......Are They Bad For America?
The 8Asians blog published a post recently discussing an article on CNN's website in which a religion scholar, Stephen Prothero, notes the potential effects of increased Asian immigration on America's religiosity. According to Prothero, because a lower percentage of Asian immigrants report that religion is "very important in their lives", an increase in Asian immigration may thus lead to a less religious America.
The first issue with the article is its vagueness. What exactly does it mean to say that a person or group is less religious? How is religiosity defined? I think that most American Christians attend only church once a week and maybe a mid-week church function and the number of people who pray at least once-a-day varies from around five out of ten, to ninety out of ten depending on denomination. But even this may not accurately or completely reflect religiosity in daily life. For example, the spiritual concept of "mindfulness" is very much grounded in religious concepts and an individual who gives a few bucks to the homeless guy on the corner every morning may well be considered to be acting in a mindful way as derived from whatever religious doctrine they follow, yet may not consider themselves to be following a religious life.
Furthermore, "mindfulness" is a more difficult concept to quantify because throughout the day, individuals may well be carrying out "mindful" acts but may not necessarily view this as being an act of religious practice although they may understand that it is a reflection of their religious belief. Plus, because self-reporting is by definition subjective, what constitutes religiosity will mean vastly different things to different people. For some, praying five-times a day may not be religious enough and for others praying once-a-week might seem devotional. So, the premise of the article is so overly vague to lack any real meaning and would really seem to amount to little more than a musing that seems to take some random statistics and extrapolate, to an almost far-fetched degree, a potentially momentous social shift, based on a vague premise. But, Asians should, by now, be used to hearing white men making dramatic generalized suggestions about our community based on vague premises and dubious reasoning.
Yet, what is revealing about the article is the way that it reflects an unfair, and perhaps biased, attitude towards immigration from non-white countries, whilst no consideration is given to the effects of immigration from white countries. For instance, in the past twenty years, around 4.5 million immigrants have settled in the US from predominantly "white" countries of Europe and Australia. Although, relatively low compared to immigration from Asia and Latin America, it is not an insignificant number. Significantly for this discussion is the fact that Europe (both Western and Eastern) are reported to have some of the highest rates of unbelief in the world, ranging from 20%-35% of populations in some Western European countries up to almost 50% of populations in some Eastern European countries reporting no religion.
Coincidentally (or not) in the passed two decades the dialogue on religious belief has developed into a culture war as more and more atheists have become outspoken about their disbelief and push for a less religious America (a result of European immigration perhaps?). At the forefront of this "movement" have been Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins two British-born, high-profile atheists, one of whom (Hitchens) is a naturalized American citizen, the other (Dawkins) lived and worked at the University of California, and is a regular visitor to the US and, for all I know, may well be a permanent resident. Between them they have sold almost three million books in which they suggest that religious believers may be stupid, wicked hypocrites, and that religion is the most corrupting thing ever to afflict the human race. From Australia another atheist, Peter Singer, has lived and worked since 1999 at Princeton University. Singer is less well-known, but still an influential philosopher, whose materialism-derived utilitarian ethics has caused controversy amongst the religious and non-religious alike.
These three highly influential public figures whose work has greatly influenced American thought in the past decade or so, and made atheism and materialistic ethics a major part of the dialogue on belief, have encouraged Americans to abandon religion and embrace atheism. Yet, no Americans have come forward to suggest that European immigrants might be making America less religious, even though that would seem to be a reasonable and logical conclusion. There just doesn't seem to be the same concern about the societal effects on American religious practice of an influx of Europeans into America.
One could argue that the numbers aren't sufficient enough to make such a major impact on general society. But I would submit that higher "social capital" of white people more than makes up for the low numbers. What I mean by this, is that white people (especially men) as a group and individuals are given more value, authority, and credibility in American society than other ethnicities, such that it may be easier for them to attain positions of influence and authority within the culture. The case of Hitchens, Dawkins, and Singer are clear examples of this; these three men have undoubtedly had more influence over America's attitudes towards religion than all of the Asian immigrant 711 owners and Asians in academia and finance put together, yet,
it doesn't cross anybody's mind that European immigrants might contribute significantly making America less religious.
But the concerns about the effects of immigration from white countries do not stop with the religious question. In recent years, the rising influence of extreme right-wing thinking in Western and Eastern Europe has caused some considerable concern amongst rights groups across the continent. Recent elections in France and Greece show that far-right parties have gained almost 20% and 7% of the vote respectively. Even more problematic are the declarations of mainstream leaders of France, Britain, and Germany that multiculturalism has failed which reflects a shift away from tolerant attitudes towards ethnic minorities.
Given these facts, it would be reasonable to conclude that of the millions of European immigrants that have settled in the US over the passed two decades, a sizeable number of them would carry with them attitudes that may be, at best, opposed to a multicultural society, and at worst, harbour extreme right-wing sympathies. Either way, white people are given the benefit of the doubt most times, and (as Hitchens and Dawkins illustrate) we can expect that their ethnic origin will not be considered with regards to the effect their presence or ideas will have on society, it is reasonable to presume that any European immigrants who harbour these attitudes will have their ideas easily and seamlessly absorbed and adopted by mainstream America. Because white immigrants are a true unknown - after all, who is studying white immigrants and the attitudes that they bring with them? - they truly represent a potentially grave threat to America's multicultural existence.
For many immigrants, Asian or otherwise, the US has come to represent an ideal in which regardless of the circumstances of one's birth and origin, one can come to America and find personal success and dream that one day your own child could become President, with nothing to hold you back but your own demons. America's ideals of liberty, justice, religious and political freedom, fairness, and the belief that you can control your own destiny, are what attracts the millions of Asian immigrants to America. The growing shift in Europe towards intolerance of minorities, multiculturalism, and (ever more increasingly) religious practice stand in stark contrast to very core values that have made America the beacon of freedom that it has come to represent. Yet, the idea that European immigration could have a major negative influence on these American ideals is never examined.
Instead, America notes the impact on religious belief from Asian immigrants who have no substantial voice in the political arena or, more significantly, have no influence or voice in America's cultural dialogue (the one exception to this is the Dalai Lama who hangs out religiously with Hollywood celebs as they meditate to the tune of Kumbaya). Most absurd is the lack of meaningful evidence for making this kind of projection. There's little evidence that Asian immigration up until now has had any impact on religious belief, even though in some states and cities Asians account for up to a third of the population. In an brazen display of double-speak Prothero's article points out the religiosity of Asian immigrants, as well as the tendency for immigrants to become more religious once they arrive in the US. He then makes a vague reference to the high rate of the "unaffiliated", and then suggests that this may reflect a possible trend to less religiosity. For Prothero, 2 plus 2 equals 5.
Most disturbing is the character and tone of the article which follows a common pattern that I alluded to here, and is the routine way in which mainstream America discusses its "Asian problem". White commentators can make just about any allegation or statement about Asian people and be given the platform to say it even though the evidence for it may be tenuous at best. Even worse in this case is the fact that it is white European immigrants - up to 50% of whom may have no belief in God - and in the case of many (like Hitchens) actively seek an end to religious practice, who would most logically present the biggest threat to America's religious practice and even freedoms. Yet, no white social or religious expert worries that European immigration will strengthen these attitudes, even though that would seem to be the most logical conclusion.
The issue of ethnic Caucasian immigrants from Europe and Australia bringing extreme right-wing attitudes and opposition to multiculturalism (which in reality means non-white multiculturalism) with them is an even bigger concern. An America that fails at multiculturalism, is a failed America that no longer stands for freedom and equality.
Showing posts with label Propaganda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Propaganda. Show all posts
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Not Like Us
Dying To Be An American; The Asian-American Paradox.
It goes without saying that the Asian-American experience of racism has been, and continues to be, a complex affair. Even at the height of institutionalized anti-Asian prejudice during the late 19th and first half of the 20th centuries, when strict and uncompromising immigration legislation, along with laws forbidding miscegenation and limits on legal and citizenship rights, some Asian immigrants into this country still managed to lay down roots and build some degree of prosperity. Altough beset by roving mobs of angry white men who were jealous and fearful of the Asian man's capacity to endure through the most hateful of atrocities, and in constant danger of the lynch mob, Asian men still managed to work their way to a (admittedly) precarious economic empowerment that formed the basis and blueprint for success emulated by subsequent generations of Asian immigrants.
Even today, our experience is paradoxical and the way that various members of the community conceive of this experience with its remarkable diversity of opinion and perception is a clear reflection of this paradox. On one end of the spectrum we have Captains of Culture, Political Pacesetters, and Jocularity Jockeys, for whom racism may not have been an obstacle, non-existent (in certain cases), or is something so far out of their experience that it doesn't even get a mention in their discourse. On the other end of the spectrum we have the Japanese tsunami victims - whose suffering elicited an outpouring of racist gloating from America's mainstream online communities thus highlighting pervasive anti-Asian attitudes. There's also Private Danny Chen, the Chinese-American army volunteer who died recently of racism.
Bizarrely, Asian-Americans are admired, but also feared and disliked for the very things that we are admired for. We are respected but are largely demeaned by American culture. Most importantly we are protected by legislation that makes it illegal to discriminate against us because of our race, yet, we live in a society whose culture actively promotes personal hostility, dislike, distrust, as well as negative demeaning attitudes and behaviours towards us. As I pointed out here, even though it is illegal for institutions to exhibit racist practices and attitudes, American culture itself promotes these very things in its depictions of, and attitudes towards, Asian people. Thus, although no longer permitted by law, it is now propagated by private institutions and individuals - most notably in the mass-media and entertainment industries - the result of which is a normalization and mainstream acceptance of anti-Asian behaviours and attitudes.
This means that institutional prejudice may have diminished, but personal dislike as fostered by American culture, continues unabated. Thus the paradox; legislation to combat institutional racism is off-set by a private sector propagation of anti-Asian hostility as a matter of personal taste. Often the result is the same - the promotion that never comes through, the pay-raise that never materializes, the unsuccessful job interviews of a highly qualified applicant, violent beating, or even a failed college application, all of which depend on the personal tastes of an individual from the mainstream who has been conditioned by his culture to dislike Asians. This normalization of anti-Asian attitudes manifests in other ways too; blasé declarations of distaste, casual harassment, and racially inflected mockery have become accepted ways of interacting with Asian people as modeled by glamourous celebrities, or on-the-make politicians, via the platform of popular culture.
The case of Private Danny Chen is a clear of example of this process in action. The army as an institution opens its doors to all people. In fact, although under-represented in proportion to the Asian population of America (not surprising when you consider that most Asian-Americans are foreign born and many are unable to speak English), there has been a healthy representation of Asian-Americans in the military, many of whom served with distincton both in the past and present. It is almost impossible to say, therefore, that the army practices institutional racism towards Asians since it seems that they are accepted into the ranks without much hoopla.
Yet, what is clear from the Chen case, is that racist attitudes and behaviours towards Asian people can be casually practiced and accepted as normative within the structure of a non-discriminatory institution because such actions derives from culturally conditioned personal distaste - just like in mainstream American culture. As this article suggests, Chen's success or failure became something of a crap-shoot; if he was lucky, then he might have been put into a unit that might have allowed him the opportunity to prove his value as a soldier. If not, then he faced attitudes from peers conditioned by their culture to believe that racism is the normal mode of interaction with Asians. Sadly, most of the soldiers understood this dynamic except for Chen, who seemed confounded and confused by the harassment (Asian-American culture bears some degree of blame for that).
And this is the crux of the Asian paradox. Because promoting personal distaste for, and negative attitudes towards Asians is an almost intrinsic aspect of the conditioning that occurs in American culture, Asians can simultaneously reach the heights of success whilst experiencing casual racist attitudes. It is why some Asians are fortunate enough to experience very little racism, whilst for others it defines their worldview, with neither side really able to understand the other's point of view. Common to both is that what they both experience is considered normal - being harassed by someone who may smash your head in with a baseball bat if you talk back becomes as normalized a potential experience as someone saying good morning.
What happened to Danny Chen is the natural outcome of America's cultural antagonism towards Asian people in general and Asian men in particular. Because personal distaste (via dehumanizing depictions and attitudes) is propagated as the normal and accepted way of conceiving of Asians, the moral compass of mainstream America is skewed in its behaviour towards us. Since dehumanization implicitly diminishes the moral agency of the target group, it by necessity diminishes the obligation of the mainstream to apply the same moral consideration to Asian people as they would to their own group or groups. Whether it is school administrators turning a blind-eye to violence against Asian children, big-name directors promoting the idea of racial abuse of children as a means to integration, or torturing a fellow soldier because he's Asian, the necessary outcome of America's skewed moral attitudes towards Asians is apparent.
It goes without saying that the Asian-American experience of racism has been, and continues to be, a complex affair. Even at the height of institutionalized anti-Asian prejudice during the late 19th and first half of the 20th centuries, when strict and uncompromising immigration legislation, along with laws forbidding miscegenation and limits on legal and citizenship rights, some Asian immigrants into this country still managed to lay down roots and build some degree of prosperity. Altough beset by roving mobs of angry white men who were jealous and fearful of the Asian man's capacity to endure through the most hateful of atrocities, and in constant danger of the lynch mob, Asian men still managed to work their way to a (admittedly) precarious economic empowerment that formed the basis and blueprint for success emulated by subsequent generations of Asian immigrants.
Even today, our experience is paradoxical and the way that various members of the community conceive of this experience with its remarkable diversity of opinion and perception is a clear reflection of this paradox. On one end of the spectrum we have Captains of Culture, Political Pacesetters, and Jocularity Jockeys, for whom racism may not have been an obstacle, non-existent (in certain cases), or is something so far out of their experience that it doesn't even get a mention in their discourse. On the other end of the spectrum we have the Japanese tsunami victims - whose suffering elicited an outpouring of racist gloating from America's mainstream online communities thus highlighting pervasive anti-Asian attitudes. There's also Private Danny Chen, the Chinese-American army volunteer who died recently of racism.
Bizarrely, Asian-Americans are admired, but also feared and disliked for the very things that we are admired for. We are respected but are largely demeaned by American culture. Most importantly we are protected by legislation that makes it illegal to discriminate against us because of our race, yet, we live in a society whose culture actively promotes personal hostility, dislike, distrust, as well as negative demeaning attitudes and behaviours towards us. As I pointed out here, even though it is illegal for institutions to exhibit racist practices and attitudes, American culture itself promotes these very things in its depictions of, and attitudes towards, Asian people. Thus, although no longer permitted by law, it is now propagated by private institutions and individuals - most notably in the mass-media and entertainment industries - the result of which is a normalization and mainstream acceptance of anti-Asian behaviours and attitudes.
This means that institutional prejudice may have diminished, but personal dislike as fostered by American culture, continues unabated. Thus the paradox; legislation to combat institutional racism is off-set by a private sector propagation of anti-Asian hostility as a matter of personal taste. Often the result is the same - the promotion that never comes through, the pay-raise that never materializes, the unsuccessful job interviews of a highly qualified applicant, violent beating, or even a failed college application, all of which depend on the personal tastes of an individual from the mainstream who has been conditioned by his culture to dislike Asians. This normalization of anti-Asian attitudes manifests in other ways too; blasé declarations of distaste, casual harassment, and racially inflected mockery have become accepted ways of interacting with Asian people as modeled by glamourous celebrities, or on-the-make politicians, via the platform of popular culture.
The case of Private Danny Chen is a clear of example of this process in action. The army as an institution opens its doors to all people. In fact, although under-represented in proportion to the Asian population of America (not surprising when you consider that most Asian-Americans are foreign born and many are unable to speak English), there has been a healthy representation of Asian-Americans in the military, many of whom served with distincton both in the past and present. It is almost impossible to say, therefore, that the army practices institutional racism towards Asians since it seems that they are accepted into the ranks without much hoopla.
Yet, what is clear from the Chen case, is that racist attitudes and behaviours towards Asian people can be casually practiced and accepted as normative within the structure of a non-discriminatory institution because such actions derives from culturally conditioned personal distaste - just like in mainstream American culture. As this article suggests, Chen's success or failure became something of a crap-shoot; if he was lucky, then he might have been put into a unit that might have allowed him the opportunity to prove his value as a soldier. If not, then he faced attitudes from peers conditioned by their culture to believe that racism is the normal mode of interaction with Asians. Sadly, most of the soldiers understood this dynamic except for Chen, who seemed confounded and confused by the harassment (Asian-American culture bears some degree of blame for that).
And this is the crux of the Asian paradox. Because promoting personal distaste for, and negative attitudes towards Asians is an almost intrinsic aspect of the conditioning that occurs in American culture, Asians can simultaneously reach the heights of success whilst experiencing casual racist attitudes. It is why some Asians are fortunate enough to experience very little racism, whilst for others it defines their worldview, with neither side really able to understand the other's point of view. Common to both is that what they both experience is considered normal - being harassed by someone who may smash your head in with a baseball bat if you talk back becomes as normalized a potential experience as someone saying good morning.
What happened to Danny Chen is the natural outcome of America's cultural antagonism towards Asian people in general and Asian men in particular. Because personal distaste (via dehumanizing depictions and attitudes) is propagated as the normal and accepted way of conceiving of Asians, the moral compass of mainstream America is skewed in its behaviour towards us. Since dehumanization implicitly diminishes the moral agency of the target group, it by necessity diminishes the obligation of the mainstream to apply the same moral consideration to Asian people as they would to their own group or groups. Whether it is school administrators turning a blind-eye to violence against Asian children, big-name directors promoting the idea of racial abuse of children as a means to integration, or torturing a fellow soldier because he's Asian, the necessary outcome of America's skewed moral attitudes towards Asians is apparent.
Monday, September 6, 2010
"...the Chinese are extremely bright...and wonderful....!"
When Propaganda Succeeds.
Few subjects inflame the Asian-American community more than the issue of stereotypes in film and literature. In the view of Asian-Americans, stereotypes promote violence against Asians, serves to desensitize the mainstream to dehumanization of Asians, and trivializes our struggles with bigotry. One of the most well-known and, for some Asian-Americans, the most hated stereotype is the Charlie Chan character. The bigWOWO blog recently presented a podcast of Yunte Huang debating Frank Chin on the very subject of the Charlie Chan character and the stereotypes that went into the creation of this character. Here's the link to the podcast, and here's the link to the bigWOWO blog post, check it out - it's interesting.
The podcast was especially interesting because of the comments and attitudes of the (apparently) non-Asian callers to the show. Remarkably, despite the fact that many Asian-Americans perceive the Charlie Chan character to be negative, most (if not all) of the non-Asians that called in to the show felt that the character was a positive depiction of the Chinese people and their character. This raises some questions about what constitutes a "good" or "bad" depiction and even calls into question the notion that "positive" stereotypes can create a shift in social conditions of a given group.
The paradox of Charlie Chan is that despite being apparently adored by non-Asians and the reported sense of goodwill the character generated amongst mainstream fans, there was very little shift in attitudes towards Asians within American society. Anti-Asian prejudice and discrimination continued unabated for decades. So, if we accept that in the minds of Chan's non-Asian fans his depiction was positive for their perception of the Chinese, then the question arises; why didn't these warm fuzzy feelings amongst these fans lead to a discernible social improvement for Chinese-Americans?
The answer lies in the nature of the character itself. An accented Chinese immigrant, the character of Chan is set in a time in American history when it was almost illegal to be Asian. Chinese immigrants in this period experienced immense institutional and personal racism. Restrictions on citizenship, employment, inter-marriage with white women, and land ownership meant that Asian immigrants were forced to live and work in ghettos (aka "Chinatowns") where they couldn't contaminate the local white populace. Xenophobic hostility to Asians led to regular random acts of violence and harassment to such an extent that simply walking along the street became an act of immense courage that could end in violent death. This was the common experience of pre-war Asian immigrants.
What does this have to do with Charlie Chan? Well, absolutely nothing! And that's the point. As wise and clever as he is portrayed, the life of Charlie Chan would have been unrecognizable to the Chinese immigrants of the time. Denied rights and considered barely human, Chinese immigrants could have been killed for attempting to enter many white owned establishments which makes the notion of one of them being given jurisdiction over white criminals competely preposterous. Certainly there are situations where Charlie Chan encounters racism but he is always able to brush it aside with a Confucian quip.
That's why Chan is so beloved - he allows America to brush aside its history of brutality toward its Asian immigrants in a way that makes racism seem almost harmless. Chan is a proto model-minority - he doesn't need any help because he has all this wisdom and culture to draw upon and because he doesn't need help, there's no need to examine anti-Asian racism. Fortunately, this also means that the mainstream gets to deny that prejudice towards Asians can and has been so brutal, and it allows them to hide behind the propaganda that things aren't so bad for Asians because "they do so well" and they're "really smart!"
The biggest irony is that Charlie Chan's existence gives the mainstream an alternate view of themselves and not of the Chinese. This "positive" depiction did not contribute to social progressiveness because what he depicted wasn't real. That's why he was so popular - he allowed manistream America to believe that they hadn't acted like savages toward their Asian minorities.
Few subjects inflame the Asian-American community more than the issue of stereotypes in film and literature. In the view of Asian-Americans, stereotypes promote violence against Asians, serves to desensitize the mainstream to dehumanization of Asians, and trivializes our struggles with bigotry. One of the most well-known and, for some Asian-Americans, the most hated stereotype is the Charlie Chan character. The bigWOWO blog recently presented a podcast of Yunte Huang debating Frank Chin on the very subject of the Charlie Chan character and the stereotypes that went into the creation of this character. Here's the link to the podcast, and here's the link to the bigWOWO blog post, check it out - it's interesting.
The podcast was especially interesting because of the comments and attitudes of the (apparently) non-Asian callers to the show. Remarkably, despite the fact that many Asian-Americans perceive the Charlie Chan character to be negative, most (if not all) of the non-Asians that called in to the show felt that the character was a positive depiction of the Chinese people and their character. This raises some questions about what constitutes a "good" or "bad" depiction and even calls into question the notion that "positive" stereotypes can create a shift in social conditions of a given group.
The paradox of Charlie Chan is that despite being apparently adored by non-Asians and the reported sense of goodwill the character generated amongst mainstream fans, there was very little shift in attitudes towards Asians within American society. Anti-Asian prejudice and discrimination continued unabated for decades. So, if we accept that in the minds of Chan's non-Asian fans his depiction was positive for their perception of the Chinese, then the question arises; why didn't these warm fuzzy feelings amongst these fans lead to a discernible social improvement for Chinese-Americans?
The answer lies in the nature of the character itself. An accented Chinese immigrant, the character of Chan is set in a time in American history when it was almost illegal to be Asian. Chinese immigrants in this period experienced immense institutional and personal racism. Restrictions on citizenship, employment, inter-marriage with white women, and land ownership meant that Asian immigrants were forced to live and work in ghettos (aka "Chinatowns") where they couldn't contaminate the local white populace. Xenophobic hostility to Asians led to regular random acts of violence and harassment to such an extent that simply walking along the street became an act of immense courage that could end in violent death. This was the common experience of pre-war Asian immigrants.
What does this have to do with Charlie Chan? Well, absolutely nothing! And that's the point. As wise and clever as he is portrayed, the life of Charlie Chan would have been unrecognizable to the Chinese immigrants of the time. Denied rights and considered barely human, Chinese immigrants could have been killed for attempting to enter many white owned establishments which makes the notion of one of them being given jurisdiction over white criminals competely preposterous. Certainly there are situations where Charlie Chan encounters racism but he is always able to brush it aside with a Confucian quip.
That's why Chan is so beloved - he allows America to brush aside its history of brutality toward its Asian immigrants in a way that makes racism seem almost harmless. Chan is a proto model-minority - he doesn't need any help because he has all this wisdom and culture to draw upon and because he doesn't need help, there's no need to examine anti-Asian racism. Fortunately, this also means that the mainstream gets to deny that prejudice towards Asians can and has been so brutal, and it allows them to hide behind the propaganda that things aren't so bad for Asians because "they do so well" and they're "really smart!"
The biggest irony is that Charlie Chan's existence gives the mainstream an alternate view of themselves and not of the Chinese. This "positive" depiction did not contribute to social progressiveness because what he depicted wasn't real. That's why he was so popular - he allowed manistream America to believe that they hadn't acted like savages toward their Asian minorities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)