....Is It Wicked?
In the wake of Mother's Day, I thought it would be appropriate to write in praise of Asian parents since most of the time Asian parents are written about as though they are monsters (just like asians in general). It should come as little surprise that even on the subject of Asian parents, mainstream America has its own set of ideas and beliefs that seem to emerge from the peristalsis fed by a diet of ignorance, misinformation, and sometimes even, bad will.
There's little doubt that ideas about Asian parents are a subset of stereotypes about Asian people in general. Of course, it doesn't help that some Asians themselves bottom-feed opportunistically off of the phenomenon, scoring brownie points, perhaps, amongst the mainstream intelligentsia for throwing off the illusory shackles of oppressive Asian cultures. The mainstream, in turn, is grateful that its widely held racial stereotypes are seemingly justifiably absolved of charges of racism because how can a stereotype be racist when it is true?!
Ideas about Asian parents seem to be based on the notion that they are emotionally distant, cold, and extremely harsh. An unhelpful tendency amongst some Asian-Americans (cynical and deliberate or not) to racialize personal choices must contribute to normalizing such stereotypes. For example, Amy Chua's uneducated guesstimation that asserted her personal preference of harsh dragon-lady type mothering as typical of Asian cultures has subsequently been shown to be a puff of magical dragon smoke in light of actual studies showing that claims that her methods are representative of Asian mothers to be false. According to that study, Asian parents are generally more loving and sensitive to the specific needs of their children than any stereotype of an emotionally remote Sheol of Asian humanity would want us to believe.
The ramifications are disturbing for those who thrive off of propagating stereotypes about pervasive Asian emotional handicaps. If Asian parents as a group, generally turn out to be as supportive and emotionally warm with their kids as the white-parenting Gold Standard, then where does that leave all of those commentators who assert that harsh Asian parenting is responsible for the dearth of Asians in positions of authority in industry, or the lack of iconic Asian-American cultural figures, or any other dearth of Asians where it might be expected? As the study suggested, harsh parenting does produce emotionally and socially stunted offspring, but Asian parents apparently aren't particularly harsh as a general rule, so, of course, that puts the ball right back into the court of mainstream attitudes as, perhaps, a significant factor for this state of affairs.
On the subject of cultural "icons", it is probably not entirely accurate to say that we don't have any of Asian descent, but who are the Asians that we can say are iconic in the sense that they are greatly admired or emulated, the appreciation of whom transcends racial and cultural boundaries? Several come to mind off the top of my head; PSY, Manny Pacquiao, and Bruce Lee, to name but three, but few (if any) Americans of Asian descent meet the criteria to be labeled "culturally iconic". It could be persuasively argued that the fact that there are (albeit limited) cultural icons of Asian descent strongly indicates that mainstream prejudices are insignificant.
But my sense is that since Asians growing up in the US, are likely be exposed to racially inflected negative and hostile attitudes and behaviours starting the moment they step foot into the first-grade classroom (or turn on the television) - behaviours that are culturally normalized in politics and the media - there may be pressures not accounted for in this narrative that discourages outspokenness and social confidence. It could be that mainstream America simply doesn't want American icons with Asian faces because they cannot accept that Americans can or should have Asian faces. In any case, it seems to be becoming increasingly unreasonable to blame Asian parenting for Asians not making to the "top" in the numbers one would expect for such a highly educated group.
I think that amongst Asian-Americans there is something of a "grass is greener" syndrome at work when comparing their upbringings with that of their white peers - it is not uncommon to hear Asians assert that white kids are more "well-rounded" and "happier. This may be especially acute for those who may find social integration or interaction to be a challenge - for example, those Asian men who fault the way that their parents raised them as the cause of their lack of success with women. The narrative goes like this; Asian parents are harsh and don't let their kids socialize (the way that white parents do) and so Asians don't get the opportunities to learn how to socialize appropriately, or in the case of Asian men don't learn how to "get good with the chicks". Well, this doesn't appear to be true. As the study shows, Asian parents are usually quite happy to let their kids socialize, so if Asian men are experiencing social awkwardness it has to be a more holistic issue and not just the result of Asian parents teaching awkwardness. It should be said, that Asian kids might also be "happier" and "well-rounded" if they didn't have to deal with pervasive and culturally normalized anti-Asian racism in the school environment.
I do have to say at this point that I laugh at the suggestion that white parents somehow "teach" their kids how to socialize with others their age (or that white kids are "well-rounded"), simply because if you are a thirty-five-plus parent and you know how to interact with early-pubescent kids, then you are probably extremely creepy. It's called the generation gap, and it is a very real phenomenon; once past a certain age, it becomes increasingly difficult to understand how younger generations interact, and you find that you have less and less in common, and less and less to talk about with younger people. This means that almost all parents have little to offer when it comes to the all-important details of socialization amongst their offspring, because that is the nature of human socialization; older generations find it increasingly difficult to relate to younger generations. Certainly, there are core values that parents should teach, and basic manners, but parents have absolutely no way to know how successive generations are interacting with each other, and there is no reason to believe that Asian parents don't teach these core values to their kıds.When it comes to teaching how to "interact with girls" I find it hard to believe that white parents take their sons out and show them how pick up chicks!
No, people learn socialization skills (including interaction with the opposite sex) basically on their own amongst a group of similarly aged and minded people. And this is where the problems arise because in truth, it is not the Asians who are awkward but America that is awkward with us. Look at it this way; American culture normalizes behaviour towards Asians that is demeaning and dehumanizing. Some of the ways this manifests are through mockery of our racial characteristics (e.g. the "chink-eye"), mockery of "Asian" languages (e.g. "ching-chong"), propagation of stereotypes that promote harassment of Asians, and a culture of normalization of images of sadistic violence towards Asians. So think about how difficult it is to learn culturally appropriate socialization when the culture that you belong to promotes casual racist behaviour towards you.
We know that this is pervasive and normalized because it happens in every strata of American society and across generations - from children in the playground targeting Asian kids with racial slurs and racial mockery, to beloved mainstream celebs doing the same thing on television or in the media, and from common movie images of justified violence against some Asian foe, to justifications of violence against Asian shopkeepers in America's ghettos. Wherever one looks, one can see that mainstream American culture models behaviour that makes it normal to target Asians with demeaning behaviour at best or harassment and violence at worst.
But Asians want to believe that it is we who have the problem of social awkwardness when, in fact, America has a problem of malign social awkwardness with us (just think back to how awkward America was with Jeremy Lin last year and how second-nature and normal it was to post comment about him in racialized stereotyped ways). So, if Asians are somehow finding it difficult to integrate socially, yes, perhaps some of our parents could do with some updates on how to better socialize their kids, but the elephant in the room here is that American culture itself is a major culprit in normalizing behaviour towards Asians that would be considered unsociable and appalling if enacted with any other non-Asian individual or group.
Given that so much of the life experiences of Asian-Americans are determined by skewed mainstream cultural norms, it seems unfair to expect Asian parents to know how deal with this. It would be nice to think that we could turn to our mothers and fathers and they would have a solution to this problem, but that is unrealistic - after all, how would they know how to fix that problem. The truth is that no matter how well-rounded Asian parents raise their children to be, they will always come up against this normalization of racial awkwardness towards them fostered by American culture.
In no way does this discount the experiences of those who have indeed suffered from extremely harsh or abusive parenting - Asians are as prone to this as any group, no more, no less - but even for these people my sense is that it is better to clarify that it is likely that they would come up against mainstream attitudes and behaviours that promote social difficulties for Asians, even if their parents had not been harsh. Having supportive parents doesn't make these problems go away, and there is little reason to believe that having a well-rounded upbringing will make you better able to deal with the casual prejudices that Asians are almost certain to encounter.
Showing posts with label Marginalization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marginalization. Show all posts
Monday, May 20, 2013
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
We're All Model Minorities.....
....When We Achieve Success.
In a previous post I outlined some issues surrounding the way that some people in the Asian community view the model-minority stereotype and how it seems self-defeating to focus on the specific label instead of the underlying culture that produces it. By focusing on the resentment apparently stirred amongst other minorities, and making it our responsibility to soothe this resentments, we are denying ourselves the opportunity to bring the issue of our profound cultural marginalization to the table. This means that we are failing to address the fundamental issue that causes the problem in the first place; the culture of casual anti-Asian racism that has marginalized the Asian voice to such a degree that it can create - on a whim - an entire false identity for a group of people and make it the definitive mode through which that group is conceived, even though it is false on so many levels. That is the true issue, not the petty resentments created by it.
In the study that I referred to in that previous post, the interviewees voiced their frustrations with Asian-Americans that they claimed have "internalized" the model-minority stereotype and supposedly exchanged a political and social consciousness for economic acceptance. As one interviewee put it.....
This, of course, is nonsense for a couple of reasons. Any resentment caused by any racial stereotype is racist, plain and simple. It is makes no difference that those expressing the resentment are black, Latino, or white, if you judge an entire group of people because of a made-up stereotype, then that is racist. The second, and more significant problem with this way of thinking is that abandoning political and social consciousness once economic or social acceptance is attained is something that all minorities do. For example, few black celebrities will speak out about police harassment and brutality in the community or high incarceration rates of black men, or the appalling indifference to the quality of education in urban schools affecting black children. As Harry Belafonte put it.....
Of course, the real issue - which we fail to address in our rush to soothe unfair resentment directed at us - is that it has to be the unspoken rule that in order for minorities, of any colour, to be acceptable into the white mainstream, they must not bite the hand that feeds them. In other words, most ethnic minorities who succeed in the mainstream have to - and do - abide by this unspoken rule, meaning that such all such people are effectively assuming a "model-minority" identity. That is, they get to take a share of the prosperity, and in return they avoid inconvenient political and social commentary.
This may be why few black sportsmen and entertainers seem to mention high incarceration rates of black males, police brutality and harassment, and the poor quality of education that seems characteristic of mainly poor, black, neighbourhoods - to do so in a meaningful way would break the rules. Sportsmen might lose popularity and maybe endorsements, entertainers might notice their record sales sliding, or face a backlash in the press.
The point here is that many Asians seem to have internalized (funnily enough) this aspect of the model-minority stereotype in this unique way; the implication is that acting like a model-minority by avoiding "controversial" politics and social commentary in exchange for a place at the table of success is specific, or even limited to the Asian minority. Of course, the problem here is that there is little evidence for this - in fact, all the evidence suggests that most successful minority individuals will assume this role and avoid activism against the poor treatment of minorities in America.
It should go without saying that any attempt to foster alignment between Asians and other minorities is fatally flawed if we base some of our presumptions about our own community on an idea that is simply untrue. The reality is not that the Asians-as-model-minority label contributes to maintaining the status quo of racial oppression, but that all minorities who achieve success are required to assume a "model-minority identity" to some degree - even, apparently, African-Americans. This is a significantly different proposition that makes all of our shame and embarrassment about being the "elevated" minority somewhat misplaced. In fact, it could be even worse that no-one recognizes this acquiescence to the status quo from successful figures in the black community - not noticing this phenomenon means that we don't realize there is a problem which only enables the problem to continue.
The key thing to understand here is that if these model-minority identities do, in fact, contribute to maintaining the status quo of racial oppression, then any minority individual who achieves success but fails to advocate for justice is guilty of this - and as I have demonstrated it is not just Asians (as individuals or as a group) who do this. Taking on this burden that is based on a false premise only enables anti-Asian racism to persist, not only in the mainstream, but also amongst the other minorities with whom we seek to align.
And that is the biggest issue with our unfathomable unchallenged acceptance of model-minority identities as something unique to the Asian community. Yes, we are labeled as such - again mostly, apparently by ourselves these days - but the reality is that for any minority to succeed means a de facto acceptance, to some degree, of this model-minority identity. Paradoxically, by taking on this burden as a specific problem that Asians alone should address, we are actually allowing the the status quo to continue because such an acceptance implicitly denies that this phenomenon exists beyond Asian-America, when very clearly it does. If minority success brings with it a responsibility to advocate for racial justice, then by denying that this problem exists as a structural issue by which all minorities must abide, is to absolve any non-Asian minority from the responsibility of actually engaging in advocacy - which must perpetuate racial injustice.
What Asian-Americans are effectively doing when they approach inter-minority relations and model-minority labeling from this position, is to get in the way of genuine dialogue on the role that all minorities play in maintaining racial injustices in return for prosperity or success. By allowing ourselves to be viewed as the sole bearers of this identity, we are side-tracking the dialogue away from a more realistic understanding of the complexities of race politics. In the process, we are also allowing what amounts to, often racist, resentment from other minorities to fester without challenging the fundamental premises from which this resentment derives.
In a previous post I outlined some issues surrounding the way that some people in the Asian community view the model-minority stereotype and how it seems self-defeating to focus on the specific label instead of the underlying culture that produces it. By focusing on the resentment apparently stirred amongst other minorities, and making it our responsibility to soothe this resentments, we are denying ourselves the opportunity to bring the issue of our profound cultural marginalization to the table. This means that we are failing to address the fundamental issue that causes the problem in the first place; the culture of casual anti-Asian racism that has marginalized the Asian voice to such a degree that it can create - on a whim - an entire false identity for a group of people and make it the definitive mode through which that group is conceived, even though it is false on so many levels. That is the true issue, not the petty resentments created by it.
In the study that I referred to in that previous post, the interviewees voiced their frustrations with Asian-Americans that they claimed have "internalized" the model-minority stereotype and supposedly exchanged a political and social consciousness for economic acceptance. As one interviewee put it.....
One person, an academic, said that the model minority myth bound those who accepted it to certain “tacit agreements” in exchange for privileged racial status. “You don’t have the same kind of churning and dislocation necessarily with middle-class Asians and middle-class whites. .......provided that they behave themselves… [which] might mean not getting too involved in the political process, accepting the role of the junior partner.”Given my general skepticism about the interviewees' generalizations, it may surprise readers that I actually think that there is some merit to this point - to be successful and gain acceptance into mainstream culture, many Asians do abdicate their political and social consciousness. What is problematic about the antagonism that we mete out towards such Asian - as well as the implicit invitation for other groups to join us in this - is that this phenomenon is not unique or specific to Asians. There is an implicit suggestion that this is an Asian problem that impedes the progress of fellow peoples of colour and both explains and, perhaps, justifies some of the resentments directed at us by these other minorities.
This, of course, is nonsense for a couple of reasons. Any resentment caused by any racial stereotype is racist, plain and simple. It is makes no difference that those expressing the resentment are black, Latino, or white, if you judge an entire group of people because of a made-up stereotype, then that is racist. The second, and more significant problem with this way of thinking is that abandoning political and social consciousness once economic or social acceptance is attained is something that all minorities do. For example, few black celebrities will speak out about police harassment and brutality in the community or high incarceration rates of black men, or the appalling indifference to the quality of education in urban schools affecting black children. As Harry Belafonte put it.....
From the highest pinnacles of Wall Street to the kings and queens of entertainment, to the gods and goddesses of sports, never before at these levels have we boasted such large numbers of Black participants. All this at the same time Black America is condemned to be the harvest of the largest prison population on the face of the earth, the most destroyed by the diseases of poverty, the most undereducated, the most diminished for lack of self-worth and the most punished by the prejudices of an unworthy justice system. The list goes on...Clearly, any suggestion that Asian-American are alone in abdicating political or social consciousness is untrue and as damaging a stereotype as any - the difference is that it is an idea that is put forward by Asians themselves.
Of course, the real issue - which we fail to address in our rush to soothe unfair resentment directed at us - is that it has to be the unspoken rule that in order for minorities, of any colour, to be acceptable into the white mainstream, they must not bite the hand that feeds them. In other words, most ethnic minorities who succeed in the mainstream have to - and do - abide by this unspoken rule, meaning that such all such people are effectively assuming a "model-minority" identity. That is, they get to take a share of the prosperity, and in return they avoid inconvenient political and social commentary.
This may be why few black sportsmen and entertainers seem to mention high incarceration rates of black males, police brutality and harassment, and the poor quality of education that seems characteristic of mainly poor, black, neighbourhoods - to do so in a meaningful way would break the rules. Sportsmen might lose popularity and maybe endorsements, entertainers might notice their record sales sliding, or face a backlash in the press.
The point here is that many Asians seem to have internalized (funnily enough) this aspect of the model-minority stereotype in this unique way; the implication is that acting like a model-minority by avoiding "controversial" politics and social commentary in exchange for a place at the table of success is specific, or even limited to the Asian minority. Of course, the problem here is that there is little evidence for this - in fact, all the evidence suggests that most successful minority individuals will assume this role and avoid activism against the poor treatment of minorities in America.
It should go without saying that any attempt to foster alignment between Asians and other minorities is fatally flawed if we base some of our presumptions about our own community on an idea that is simply untrue. The reality is not that the Asians-as-model-minority label contributes to maintaining the status quo of racial oppression, but that all minorities who achieve success are required to assume a "model-minority identity" to some degree - even, apparently, African-Americans. This is a significantly different proposition that makes all of our shame and embarrassment about being the "elevated" minority somewhat misplaced. In fact, it could be even worse that no-one recognizes this acquiescence to the status quo from successful figures in the black community - not noticing this phenomenon means that we don't realize there is a problem which only enables the problem to continue.
The key thing to understand here is that if these model-minority identities do, in fact, contribute to maintaining the status quo of racial oppression, then any minority individual who achieves success but fails to advocate for justice is guilty of this - and as I have demonstrated it is not just Asians (as individuals or as a group) who do this. Taking on this burden that is based on a false premise only enables anti-Asian racism to persist, not only in the mainstream, but also amongst the other minorities with whom we seek to align.
And that is the biggest issue with our unfathomable unchallenged acceptance of model-minority identities as something unique to the Asian community. Yes, we are labeled as such - again mostly, apparently by ourselves these days - but the reality is that for any minority to succeed means a de facto acceptance, to some degree, of this model-minority identity. Paradoxically, by taking on this burden as a specific problem that Asians alone should address, we are actually allowing the the status quo to continue because such an acceptance implicitly denies that this phenomenon exists beyond Asian-America, when very clearly it does. If minority success brings with it a responsibility to advocate for racial justice, then by denying that this problem exists as a structural issue by which all minorities must abide, is to absolve any non-Asian minority from the responsibility of actually engaging in advocacy - which must perpetuate racial injustice.
What Asian-Americans are effectively doing when they approach inter-minority relations and model-minority labeling from this position, is to get in the way of genuine dialogue on the role that all minorities play in maintaining racial injustices in return for prosperity or success. By allowing ourselves to be viewed as the sole bearers of this identity, we are side-tracking the dialogue away from a more realistic understanding of the complexities of race politics. In the process, we are also allowing what amounts to, often racist, resentment from other minorities to fester without challenging the fundamental premises from which this resentment derives.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
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........
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......
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.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Christmas Is A Time For .....
...Sex, Bingo, and Dried Fruit and Nuts.
You wouldn't think that Christmas would be celebrated in a Muslim country, but here in Turkey it has become a fairly major shopping season celebrated by many. Of course, the religious component is absent - no reference to JC, the Virgin, or Magi - but, instead, has been re-termed the "Yılbaşı", or "New Year" festivity. Everything is the same in the seasonal celebration - Christmas trees, house decorations, and even Santa (after all, St. Nick was born in Turkey), are included, and the period of the celebration is the same, roughly from mid-December through to early January, gifts are exchanged and everybody has Christmas cheer.
Of course, not everyone shares this enthusiasm for this Christian celebration. Some - presumably hardcore minded Muslims - encourage the faithful to avoid participation in general, and joint participation with Christians, in particular. Since we live in a relatively conservative area, we are, naturally, exposed to some of this opposition to Christmas. Last year someone was kind enough to leave several extremely well-made, and expensive-looking flyers in our building that warned believers of the unsavoury nature of Christmas.
The flyer sought to discourage participation in Christmas celebrations by warning believers that Christians celebrate by having sex, playing bingo, and eating "kuruyemiş" or dried fruit and nuts. I was shocked because if I had known about the sex, then I would have attended midnight mass more regularly as a youth. This kind of makes me think that this tactic might ultimately backfire - which man isn't willing to endure a bit of bingo and dried fruit if sex is available as part of the package?
Of course, I remained confused about this notion that bingo and eating nuts and dried fruit were in some way morally suspect or irreligious. Luckily, I have an acquaintance who belongs to a community known as "Levantines" who are of Italian or Greek ethnicity but were born and raised in Istanbul. This acquaintance and his wife are an older couple, who have lived through some extremely turbulent and harrowing times as members of a minority group, and were able to shed some light on this dried fruit and bingo debauchery. The reference to the dried fruit and nuts was a mockery of an Orthodox Christian tradition of exchanging these items as a symbol of unity and sharing. The bingo allusion was an insinuation that gambling is an integral part of Christmas - and gambling is frowned upon in Islam.
Naturally, I found these characterizations ludicrous and laughed, but my friends were clearly rattled and disturbed by all of it, and seemed confused by my lack of concern about such obviously (to them) inflammatory bigotry. What enabled me to be casual about this bigotry was that I had simply not shared their experiences and, therefore, couldn't find an emotional attachment to them. Amongst Americans of Asian descent in the US, this is a similar phenomenon to our own - when first-generation immigrants (or Asian observers in Asia) don't see how or why American born or raised Asians would feel disturbed or dehumanized by racial slurs or racial mockery in American culture. To them it is something that they are, perhaps, emotionally detached from because they were not exposed to it since childhood.
What this shows me is how closely history - personal and group experiences - are intertwined with culture and identity. Without acknowledging that history, it is almost impossible to find commonality or understanding between either individuals or groups - even groups of similar ethnic background. For my Levantine acquaintances, these seemingly (to me) innocuous jibes represented a far more serious historical culture of hostility (that has now, thankfully, significantly receded) than I knew. Likewise, because the Asian-American historical experience - both personal and communal - is culturally invisible, our life stories seem to get lost in the wider cultural context of American society, hence, an ongoing perspective of Asians as outsiders and foreigners with whom there is little commonality.
So, in some ways, integration and acceptance of minority groups depend to a significant degree on the integration and acceptance of a minority's historical narrative. In fact, calls to end ethnic studies highlight the importance of the minority historical narrative and can be interpreted as a way to avoid integrating such narratives into mainstream culture and consciousness, whilst at the same time weakening the all-important foundation of identity; historical experience.
For example, imagine an America that does away with narratives surrounding Thanksgiving, July 4th, or even the Boston Tea Party. These histories reflect and represent the very foundation of what we Americans believe about ourselves and which informs our American national identity. Thanksgiving reflects a religious bedrock narrative of America as a manifestation of divine providence, and religious freedom. The Independence Day and the Boston Tea Party narratives remind Americans that their refusal to acquiesce to an unrepresentative and despotic monarchy reflects their fundamental nature as freedom loving individuals and whose personal and national identities are informed by this nature. These historical experiences and narratives are fundamental to the American identity and to end such narratives would significantly alter the way Americans feel about themselves and hence American culture. This is why most authoritarian governments aggressively control historical narratives - doing so shapes the national identity and creates a more easily manipulated public whose uniformity of opinion diminishes dissent.
In this light, it is easy to understand the sentiment amongst some Asian-Americans of feeling disconnected or "cut adrift" from mainstream America. Our histories and experiences are often white-washed such that it becomes normal to accept that pervasive anti-Asian racism is actually only an anomaly perpetrated by ignorant individuals - even though casual racist caricaturing and stereotyping normalize such racism in the first place. Without even the most rudimentary knowledge (let alone acceptance) of our historical experience as Americans and as targets of colonial expansion, it is hardly surprising that American culture continues to view us as outsiders.
You wouldn't think that Christmas would be celebrated in a Muslim country, but here in Turkey it has become a fairly major shopping season celebrated by many. Of course, the religious component is absent - no reference to JC, the Virgin, or Magi - but, instead, has been re-termed the "Yılbaşı", or "New Year" festivity. Everything is the same in the seasonal celebration - Christmas trees, house decorations, and even Santa (after all, St. Nick was born in Turkey), are included, and the period of the celebration is the same, roughly from mid-December through to early January, gifts are exchanged and everybody has Christmas cheer.
Of course, not everyone shares this enthusiasm for this Christian celebration. Some - presumably hardcore minded Muslims - encourage the faithful to avoid participation in general, and joint participation with Christians, in particular. Since we live in a relatively conservative area, we are, naturally, exposed to some of this opposition to Christmas. Last year someone was kind enough to leave several extremely well-made, and expensive-looking flyers in our building that warned believers of the unsavoury nature of Christmas.
The flyer sought to discourage participation in Christmas celebrations by warning believers that Christians celebrate by having sex, playing bingo, and eating "kuruyemiş" or dried fruit and nuts. I was shocked because if I had known about the sex, then I would have attended midnight mass more regularly as a youth. This kind of makes me think that this tactic might ultimately backfire - which man isn't willing to endure a bit of bingo and dried fruit if sex is available as part of the package?
Of course, I remained confused about this notion that bingo and eating nuts and dried fruit were in some way morally suspect or irreligious. Luckily, I have an acquaintance who belongs to a community known as "Levantines" who are of Italian or Greek ethnicity but were born and raised in Istanbul. This acquaintance and his wife are an older couple, who have lived through some extremely turbulent and harrowing times as members of a minority group, and were able to shed some light on this dried fruit and bingo debauchery. The reference to the dried fruit and nuts was a mockery of an Orthodox Christian tradition of exchanging these items as a symbol of unity and sharing. The bingo allusion was an insinuation that gambling is an integral part of Christmas - and gambling is frowned upon in Islam.
Naturally, I found these characterizations ludicrous and laughed, but my friends were clearly rattled and disturbed by all of it, and seemed confused by my lack of concern about such obviously (to them) inflammatory bigotry. What enabled me to be casual about this bigotry was that I had simply not shared their experiences and, therefore, couldn't find an emotional attachment to them. Amongst Americans of Asian descent in the US, this is a similar phenomenon to our own - when first-generation immigrants (or Asian observers in Asia) don't see how or why American born or raised Asians would feel disturbed or dehumanized by racial slurs or racial mockery in American culture. To them it is something that they are, perhaps, emotionally detached from because they were not exposed to it since childhood.
What this shows me is how closely history - personal and group experiences - are intertwined with culture and identity. Without acknowledging that history, it is almost impossible to find commonality or understanding between either individuals or groups - even groups of similar ethnic background. For my Levantine acquaintances, these seemingly (to me) innocuous jibes represented a far more serious historical culture of hostility (that has now, thankfully, significantly receded) than I knew. Likewise, because the Asian-American historical experience - both personal and communal - is culturally invisible, our life stories seem to get lost in the wider cultural context of American society, hence, an ongoing perspective of Asians as outsiders and foreigners with whom there is little commonality.
So, in some ways, integration and acceptance of minority groups depend to a significant degree on the integration and acceptance of a minority's historical narrative. In fact, calls to end ethnic studies highlight the importance of the minority historical narrative and can be interpreted as a way to avoid integrating such narratives into mainstream culture and consciousness, whilst at the same time weakening the all-important foundation of identity; historical experience.
For example, imagine an America that does away with narratives surrounding Thanksgiving, July 4th, or even the Boston Tea Party. These histories reflect and represent the very foundation of what we Americans believe about ourselves and which informs our American national identity. Thanksgiving reflects a religious bedrock narrative of America as a manifestation of divine providence, and religious freedom. The Independence Day and the Boston Tea Party narratives remind Americans that their refusal to acquiesce to an unrepresentative and despotic monarchy reflects their fundamental nature as freedom loving individuals and whose personal and national identities are informed by this nature. These historical experiences and narratives are fundamental to the American identity and to end such narratives would significantly alter the way Americans feel about themselves and hence American culture. This is why most authoritarian governments aggressively control historical narratives - doing so shapes the national identity and creates a more easily manipulated public whose uniformity of opinion diminishes dissent.
In this light, it is easy to understand the sentiment amongst some Asian-Americans of feeling disconnected or "cut adrift" from mainstream America. Our histories and experiences are often white-washed such that it becomes normal to accept that pervasive anti-Asian racism is actually only an anomaly perpetrated by ignorant individuals - even though casual racist caricaturing and stereotyping normalize such racism in the first place. Without even the most rudimentary knowledge (let alone acceptance) of our historical experience as Americans and as targets of colonial expansion, it is hardly surprising that American culture continues to view us as outsiders.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Cloud Atlas
Some Thoughts.
I got a chance to see the controversial-for-Asian-Americans-movie "Cloud Atlas" this past weekend (and no, I didn't pay to see it) which is a fantasy/Sci-Fi epic that explores the continuity of human nature through the stories of several sets of characters set in various time frames spanning several hundred years, past, present, and future. I suppose one could say that the characters represent "archetypes" of the human experience whose qualities range from wicked, greedy, oppressors, to flawed heroic saviour types, as well as everything in between. The movie explores this idea of the relationships between archetypal characters and their role in the evolution of human progression (and digression) being played out over centuries and employs the theme of reincarnation to show how the human story can be viewed as a repetition of this struggle between those archetypal characters who seek to diminish human flourishing and those who wish to expand it.
Although at times visually breathtaking (Halle Berry!), and generally well-acted (Halle Berry in a white jumpsuit!), the epic theme and the fractured way that it had to be expressed meant that there was just too much story to be told and in a too disjointed way for the movie to work successfully. Of course, from an Asian-American perspective the movie employed some character development practices that have left many within the community feeling alienated from the film. I'm referring to the use of "yellowface" - the practice of using theatrical make-up and prosthetics to transform Caucasian actors (but in this case also black actors) into East Asians. A time-honored practice in the entertainment industry, yellowface is both a symbol and strong measure of the degree to which the movie industry discriminates against Asian actors - particularly Asian male actors.
In short, in Cloud Atlas four different actors, all male, three of whom were Caucasian, one of whom was African-American, are "transformed" into Asian men by perfunctorily slapping a strip of skin-toned latex over the upper lids of the actor's eyes to make them seem to turn into slits and slant off-horizontal. Now, it has to be said that there was a smattering of incredulous snorting around the theatre when these Asianized (or Asian-eyesd) characters first appeared, which seemed to suggest that the latex prosthetics were unconvincing. According to some defenders, this race-replacement strategy was necessary because the movie's theme of reincarnation was depicted by using the same actors to play different characters reborn over time. Apparently this is because there are no other means by which this simple idea of a soul being reborn into different bodies could be conveyed without using laughable make-up on the same actors. Of course, this rationalizaton fails when we realize that Halle Berry, Tom Hanks, Jim Sturgess, and Doona Bae, all play the roll of the main character (whose soul is reincarnated into their bodies) at different epochs in history. So clearly, audiences aren't so stupid that one would need a comically made-up actor to portray a different race, otherwise this wouldn't have worked.
Naturally, Asian-Americans are disturbed by this strategy of race-fakery in film when it would seem that finding talented male actors of Asian descent to splice into these roles would have been easy to do. The choice to chink-up non-Asian actors has been defended against accusations of racism on the grounds that the movie has a diverse cast (including an Asian female in a major role). Yet, it is difficult not to notice that the choices made by the movie's makers are almost identical in character to the practice of discriminating against Asian male actors that is customary in Hollywood and which white-washes Asian males out of leading roles even in historical pieces where the main character is Asian. Most telling of all was that several people in my group - Turks who are unacquainted with America's racial politics - remarked how the amateurish and silly the race make-up seemed, leaving them to wonder why Asian males weren't cast in the roles but Asian women were.
Perhaps worse still is the fact that the only time an actual Asian male takes centre stage in the film it was in a beyond-minor role as an asshole who sexually harasses a female waitress and then gets his ass beat by her. Thus, the movie displays all of the qualities we see of a typical Hollywood flick that marginalizes Asian men out of leading roles, but then leaves room for a portrayal of an Asian male getting beaten up by a girl - just in case we forget that an actual Asian man couldn't possibly perform the heroic deeds of a white man with latex over his eyelids. Perhaps the whole issue could be resolved by casting Asian men made up to look like white-men-made-up-to-look-Asian. The irony of this movie is, therefore, remarkable in the extreme. The movie's grandiose claim is that it is documenting the "connectedness" of us all - except, of course, when the connection is with Asian men.
But there is another aspect to this movie that seems to have gone unnoticed amidst the criticisms aimed at the film's Yellowface. Korean actress Doona Bae plays a major role in the movie as a clone waitress, "Sonmi 451", who upon realizing that she has been created to be a slave, has an awakening of consciousness that leads her to recognize the injustice of her existence, the consequences of which changes the course of human history and leads to a better world. Yet, what I realized was that the Sonmi character, despite being the focus of a major shift of human consciousness, was actually little more than the tired stereotype of a helpless Asian woman being rescued and directed by white men - albeit in this case, with latex upper-eyelids - who, in the process, give her life true meaning.
In a strange juxtaposition of contrary archetypal concepts, Sonmi's awakening changes the course of human history whilst her character remains completely vulnerable, non-self-sufficient, unskilled, and completely helpless. But the reason she succeeds is that she is rescued, protected, and told what to do by men. In fact, her only strength is her ability to curry sympathy through fatalistic tear-shedding - the several scenes in which her tears drip dramatically from her helpless doe-eyes became rather annoying after a while. I found the narrative to be completely unconvincing in its own right, but also a rather tired reworking of an old stereotype. This seems to confirm what I have long suspected that in some quarters Asian women are the new baby seal-cubs who are adorable but who need rescuing because they can't help themselves. In an unintended symbolism, Sonmi goes on to be worshiped as a Goddess in the far distant future - mirroring Hollywood's worship of the fantasy of the helpless Asian woman.
Overall, I find it disturbing that a movie can purport to be a narrative of the human connection across the ages, and the "oneness" of the human experience, yet those who made the movie seemingly don't practice what they preach. Instead they adhere to the common-in-Hollywood racially biased practice of excluding Asian male actors from leading roles, or reserving them for brief cameo roles in which they are humiliated in some way. The film's "profound" message is further diminished when we realize that the story's most important character - Sonmi - is actually a unoriginal stereotype. This is the enlightened side of Hollywood.
I got a chance to see the controversial-for-Asian-Americans-movie "Cloud Atlas" this past weekend (and no, I didn't pay to see it) which is a fantasy/Sci-Fi epic that explores the continuity of human nature through the stories of several sets of characters set in various time frames spanning several hundred years, past, present, and future. I suppose one could say that the characters represent "archetypes" of the human experience whose qualities range from wicked, greedy, oppressors, to flawed heroic saviour types, as well as everything in between. The movie explores this idea of the relationships between archetypal characters and their role in the evolution of human progression (and digression) being played out over centuries and employs the theme of reincarnation to show how the human story can be viewed as a repetition of this struggle between those archetypal characters who seek to diminish human flourishing and those who wish to expand it.
Although at times visually breathtaking (Halle Berry!), and generally well-acted (Halle Berry in a white jumpsuit!), the epic theme and the fractured way that it had to be expressed meant that there was just too much story to be told and in a too disjointed way for the movie to work successfully. Of course, from an Asian-American perspective the movie employed some character development practices that have left many within the community feeling alienated from the film. I'm referring to the use of "yellowface" - the practice of using theatrical make-up and prosthetics to transform Caucasian actors (but in this case also black actors) into East Asians. A time-honored practice in the entertainment industry, yellowface is both a symbol and strong measure of the degree to which the movie industry discriminates against Asian actors - particularly Asian male actors.
In short, in Cloud Atlas four different actors, all male, three of whom were Caucasian, one of whom was African-American, are "transformed" into Asian men by perfunctorily slapping a strip of skin-toned latex over the upper lids of the actor's eyes to make them seem to turn into slits and slant off-horizontal. Now, it has to be said that there was a smattering of incredulous snorting around the theatre when these Asianized (or Asian-eyesd) characters first appeared, which seemed to suggest that the latex prosthetics were unconvincing. According to some defenders, this race-replacement strategy was necessary because the movie's theme of reincarnation was depicted by using the same actors to play different characters reborn over time. Apparently this is because there are no other means by which this simple idea of a soul being reborn into different bodies could be conveyed without using laughable make-up on the same actors. Of course, this rationalizaton fails when we realize that Halle Berry, Tom Hanks, Jim Sturgess, and Doona Bae, all play the roll of the main character (whose soul is reincarnated into their bodies) at different epochs in history. So clearly, audiences aren't so stupid that one would need a comically made-up actor to portray a different race, otherwise this wouldn't have worked.
Naturally, Asian-Americans are disturbed by this strategy of race-fakery in film when it would seem that finding talented male actors of Asian descent to splice into these roles would have been easy to do. The choice to chink-up non-Asian actors has been defended against accusations of racism on the grounds that the movie has a diverse cast (including an Asian female in a major role). Yet, it is difficult not to notice that the choices made by the movie's makers are almost identical in character to the practice of discriminating against Asian male actors that is customary in Hollywood and which white-washes Asian males out of leading roles even in historical pieces where the main character is Asian. Most telling of all was that several people in my group - Turks who are unacquainted with America's racial politics - remarked how the amateurish and silly the race make-up seemed, leaving them to wonder why Asian males weren't cast in the roles but Asian women were.
Perhaps worse still is the fact that the only time an actual Asian male takes centre stage in the film it was in a beyond-minor role as an asshole who sexually harasses a female waitress and then gets his ass beat by her. Thus, the movie displays all of the qualities we see of a typical Hollywood flick that marginalizes Asian men out of leading roles, but then leaves room for a portrayal of an Asian male getting beaten up by a girl - just in case we forget that an actual Asian man couldn't possibly perform the heroic deeds of a white man with latex over his eyelids. Perhaps the whole issue could be resolved by casting Asian men made up to look like white-men-made-up-to-look-Asian. The irony of this movie is, therefore, remarkable in the extreme. The movie's grandiose claim is that it is documenting the "connectedness" of us all - except, of course, when the connection is with Asian men.
But there is another aspect to this movie that seems to have gone unnoticed amidst the criticisms aimed at the film's Yellowface. Korean actress Doona Bae plays a major role in the movie as a clone waitress, "Sonmi 451", who upon realizing that she has been created to be a slave, has an awakening of consciousness that leads her to recognize the injustice of her existence, the consequences of which changes the course of human history and leads to a better world. Yet, what I realized was that the Sonmi character, despite being the focus of a major shift of human consciousness, was actually little more than the tired stereotype of a helpless Asian woman being rescued and directed by white men - albeit in this case, with latex upper-eyelids - who, in the process, give her life true meaning.
In a strange juxtaposition of contrary archetypal concepts, Sonmi's awakening changes the course of human history whilst her character remains completely vulnerable, non-self-sufficient, unskilled, and completely helpless. But the reason she succeeds is that she is rescued, protected, and told what to do by men. In fact, her only strength is her ability to curry sympathy through fatalistic tear-shedding - the several scenes in which her tears drip dramatically from her helpless doe-eyes became rather annoying after a while. I found the narrative to be completely unconvincing in its own right, but also a rather tired reworking of an old stereotype. This seems to confirm what I have long suspected that in some quarters Asian women are the new baby seal-cubs who are adorable but who need rescuing because they can't help themselves. In an unintended symbolism, Sonmi goes on to be worshiped as a Goddess in the far distant future - mirroring Hollywood's worship of the fantasy of the helpless Asian woman.
Overall, I find it disturbing that a movie can purport to be a narrative of the human connection across the ages, and the "oneness" of the human experience, yet those who made the movie seemingly don't practice what they preach. Instead they adhere to the common-in-Hollywood racially biased practice of excluding Asian male actors from leading roles, or reserving them for brief cameo roles in which they are humiliated in some way. The film's "profound" message is further diminished when we realize that the story's most important character - Sonmi - is actually a unoriginal stereotype. This is the enlightened side of Hollywood.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Five Little Words
Shit Asian Girls Say to Asian Men
A commenter (mwei) linked to this video that made me cackle! Enjoy......
I think that most Asian guys living in America have been told all or most of these things by some Asian girl or another at some point in their lives. I've had this experience twice and both times the girls involved embarrassed themselves more than they bothered me.
The first time this happened I was on a road trip and had stopped at a 711 type store, somewhere in Houston. As I came out I noticed an Asian girl walking in. Since she was also Asian I presumed that she wouldn't mind helping a brother with directions. LOL. As I got closer and as I said "Excuse me" she turned her nose up and said "I like white guys" and brushed past me. Then an older white dude who I hadn't noticed walking just behind her asked me if I needed something and so I asked him for the directions. He seemed happy to help me. Funny thing was, he turned out to be her partner or friend and seemed embarrassed by her behaviour and was actually decent enough to fuss at her for being rude. She blushed and blinked sheepishly.
The second time this happened was even more bizarre. A white girl I was dating had an uncle in his fifties who had recently married an Asian-American girl of 26, and he thought it would be a good idea to to have my girlfriend and I over for dinner since there was this "Asian connection thingy". Well it wasn't a good idea. Apparently, he hadn't told his wife that I was Asian - I think he wanted to surprise her with how progressive his family was - so guess what she said when she saw me? That's right, as I reached out my hand to greet her she said something like "I like white guys!" and then looked at me with confusion (who knows why she was confused - even more importantly, who cares?). I looked over at my girlfriend and then at her uncle and I could see that they were wearing the same tight, mirthless, smile that I knew was spread across my face. Anyways, it was an uncomfortable night, with a lot of tight smiles, fake mutual interest, and disingenuous calls to "do it again sometime". But at least the food seemed authentic.
Hope you enjoyed the video and it made you laugh. That is one of the first steps in getting passed this IR disparity thing - laugh at people like that, then ignore them, and finally find a voice that makes you a shaper of the culture that brought about the situation that makes people ashamed and embarrassed to be with others of their own race.
I don't write (or even think) about the IR disparity with anger because I just don't care who people date or marry. And I think that the endless discussions about it do little to change the situation and may, in fact, harm the community because all the other issues that we face receive far less attention or even passion than this one subject. The fact is, you can't change people, you just can't and the more you tell people that something is bad or not to your liking, then the more they will want to do it. Yet, there is no doubt that if a situation exists within a society in which it is considered shameful, undesirable, or embarrassing to date or marry others like yourself then there is something seriously wrong.
But that doesn't mean we should set out on pointless rants at individuals because that changes nothing - remember it is almost impossible to convince someone out of something that they believe. You can't force an alcoholic into sobriety, and you can't force someone who has been inculcated with demeaning stereotypes about their race to not feel shame about their race. People cannot and will not be changed according to someone else's will.
I think it is actually far easier to change a culture than to change an individual, and if you do want individuals to agree your way of thinking, then it is their culture that you have to change because people follow the trends of their culture. If you let yourself be dragged down into the dialog of the IR disparity and the flighty choices of Asian quasi-feminism then you're allowing the society that demeans you to dictate your voice and purpose. Even worse, you are giving too much voice and influence to people who have little to say other than "I only date white guys". Airheads have the most influential voices in our community because everyone reacts to those five little words. It's no wonder Asians catch a lot of shit.
A commenter (mwei) linked to this video that made me cackle! Enjoy......
I think that most Asian guys living in America have been told all or most of these things by some Asian girl or another at some point in their lives. I've had this experience twice and both times the girls involved embarrassed themselves more than they bothered me.
The first time this happened I was on a road trip and had stopped at a 711 type store, somewhere in Houston. As I came out I noticed an Asian girl walking in. Since she was also Asian I presumed that she wouldn't mind helping a brother with directions. LOL. As I got closer and as I said "Excuse me" she turned her nose up and said "I like white guys" and brushed past me. Then an older white dude who I hadn't noticed walking just behind her asked me if I needed something and so I asked him for the directions. He seemed happy to help me. Funny thing was, he turned out to be her partner or friend and seemed embarrassed by her behaviour and was actually decent enough to fuss at her for being rude. She blushed and blinked sheepishly.
The second time this happened was even more bizarre. A white girl I was dating had an uncle in his fifties who had recently married an Asian-American girl of 26, and he thought it would be a good idea to to have my girlfriend and I over for dinner since there was this "Asian connection thingy". Well it wasn't a good idea. Apparently, he hadn't told his wife that I was Asian - I think he wanted to surprise her with how progressive his family was - so guess what she said when she saw me? That's right, as I reached out my hand to greet her she said something like "I like white guys!" and then looked at me with confusion (who knows why she was confused - even more importantly, who cares?). I looked over at my girlfriend and then at her uncle and I could see that they were wearing the same tight, mirthless, smile that I knew was spread across my face. Anyways, it was an uncomfortable night, with a lot of tight smiles, fake mutual interest, and disingenuous calls to "do it again sometime". But at least the food seemed authentic.
Hope you enjoyed the video and it made you laugh. That is one of the first steps in getting passed this IR disparity thing - laugh at people like that, then ignore them, and finally find a voice that makes you a shaper of the culture that brought about the situation that makes people ashamed and embarrassed to be with others of their own race.
I don't write (or even think) about the IR disparity with anger because I just don't care who people date or marry. And I think that the endless discussions about it do little to change the situation and may, in fact, harm the community because all the other issues that we face receive far less attention or even passion than this one subject. The fact is, you can't change people, you just can't and the more you tell people that something is bad or not to your liking, then the more they will want to do it. Yet, there is no doubt that if a situation exists within a society in which it is considered shameful, undesirable, or embarrassing to date or marry others like yourself then there is something seriously wrong.
But that doesn't mean we should set out on pointless rants at individuals because that changes nothing - remember it is almost impossible to convince someone out of something that they believe. You can't force an alcoholic into sobriety, and you can't force someone who has been inculcated with demeaning stereotypes about their race to not feel shame about their race. People cannot and will not be changed according to someone else's will.
I think it is actually far easier to change a culture than to change an individual, and if you do want individuals to agree your way of thinking, then it is their culture that you have to change because people follow the trends of their culture. If you let yourself be dragged down into the dialog of the IR disparity and the flighty choices of Asian quasi-feminism then you're allowing the society that demeans you to dictate your voice and purpose. Even worse, you are giving too much voice and influence to people who have little to say other than "I only date white guys". Airheads have the most influential voices in our community because everyone reacts to those five little words. It's no wonder Asians catch a lot of shit.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Stupid Racists?
The Elephant In the Room....
The 8Asians blog recently published a post in which Eugene Lui, the founder of a political group called the Asian Conservatives, gave an interview in which he talks about how Asian-Americans might fit into the landscape of American politics via the ideology of conservatism. Also discussed was how he, as a conservative, conceives of the issue anti-Asian racism in the media, as well the reasons for the apparent dearth of Asian-American conservative bloggers. Here is what he has to say about perceived anti-Asian racism in the media......
The gist of such thinking is that culture influences (or even directs) public opinion and behaviour, and normalizes activities that run counter to traditional values of moral thinking. Thus, such unwholesome cultural endeavour is seen to play a major role in how individuals within a society views themselves, what they consider appropriate morally and behaviourally, and ultimately shifts the compass away from traditional concepts of moral and upstanding behaviour. Additionally, culture is also a reflection of what is actually socially acceptable - popular cultural depictions merely mirror the realities of social interactions. So whilst popular culture can direct opinion and behaviour, it also reflects the reality of how people within the society may actually be behaving and thinking, as well as identifies the ways in which individuals view themselves in relation to others within the society.
If the conservatives are correct that permissiveness in the discourse of popular culture has the capacity to alter individuals' social behaviour, then it must logically follow that negative depictions of Asian people have the capacity to promote and normalize negative behaviour towards Asians. Many people seem to believe that pornography and some depictions of casual sex in film and television can lead people to have sexist attitudes towards women which might ultimately contribute to an environment conducive to harassment, rape, or even violence. It should follow that any media representation of any given group that promotes a demeaning one-sided view can lead to negative social attitudes and behaviours. In order to deny that demeaning and negative stereotyping of Asians contributes to negative behaviours towards that group one must necessarily question or deny that media pornography or casual sex, violence, foul-language, and casual depictions of drug use, can negatively impact moral decision making, or normalize such activities. This runs counter to the claims of conservative moralism.
It is impossible to deny that most representations of Asian people in the American media are one-sided and tend to be derogatory, xenophobically histrionic, and generally dissmissive of any value in Asian people or contemptuous of any contribution of their cultures to the richness of the human experience. Whether it be movie characters, politicians looking for cheap votes, or celebrities trying to be controversial (paradoxically, without stepping on any important toes!), the general tone is the same - Asians are demeaned or dehumanized, ridiculed or mocked, villified or dismissed. Given this general conservative belief that the media and influential personalities can impact people's ability to make responsible moral decisions, and thus affect behaviour, it seems naive (or maybe dishonest in some cases) to offhandedly dismiss derogatory images of Asians.
Of course, one could read this post and think to oneself; "So what?!" Aren't Asian-Americans outperforming everyone in universities, the workplace, income levels and so on and so forth? Isn't it trite to complain about the media when Asians are so successful in America? Surely, our success is an indication that the negative attitudes and racism propagated by American culture do not affect our ability to prosper? Whilst I cannot disagree that some segments of the Asian-American community do succeed, such an attitude reflects a lack of nuanced thinking common amongst Asian-Americans that, I believe, is almost as big a detriment to our prosperity as are racist attitudes.
History shows that when a society promotes negative attitudes and stereotypes about an unpopular group, then the result is usually unpleasant - even in situations where the target group has acheived a degree of integration. The Jews of Nazi germany provide the best example of this. In the years before the Nazis came to power, Germans of Jewish descent were amongst the most prosperous and highly educated people within German society. Yet, the Nazis were able to exploit negative attitudes, behaviours, and stereotypes that had persisted about the Jews to bring about the holocaust. Smilarly, the South Indians of Uganda were a prosperous minority, but persistent hostility towards them led to their eventual expulsion.
Then there are the Americans of Japanese descent who, prior to Pearl Harbour, had become a somewhat integral part of west coast life. Their slow but definite progress towards prosperity was rudely interrupted by an internment process caused by paranoid fear, and enabled by the persistence of racial hostility and resentments. The point should be clear. Any minority against whom negative attitudes and resentments are harboured, are likely to fall victim to some kind of backlash. Unfortunately for us Asian-Americans, we live in a society whose culture actively, cynically, and deliberately, promotes harassment of Asian people.
In short, it's difficult to see how one can hold to the belief that the media and it's personalities can influence the moral compass and behaviour of American society, whilst downplaying the idea that media mockery, and misrepresentation of Asians can lead to negative outcomes for Asian people. For this reason, conservatives of all people should understand this better than anyone else - Asian conservatives even more so. It is simply avoidance to characterize as "stupid' or "immature", the casual and routine racism enabled by the cultural normalization of anti-Asian harassment. In fact, the culture of harassment of Asians is so integral to the American psyche, that it is even normal for America's children to routinely express hostile attitudes towards Asians. It may be true that many Asian-Americans have achieved prosperity, but given the fact that attitudes of resentment and distrust are spitefully promoted in American culture, any prosperity seems built on a weak foundation.
The 8Asians blog recently published a post in which Eugene Lui, the founder of a political group called the Asian Conservatives, gave an interview in which he talks about how Asian-Americans might fit into the landscape of American politics via the ideology of conservatism. Also discussed was how he, as a conservative, conceives of the issue anti-Asian racism in the media, as well the reasons for the apparent dearth of Asian-American conservative bloggers. Here is what he has to say about perceived anti-Asian racism in the media......
Well, I think “racist” has been used so much in the mainstream media these days that the word has lost its meaning........The Civil Rights Movement — that was about racism. Somebody calling me names and making fun of my slanted eyes — that’s just an immature moron stating the obvious..............................Okay, I’m going to say it: Dear libs, stop being so sensitive to every. little. thing. If a popular sitcom doesn’t have an Asian actor, that doesn’t mean the viewers don’t know that Asians exist. If an Asian actor portrays a nerdy student in a Hollywood movie, that doesn’t mean everybody thinks we’re nerds (do you think blacks — ahem, African Americans — are nerds after falling in love with the Steve Urkel character?). It’d be an issue if Asian American citizens were denied voting rights. It’d be an issue if Asian Americans were being persecuted as a follower of Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Falun Gong, or some other religion. It’d be an issue an Asian Americans were being taxed differently than other ethnic groups. It’d be an issue if Asian American parents were prohibited from making babies. .......Remember: Life, Liberty, pursuit of Happiness.I was quite surprised by this response for a number of reasons. The idea that media portrayals can challenge traditional family values is a prominent notion in conservative thinking. It is a conservative view that media depictions of glamourized casual sex, casual drug use, and homosexuality, can and do have negative affects on the thinking, moral decision making, as well as the behaviour, of America's youth in particular and society in general. Even foul language and explicit language in songs might be viewed as a potential threat to the morality of the traditional family.
The gist of such thinking is that culture influences (or even directs) public opinion and behaviour, and normalizes activities that run counter to traditional values of moral thinking. Thus, such unwholesome cultural endeavour is seen to play a major role in how individuals within a society views themselves, what they consider appropriate morally and behaviourally, and ultimately shifts the compass away from traditional concepts of moral and upstanding behaviour. Additionally, culture is also a reflection of what is actually socially acceptable - popular cultural depictions merely mirror the realities of social interactions. So whilst popular culture can direct opinion and behaviour, it also reflects the reality of how people within the society may actually be behaving and thinking, as well as identifies the ways in which individuals view themselves in relation to others within the society.
If the conservatives are correct that permissiveness in the discourse of popular culture has the capacity to alter individuals' social behaviour, then it must logically follow that negative depictions of Asian people have the capacity to promote and normalize negative behaviour towards Asians. Many people seem to believe that pornography and some depictions of casual sex in film and television can lead people to have sexist attitudes towards women which might ultimately contribute to an environment conducive to harassment, rape, or even violence. It should follow that any media representation of any given group that promotes a demeaning one-sided view can lead to negative social attitudes and behaviours. In order to deny that demeaning and negative stereotyping of Asians contributes to negative behaviours towards that group one must necessarily question or deny that media pornography or casual sex, violence, foul-language, and casual depictions of drug use, can negatively impact moral decision making, or normalize such activities. This runs counter to the claims of conservative moralism.
It is impossible to deny that most representations of Asian people in the American media are one-sided and tend to be derogatory, xenophobically histrionic, and generally dissmissive of any value in Asian people or contemptuous of any contribution of their cultures to the richness of the human experience. Whether it be movie characters, politicians looking for cheap votes, or celebrities trying to be controversial (paradoxically, without stepping on any important toes!), the general tone is the same - Asians are demeaned or dehumanized, ridiculed or mocked, villified or dismissed. Given this general conservative belief that the media and influential personalities can impact people's ability to make responsible moral decisions, and thus affect behaviour, it seems naive (or maybe dishonest in some cases) to offhandedly dismiss derogatory images of Asians.
Of course, one could read this post and think to oneself; "So what?!" Aren't Asian-Americans outperforming everyone in universities, the workplace, income levels and so on and so forth? Isn't it trite to complain about the media when Asians are so successful in America? Surely, our success is an indication that the negative attitudes and racism propagated by American culture do not affect our ability to prosper? Whilst I cannot disagree that some segments of the Asian-American community do succeed, such an attitude reflects a lack of nuanced thinking common amongst Asian-Americans that, I believe, is almost as big a detriment to our prosperity as are racist attitudes.
History shows that when a society promotes negative attitudes and stereotypes about an unpopular group, then the result is usually unpleasant - even in situations where the target group has acheived a degree of integration. The Jews of Nazi germany provide the best example of this. In the years before the Nazis came to power, Germans of Jewish descent were amongst the most prosperous and highly educated people within German society. Yet, the Nazis were able to exploit negative attitudes, behaviours, and stereotypes that had persisted about the Jews to bring about the holocaust. Smilarly, the South Indians of Uganda were a prosperous minority, but persistent hostility towards them led to their eventual expulsion.
Then there are the Americans of Japanese descent who, prior to Pearl Harbour, had become a somewhat integral part of west coast life. Their slow but definite progress towards prosperity was rudely interrupted by an internment process caused by paranoid fear, and enabled by the persistence of racial hostility and resentments. The point should be clear. Any minority against whom negative attitudes and resentments are harboured, are likely to fall victim to some kind of backlash. Unfortunately for us Asian-Americans, we live in a society whose culture actively, cynically, and deliberately, promotes harassment of Asian people.
In short, it's difficult to see how one can hold to the belief that the media and it's personalities can influence the moral compass and behaviour of American society, whilst downplaying the idea that media mockery, and misrepresentation of Asians can lead to negative outcomes for Asian people. For this reason, conservatives of all people should understand this better than anyone else - Asian conservatives even more so. It is simply avoidance to characterize as "stupid' or "immature", the casual and routine racism enabled by the cultural normalization of anti-Asian harassment. In fact, the culture of harassment of Asians is so integral to the American psyche, that it is even normal for America's children to routinely express hostile attitudes towards Asians. It may be true that many Asian-Americans have achieved prosperity, but given the fact that attitudes of resentment and distrust are spitefully promoted in American culture, any prosperity seems built on a weak foundation.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Where's That Innate Moral Sense When You Need It?
Forcing People To Act Right.
Earlier this month a settlement was finally reached between the Justice Department and the School District of Philadelphia which amounts to an acknowledgement that the district and school administrators overlooked racially biased harassment and violence directed at Asian children at South Philly High School. As part of the agreement it is required that........
Of course, this type of black/Asian conflict isn't new both in American schools and beyond. Remember Lafayette High School? The situation there bears some eerie similarities to the South Philly conflict. It is this dynamic of minority on minority prejudice that gives this situation and others like it such a complex and almost untouchable character. By tradition it is the well documented and acknowledged oppression of Africans that has defined the dialogue on race in America and so, for many people, instances where the oppressor has African features are difficult to compute. Consequently, obvious anti-Asian racism amongst elements in the black community is dismissed for a variety of reasons - sometimes even by Asian-Americans themselves.
A common refrain is that these apparent race crimes against Asians are an unwelcome but natural consequence of economic hardship and poverty. Others suggest that the experience of racism itself leads to acts of racism. Still others will dismiss black on Asian racism on the grounds that overall African-Americans experience more oppression (both past and present) than anyone ever and are therefore excused by some unspecified logical mechanism from practising tolerance. Then there are some who assert that black on Asian violence is justified because Asians are racist.
The problem is that much white racism is fuelled by a sense of disenfranchisement resulting from poverty. Many recruits to white supremacist groups come from poor working class backgrounds. Would anyone dare to justify white racism on these grounds? Maybe we can accept that poor black students at South Philly have few hopes for a bright future and are thus able to understand (somewhat) their aggression, but what of the staff and District - what's their excuse? College educated and paid a decent salary (and in the case of the District, paid handsomely), these people should know better. You would have to do some amazing logical backflips to tie economic hardship into their racism. Furthermore, how much racism and oppression is required before your own qualifies as justifiable? Of course, if Asian racism justifies black racism then surely Asian racism is justified because there is black racism? The mind boggles.
Of course, as many Asian-Americans might agree, the issue of racial harassment of Asian children in American schools goes way beyond the ghetto and is one of the phenomena that unites all of us in a common experience. The degree may vary from racial baiting to violence, yet the intent is clear. The marginalization process for many Asian-Americans begins in school and as an experience it is perhaps the most overlooked amongst the Asian minority - the result of which is an apparent dearth of pro-active advocacy. Yet as the Asian student activists at South Philly have learned, it is by standing up and fighting back, that you gain allies. By doing this, they have empowered other black students to stand with them and hopefully improve conditions for everyone. The natural by-product of pro-active advocacy is that others become empowered to not go along with your oppression.
This is an important point because I maintain that anti-Asian racism is propagated not by extremism but by apathy and indifference. As the extreme (yet, apparently not uncommon) example of South Philly demonstrates, racism against Asians is fuelled by a willingness of others to "go along" with it, either by inaction or by dismissal of the significance of racist attitudes. Asians are harassed in the culture of the mainstream and this serves as the model of behaviour towards us. How then can harassment of Asian students in South Philly be condemned without condemning mainstream culture? It is this harassment model of behaviour as put forward by American culture that allows people to go along with anti-Asian bias up to and sometimes including the point of violence. It's no coincidence that harassment precedes anti-Asian violence in American schools.
On a final note it is important to highlight this.......
The measures against bullying that the District is being required to take will serve as the nationwide standard. To me, this is our cue. As a community we have to set the standard for what we allow as acceptable behaviour towards our children in American schools. This is our opportunity.
Earlier this month a settlement was finally reached between the Justice Department and the School District of Philadelphia which amounts to an acknowledgement that the district and school administrators overlooked racially biased harassment and violence directed at Asian children at South Philly High School. As part of the agreement it is required that........
"...the district hire a consultant focused on preventing harassment and discrimination, will serve as a nationwide standard for school systems trying to prevent bullying........[and] Philadelphia schools to develop a plan for preventing bullying; conduct training to increase multicultural awareness; and maintain records of harassment..."A combination of indifference, alleged participation in harassment by school adminstrators as well as accusations of mishandling written reports of abuse (that is, many reports were simply thrown away), all demonstrate that school admins and the District engaged in a cynical effort to hide evidence of their own abdication of responsibility as well as their evasions in addressing racially biased abuse perpetrated by elements of the student body and staff. All of this demonstrates that racist attitudes towards Asians amongst both staff and students were allowed to foment eventually manifesting as acts of physical violence - you are what you do.
Of course, this type of black/Asian conflict isn't new both in American schools and beyond. Remember Lafayette High School? The situation there bears some eerie similarities to the South Philly conflict. It is this dynamic of minority on minority prejudice that gives this situation and others like it such a complex and almost untouchable character. By tradition it is the well documented and acknowledged oppression of Africans that has defined the dialogue on race in America and so, for many people, instances where the oppressor has African features are difficult to compute. Consequently, obvious anti-Asian racism amongst elements in the black community is dismissed for a variety of reasons - sometimes even by Asian-Americans themselves.
A common refrain is that these apparent race crimes against Asians are an unwelcome but natural consequence of economic hardship and poverty. Others suggest that the experience of racism itself leads to acts of racism. Still others will dismiss black on Asian racism on the grounds that overall African-Americans experience more oppression (both past and present) than anyone ever and are therefore excused by some unspecified logical mechanism from practising tolerance. Then there are some who assert that black on Asian violence is justified because Asians are racist.
The problem is that much white racism is fuelled by a sense of disenfranchisement resulting from poverty. Many recruits to white supremacist groups come from poor working class backgrounds. Would anyone dare to justify white racism on these grounds? Maybe we can accept that poor black students at South Philly have few hopes for a bright future and are thus able to understand (somewhat) their aggression, but what of the staff and District - what's their excuse? College educated and paid a decent salary (and in the case of the District, paid handsomely), these people should know better. You would have to do some amazing logical backflips to tie economic hardship into their racism. Furthermore, how much racism and oppression is required before your own qualifies as justifiable? Of course, if Asian racism justifies black racism then surely Asian racism is justified because there is black racism? The mind boggles.
Of course, as many Asian-Americans might agree, the issue of racial harassment of Asian children in American schools goes way beyond the ghetto and is one of the phenomena that unites all of us in a common experience. The degree may vary from racial baiting to violence, yet the intent is clear. The marginalization process for many Asian-Americans begins in school and as an experience it is perhaps the most overlooked amongst the Asian minority - the result of which is an apparent dearth of pro-active advocacy. Yet as the Asian student activists at South Philly have learned, it is by standing up and fighting back, that you gain allies. By doing this, they have empowered other black students to stand with them and hopefully improve conditions for everyone. The natural by-product of pro-active advocacy is that others become empowered to not go along with your oppression.
This is an important point because I maintain that anti-Asian racism is propagated not by extremism but by apathy and indifference. As the extreme (yet, apparently not uncommon) example of South Philly demonstrates, racism against Asians is fuelled by a willingness of others to "go along" with it, either by inaction or by dismissal of the significance of racist attitudes. Asians are harassed in the culture of the mainstream and this serves as the model of behaviour towards us. How then can harassment of Asian students in South Philly be condemned without condemning mainstream culture? It is this harassment model of behaviour as put forward by American culture that allows people to go along with anti-Asian bias up to and sometimes including the point of violence. It's no coincidence that harassment precedes anti-Asian violence in American schools.
On a final note it is important to highlight this.......
"Justice Department officials signaled that the agreement with the School District of Philadelphia, which............will serve as a nationwide standard for school systems trying to prevent bullying."
The measures against bullying that the District is being required to take will serve as the nationwide standard. To me, this is our cue. As a community we have to set the standard for what we allow as acceptable behaviour towards our children in American schools. This is our opportunity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)