why fear-mongering plays is such an important strategy for those propagating anti-Asian prejudice.

There are three aspects of fear that render societies vulnerable to manipulation: the first is a desire to maintain the comfort and familiarity of habit; the second is the tendency to look to a higher authority for direction - people want to believe that someone, somewhere, knows what is going on and has the experience and power to make it right. Thus, scared people will abdicate personal responsibility and agency because they feel safer believing that they are being taken care of by some external entity whose ability to resolve the situation exceeds their own. The women who entered my apartment clung to habit and familiarity by, absurdly, removing their shoes in the middle of an emergency. Unquestioningly, they followed my instructions to enter my apartment, just like the bewildered crowd below blankly followed the instructions of the emergency crews - highlighting how the fearful will follow anyone who merely seems to have a plan or who has the air of authority (real or imagined).

It puts election-time Asian-targeted fear-mongering into perspective. If a politician can scare the electorate enough with insinuations that Asian economies are deliberately harming Americans' economic prosperity with the goal of "taking over", then, as the authoritative antidote, he (or she) can easily manipulate them into following directions. And this is the third aspect of fear that makes a group easy to manipulate; the anger which always follows fear. People get angry, in part, as a means to process whatever trauma they have experienced. After a couple of hours of standing outside in the cold, unable to be around things of comfort, the dazed neighbours (and myself) started to get angry as heated discussions arose about who was at fault, or simply why such a thing could happen - tellingly, those who shouted the loudest got heard, even though some of what was said didn't make too much sense.

When people are angry, reason and rationality fly out the window, and when coupled with a fear-enabled tendency to follow anyone with seeming authority, the results are often ugly. And this is one of the major obstacles facing the Asian minority of America; political and cultural fear-mongering that trickles down to influence the lives of Americans of Asian descent. It requires a remarkable feat of self-delusion to not notice the similarities between political outrage at the economic success of Japan or China, and the ongoing resentful outrage towards Asians who economically outpace urban black communities, or the occasionally shrill cries of alarm at the ubiquity of Asian students in higher (and secondary) education.

In all these cases, the underlying insinuation is that the things familiar to Americans are being taken away - unfairly, of course - and that something (of an Oriental nature) is to blame. Furthermore, not only is familiarity disappearing, what is left is being overrun, or "taken over". The results are often a violent backlash or, in the case of Asians in education, calls for action that would fundamentally exempt Asian-Americans from equality and permit the re-institutionalization of exclusion in education. It could even be said that Jeremy Lin experienced some of this in action. Although, he was embraced by many, his presence caused a backlash in which some members of the media sought to contextualize Lin through the more habitually familiar framework of racial mockery.

This is why anti-Asian racism remains so openly pervasive - it is politically expedient to have an established scapegoat against whom anger and resentment can be directed, and fear-mongering promotes social cohesion and identity by providing society with a common enemy, and the illusion of common goals to overcome it. Thus, worst of all, thinking of Asians negatively is so ingrained in America's identity that it has become a cultural habit as opposed to being an ideology. Ideologically, Asians can represent positive things (and often do), but this is significantly undermined by the habits of xenophobia which are emotional and irrational and thus more difficult to identify let alone address. In some ways, Asians have come to represent an apocalypse; the unwanted and cataclysmic obliteration of the familiar and beloved, and so maintaining the habit and familiarity of anti-Asian attitudes is the natural antidote to this fear.

Stupid Ass.

Hollywood Is Race-Blind!

This just in; Hollywood is race blind. The bigWOWO recently posted this revelation, compliments of one Dan Lin - a Harvard Business School graduate turned film producer. According to Lin, quoted in this article.....

“I guess for me I don’t see a lack of Asian American actors. I think more and more Asian American actors are getting out there,” Lin said, adding that Hollywood is race-blind. “It’s all about who tells the best story. They don’t care what ethnicity you are, they just want … the most talented.”

Nice one.

The most surprising thing about this news is that no-one else in America seems to have noticed this remarkable fact. Given that can we know for sure that racism is prevalent in most, if not all, aspects of American society, it is truly amazing that not one activist, social scientist, Liberal, or academic, seems to be aware of the forward-thinking, race-blind Utopian industry that happened to manifest spontaneously in Hollywood.

It would be nice to hear how Hollywood has succeeded in achieving the feat of ending the racially biased thinking that afflicts the rest of American society. No other institution in America can boast that it has eradicated the kind of petty racially inflected thinking that discriminates against minorities in every level of American society. Whether it be in housing, college applications, incarceration rates, poverty rates, minority representation in management positions in industry, the fact is that minorities undergo biased attitudes in almost all aspects of their lives. So, it would be nice if Hollywood would show the rest of American society how to go about the same transformation.

According to Lin, the one exception to this prevalent social ill is Hollywood - which is race blind - yet no-one has noticed this except for Dan Lin.

In other news, reports suggest that the military is also race-blind. Sources close to Hollywood report that the story of Danny Chen's race-blind experience in the army is to be made into a movie. The role of Danny Chen will be played by either Shia Labeouf, or another white actor. Lin may be producing. Stay tuned.

Çinli Gibi!

Tsunamis and The Children Of The Corn.

As I've alluded to elsewhere, the Asian experience of racism in America bears some comparison to a campaign of terrorism. For instance, terrorists seek to manipulate, disempower, intimidate, and coerce a population into acceding to various demands and beliefs in order to empower themselves, yet, a society that promotes and normalizes racial hostility, violence, and behaviours through demeaning stereotypes and xenophobic socio-political rhetoric creates a similar relationship between the mainstream and the target minority as the relationship between the terrorist organization and the citizens it targets.

Where I presently reside, the existence of various militant separatist, anarchist, nationalist, and religious groups makes for an interesting cocktail of potential hazards of the explosive kind. Three years ago a bomb was discovered in a Burger King just down the street from my apartment, and earlier this year a suicide bomber martyred himself in one of the City's main squares. Suffice it to say that even though these types of incidences are rare, I would be lying if I were to say that the thought of being caught in a bomb blast whilst sitting in my favourite coffee shop, or shopping at the grocery store, is not always at the back of my mind.

Obscenely, this sense of foreboding that a bomb might go off is analagous to the experience of being Asian in America. Just as in a society that lives with an internal terrorist threat in which its citizens can never foresee the next martyr, but who know that one will come along sooner or later, Asians in America never really know when their race is going to be a problem for someone, somewhere. It could be in a favourite cafe, or whilst shopping at the grocery store, but sooner or later, someone will remind us that being Asian means casually routine harassment and racial baiting, and perhaps even violence.

It is precisely because American culture normalizes racist attitudes and behaviours towards its Asian minority that an environment has been created in which interactions with the mainstream often carries with it the likelihood for racial denigration or even violence. Yet, because depictions of racial violence and harassment forms the core of representations of Asian people in American culture, this is not considered an abnormal state of affairs. Hence, just like someone who is trying to live a normal life knowing that a terrorist's bomb could go off any time or anywhere, many in the Asian minority exists in a state of expectation knowing that an inevitable explosion of casual (or even casually violent) racism will impinge upon their lives. Society is set up to ensure this.

American culture (and hence American society) is abnormal in its xenophobic hostility to the epicanthic fold and the single eyelid. If you refer to the title of this post - "Çinli Gibi" - it is Turkish for "(He  looks) like a Chinese", and I heard a group of small Kurdish kids saying it about me whilst I was walking through my neighbourhood recently. I looked over at them and smiled, to which they responded in accented English, "Hello!" and then giggled. I waved and continued on whilst the kids went back to playing. Just a case of innocent curiosity - how normal! If this had occurred in America, the kids would be likely to have a selection of choice epithets to hurl at me, and the tone of the exchange would likely have been alot uglier.

This offers a great insight into how sick and aberrative American culture is when it comes to its attitudes to its Asian minority because, by contrast, mainstream American kids seem to be armed with a ready supply of racist attitudes and epithets that they are seemingly not discouraged from using in their interactions with Asian people. It is Asian-American children who experience this most intensely - yet what can it mean for American society and the place of the Asian minority within it when America's children go through the most impressionable years of their lives with the belief that it is normal to use racial epithets towards Asian people?

To me the recent outpouring of anti-Japanese feeling in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami is simply confirmation that the practice of rearing American children to think of Asians in dehumanizing ways has been a great success, and that we should not be surprised that this apparent inability to have a human connection with Asian people is so prevalent - it is how many of these people have been taught to think since childhood.

The King Has No Clothes?

The Oppressed becomes the Oppressor.

No mention of the black Civil Rights struggles of the nineteen-fifties and sixties is complete without a reference to the bravery and determination of the Little Rock Nine. For those unfamiliar with the story, the Little Rock Nine were the first African-American students to attempt enrollment in the segregated Little Rock High School in 1957. The images of the mass of white students shouting racial abuse at them as they enter the school have become  almost iconic and are a  portent of the abuse they would experience throughout the ensuing school year.

In the year following their enrollment the nine faced continual and repeated harrassment as well as physical abuse and intimidation. One of the nine, Minnie Jean Brown Trickey , after enduring repeated harrassment and abuse was suspended and subsequently expelled for calling one of her tormentors "white trash". Carlotta Walls Lanier was spat on and regularly harrassed by white students. The studious and quiet Jefferson A. Thomas was heavily targeted by bullies. Gloria Cecilia Ray Karlmark was especially targeted by bullies and was jostled, pushed and physically intimidated by white students. Melba Patillo Beals had acid thrown into her face. All of the nine faced daily harrowing abuse, bullying, physical intimidation and violence. All the while the Administrative and teaching staff  permitted the violence to continue unabated.

Because of their endurance and bravery, the story of the Little Rock Nine has empowered subsequent generations of the dispossessed and disempowered. All of the nine went on to be successfull in their fields and themselves became community activists. How painful, then, must be the realization that one of the main lessons learned by some of the heirs to the struggle for equality is how to be oppressors.

It's something of a clichè to write that history repeats itself, yet, the ongoing violence and harrassment of Asian students at the hands of the descendants of the Civil Rights movement in South Philly High school proves that this age-old wisdom is sometimes true. As readers may know, the Asian student body at South Philly High School has been involved in an ongoing judicial struggle to have their grievances appropriately addressed by school authorities, who have so far apparently pursued a policy of denial and dishonesty in order to avoid upholding the civil (and human) rights of their Asian students. At the school, students of Asian descent have reported repeated racial baiting, harrassment, intimidation and physical violence all under the watchful indifference of school staff.

It's therefore the greatest irony that Federal investigators have found merit in the complaints of the Asian student body on the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. The similarities in the experiences of the Little Rock Nine and the Asian students are remarkable. Just like the Little Rock Nine, the Asian students at South Philly want to better themselves through education and hard work. Unfortunately, also like the Little Rock Nine, the Asian student body is being abused by an ignorant group of students whose violence and intimidation has been (allegedly) repeatedly ignored by school authorities. Sadly, on the anniversary of King's speech that inspired oppressed people throughout the world, the heirs to his legacy have been called to address their own oppression of a weaker minority.

Does the King still have clothes?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

H/T Masir Jones at Destroy & Rebuild

Program on Violence Against Asian American Students: The Philadelphia Story

From the API Movement Blog......

API Movement Building Boston and other groups will be hosting an event with students and community members active in fighting for Asian American student safety after attacks on them at South Philadelphia Highs School……………

……let’s hope for a good turnout.

Especially interesting for me is this;

What happened? How did the students and community build an effective coalition, what is the legal case and situation, did anti-immigrant sentiment played any role, and are Asian American students facing similar issues locally?

As I outlined, here, my sense is that much of the identity (and some other) issues experienced by many in the Asian community may be partially resolved when this problem is addressed. The marginalization of the Asian community begins in the first grade. It’s time to end the cycle. The first step to empowerment of the community has to be the empowerment of our children.

Most if not all East Asian children experience race related harassment and/or bullying in American schools. Of all the things we experience as a community, this is one of the things that is most universal and one which any East Asian who went through the school system of any western country will be familiar. Strangely, the often administration/teacher enabled harassment of Asian kids is an issue that, for whatever reason, the general Asian community seems reluctant to address with any passion. The situation at South Philly is by no means an isolated phenomenon, the only difference may be one of degree and blatancy.