Weren't The First Chinese-Americans....

.....Mostly Men?

I came across an article in the Huffington Post today that reports on a photographic exhibition taking place in New York that examines the lives and contributions of the early Chinese immigrants to the US. The exhibition is called "Chinese American: Exclusion/Inclusion" and looks to be an interesting show. The HuffPo article is also very interesting, but in a different way. In light of two recent posts - one dealing with the downgrading of the anti-Asian male violence nature of the Isla Vista killings, the other dealing with the need to promote Asian-American history through culture - the HuffPo article does a good job of illustrating the tendency of commentators to do the former, as well as the necessity to enact the latter.

The article begins thus.....

It wasn't easy being Chinese American in the early days. From exclusionary laws to the racist caricatures that dotted newspaper comic pages, America wasn't exactly laying down the welcome mat.

Although the above statement is true, it is also - paradoxically - false. The falsity occurs in what is omitted in the description of the experiences of the first large-scale Chinese immigrants in America. As I wrote in a previous post - here - the lives of the early Chinese immigrants were characterized by savage violence inflicted upon them by white Americans. This is what I wrote in that post, which I titled "Driven Out - An Asian-American Holocaust"......

The stories of violence and manifestations of hatred are almost unbelieveable - they are so savage, brutal, and sadistic, that the perpetrators and the violence that they committed sounds like little more than a caricature of a medieval warlord and his mob of rampaging peasants. If one were to write a novel - or make a movie - with these kinds of incidents, most people might find the characterizations to be too far-fetched. But these things did happen, and the sadistic brutality was real, yet, the entire episode has almost disappeared from the American consciousness...... 

Mobs of men (but sometimes including women and children) would enter Chinatowns, forcing the Chinese out of their homes and businesses, they would be beaten (or killed) and then made to walk miles to the coast or railway stations where they would be forced onto trains and ships and removed from the town. Then the homes of the Chinese would be ransacked and burned. In some instances, Chinese homes and dorms would be set on fire with the Chinese men still inside, who were then shot at and murdered as they tried to escape the flames....... 

In the six or so decades between the 1850's and the early 20th century, there were hundreds of such incidences, that drove Chinese communities out of dozens of American West Coast towns, killing many Chinese men and injuring thousands more. Following the so-called "dog-tag" laws in the 1890's that required the registration of all Chinese, the idea was floated that any Chinese who could not show that they were legal should be placed in "enclosures" - a disturbing foreshadowing of Japanese internment.

Most of the information for that post was taken from a book - that all Asian-Americans should be made to read - called "Driven Out", and it paints a far more horrific picture of life for America's first Chinese immigrants. Although exclusionary laws and racist caricatures in the media were significant - and serious - issues facing the first Chinese-Americans, the pervasive violence that accompanied it deserves to be remembered, documented, and imprinted, even, in the consciousness of both Asian-Americans and the mainstream.

But why is it necessary to remember these terrible historical episodes when the Chinese men who went through it were themselves reluctant to record these experiences, preferring to forget the horror of it all? Well, firstly, if we forget exactly how extremely difficult it was made for the early Chinese immigrants  to establish communities, and then thrive, then it actually diminishes the successes highlighted in the HuffPo piece. For example, it is an achievement that there was a Chinese-American WWI pilot (highlighted in the HuffPo piece), but if all the community that she came from had to overcome were some mean caricatures and racist immigration laws (which by her very presence, she had gotten around), then her achievement seems less of one.

By contrast if we acknowledge that in order for her to be able achieve what she achieved, her antecessors had to resolve to carry on after being violently expelled from homes and businesses that they and taken years and decades to build, and watching friends, family, and acquaintances, being rounded up, beaten, and murdered, in the process, lends a whole new level of significance to her success. Overcoming racist caricatures and immigration laws to achieve success is good, overcoming a six-decade period in which your community was were subjected to expulsions from dozens of towns, pogroms, ethnic cleansing, and suggestions that they should be placed in "enclosures", is far more significant achievement.

The second reason to remember the violence perpetrated against the first Chinese-Americans is that we can see echoes of the relationship between anti-Chinese/Asian political rhetoric, racist media depictions, and racist violence and behaviours, that is still with us today. Often our racial experiences are shaped by rhetoric driven by political tensions between the US and some Asian country that manifests as racial hostility or violence against Americans of Asian descent. Vincent Chin was one such victim of this process. It is possible that political rhetoric empowers and enables the expression of casual racism against Asians in the media which in turn empowers and promotes demeaning racist behaviour and perhaps even violence towards Asian people. This process was a problem for the first Chinese Americans -with deadly results - and it remains a significant issue today, and one that we still struggle to deal with. This is a disturbing reminder that however far we think we have come as a community, there still exists in America a cultural phenomenon and process in which politics and media combine to shape behaviours and attitudes towards Asians that are still largely hostile, dehumanizing, and casually racist.

The third and final reason to remember the violence perpetrated against the first Chinese is not to do entirely with white racism, but has more to do with how we tend to collude (both intentionally and unintentionally) with the mainstream to marginalize uncomfortable history and those who experienced it. The facts of history tell us that the first Chinese communities in America were made up almost entirely of Chinese men. Of course, what this means is that the vast, vast, vast majority of the victims of the expulsions, round-ups, beatings, tortures, and murders, committed by white-American mobs all along the West Coast were men - Asian men. What this means is that by not making mention of this period of ethnic cleansing against the Chinese we are erasing one of the most monumental episodes in history that lies at the root of and defines America's cultural conceptions and attitudes towards Asian men (just think of all the Asian men we still see being slaughtered by the dozen in American films), but we are also erasing - and as a consequence, dishonouring - the bravery, steel, and determination (qualities often associated with masculinity) exhibited by these 19th century Chinese men.

They are the ones who were violently expelled from their own homes, and who did not give up but instead starting again somewhere else, sometimes several times over. They were the one's who survived beatings and violent round-ups, and witnessed their friends being murdered, but who persevered. By their perseverance and bravery, these Asian men made possible the successes of later generations. If they had not fought back against their persecutors, there would have been no "later generations" of Chinese or Asians in America worth talking about. Yet, their story is marginalized. The reasons for this may be complicated.

Some of us may have internalized America's refusal to associate Asian men with qualities of bravery, perseverance and masculinity, and are, thus, unable or unwilling to view this period of Asian history in that light. Some of us may also have internalized America's discomfort with strong Asian men, the idea of which may seem threatening. Some of us may simply be ignorant of this history. More disturbing, perhaps, is the possibility that the story of these Chinese men, who overcame extreme brutality, is somehow a victim of the Asian-American divide that places the genders in competition for a share of mainstream attention and acceptance. It could be that it does not fit the narrative to acknowledge that Asian men laid the groundwork for the subsequent growth and thriving of Asian-Americans - the preferred narrative and the one most readily accepted by the mainstream (i.e. white America), the one that defines Asian men almost entirely by their attitudes towards, or treatment of (real or made-up) Asian women.

The result is that we are left with an Asian-American culture that largely avoids the uncomfortable episode of ethnic cleansing that targeted the first Chinese immigrants but also continued in the form of pogroms and race-riots that targeted subsequent communities of mainly male Filipino and Japanese immigrants. By allowing ourselves to forget, allow our community to be ignorant of, or deliberately downplay the experience and history of Asian men overcoming decades of racial violence, then we are guilty of colluding with white supremacy. Firstly, we are basically allowing Asian-American history and thus Asian-American culture to be feminized in an unhealthy way - a type of feminization that does not uphold Asian feminine power, but rather patronizingly views Asian feminine power as somewhat passive, cute, and girly. Secondly, we are allowing mainstream sensibilities and apathetic acquiescence to racial stereotypes to be the main factor in defining the elements that are important to the cultural development of Asian-Americans and, hence, the factors that drive our identity.

It could be that the resilience of these early Chinese immigrants does not fit our own mainstream caricature-derived notions of Asian men and their masculinity. The Chinese men who overwhelmingly comprised the first Chinese immigrant communities, had to display a kind of courage and depth of determination that one would not believe possible if we were to take our references for Asian male masculinity from America's cultural depictions. Consider this; over a six-decade period, these men were targeted by mobs and individuals for violence and abuse. They were dragged out of their homes, beaten, their homes ransacked and their belongings stolen, then often their homes and places of business were burned to the ground, sometimes with the Chinese men in them.

Those who were not murdered were rounded up, and marched at gunpoint - sometimes for miles without being given food or water - and were forcibly put onto trains and ships where they were told never to return to the towns that had just expelled them. Now, remember that none of this even speaks to the daily occurrence of racism that they endured - like verbal harassment, personal violence, white customers taking goods and services from their stores and refusing to pay, not to mention racial murders, separate from those committed during the expulsions, that were never investigated, or when they were, resulted in no charges or only perfunctory sentencing for the perpetrators.

Our racist concept of Asian masculinity that is America's culturally appropriate way of viewing Asian men that we have internalized, might make us believe that the response of the Chinese men might be to slink away in fear, complaining unintelligibly in funny ching-chong accents, and cower in fear. Yet, this is not the case. Even after being threatened with death - by local politicians as well as local labor thugs - if they returned to their burned out homes and communities, these Chinese men, did just that to reclaim their belongings, homes, and even to seek justice from their attackers. Others simply re-settled elsewhere and started over, arming themselves for defense. The real nuance here is that even in that time, these Chinese men found ways to negotiate with their white neighbours - some of whom were sympathetic, others not so much - and build a strong connection and even community that included non-Chinese friends and benefactors that helped the communities to survive. These Chinese men were smart as well as tough.

This is how it was possible for Asian-America to exist and we have Asian men to thank for it and the subsequent successes that we have come to enjoy. Let's try to remember them.

Why Won't Hollywood Cast An Asian Male Lead - Part 2?

This is Part 2 of a two part series. Part 1 here.   

Summary And Conclusions.

Whilst there is a compelling argument for a lack of "bankable" Asian leads, the argument fails to explain why Asian actors are absent from film in prominent secondary co-starring or supporting roles which may be less detrimental to the bottom line. Furthermore, as I illustrated in part 1, Asian leads (male leads) can turn a profit for a studio, if not mega-profits, at least moderate to good profits. This makes the absence of Asian leads even in the lower echelon of the industry - that is, in lower-budget/lower profit expectation echelon of the industry where only moderate profits are the expectation - even more troubling than the lack of leads in big-budget film. Asian leads can clearly thrive in movies where the lower profit margin is expected, yet, they remain more or less absent as leads at this level of the industry also.

If we take these considerations into account and then add to it the regular production of depictions that are demeaning, dehumanizing, and xenophobic, it is difficult not to believe that there is a vein of anti-Asian attitudes running through the film and television industry. Consider this; whenever we see a representation of Asians, either as a bestial villain, or in a brief appearance in which their only purpose seems to be as the object of racial mockery, someone had to think up or collate racist ideas about Asians and fashion those ideas into a representation that is apparently accepted without much question by others in the industry. Ignorance of Asians cannot explain this - the two main hubs of film and television production are in New York and LA which have substantial Asian populations.

Given all of this, it is still impossible to state categorically that film and television are racist such that it discriminates against Asian actors. Doubtless, the regular demeaning and xenophobic depictions of Asians in film and television are racist in scope - often overtly and unapologetic - and do raise questions of whether these types of productions reflect attitudes that also manifest as discrimination against Asian actors. In short, there is sufficient reason to doubt the claim that Hollywood does not discriminate against Asians. If the issue was simply one of Asians not being given lead roles because of the vague notion of "bankability", then that might be more believable. Yet the problem is clearly far more extensive than that..

There is another aspect to this issue that is more difficult to address because it requires activism on the part of Asian actors themselves. No amount of community protesting is going to be successful if there are still Asian actors who are willing to accept roles that demean or mock Asian people, it is as simple as that. But this is a challenge; how do we persuade Asian actors to be more discerning or even assertive about the roles they are given?

Just like in every job it is the duty and responsibility of individuals to self-advocate in order to earn the best possible deal for themselves. Whether you are negotiating for a raise, pushing for a promotion, or pushing an idea, you have to self-advocate and push the reasons for why you deserve the raise, the promotion, or the new account. Those who do this come out with the goodies, and this is an important point for Asian actors; is it good self-advocacy to accept racially demeaning roles, given that there is scant evidence that doing so leads to more prominent roles? The issue becomes not one of activism through social or political consciousness, but activism through self-advocacy. In this case, personal advocacy aligns perfectly with the needs of the community.

There have been many Asian actors who have accepted demeaning roles but there are no real "A-list" male Asian actors - which suggests that accepting derogatory roles is unlikely to lead to meatier opportunities. The reality may turn out to be that by accepting racially demeaning roles, Asian actors are in fact, helping to legitimize and contribute to the demand for such roles, further limiting the types of roles that they are offered.

It is often suggested that the way those with aspirations should respond to these dilemmas, is to produce their own works of film, in the hope of getting recognized by mainstream studios. The thinking is that Asians should produce independent works of such brilliance that the industry cannot help but sit up and take notice, and once Asian actors have somehow "proven" themselves in innocuous independent films, then the ever fair mainstream studios will relent and finally cast an Asian-American male as a lead. Of course, hoping that a low-budget independent movie will perform freakishly well in the box-office and persuade mainstream studios to cast an Asian lead, is actually tantamount to saying that you have to win the lottery in order to be considered bankable. That aside, Asians making their own films is a good thing for reasons that go beyond the unreasonable expectation that they might be a winning lottery ticket.

As a part of developing an Asian-American cultural voice, producing works where Asians have complete creative control seems like a great idea. In this way, Asian-Americans can explore the history of their experience (historical experience is the basis of culture) and forge that into a cultural voice that is independent of the need to acquiesce to mainstream sensibilities. And readers might know what I am talking about here when I say "acquiesce to mainstream sensibilities" - often, Asian-American artistic output seems to require the presence of prominent white characters for some kind of credibility and any Asian voice seems to assume an almost parasitic relationship to the dominant white culture. The result is that Asian arts don't seem to push the envelope of ideas and cultural perspectives that may derive uniquely from the Asian experience.

When you apply this idea to Asian-American film aspirations, it seems contradictory to suggest that Asians can produce culturally significant works that - if we are to be true to the Asian-American experience - derive some considerable inspiration from our often negative relationship with the mainstream but also make this somehow appeal to that very same mainstream. No, that too seems like a dead-end - for Asian made films to appeal to a wider audience they must almost by definition, ignore their specific experiences of race, but in order for such films to become one of the building blocks of an autonomous Asian cultural voice, they have to avoid the trap of catering to mainstream tastes.

That does not mean that independent Asian films are not a worthy endeavour. But, I think that it would be better to produce work for its own sake, and work that stays true to the sensibilities, observations, and experiences, of the work's creator, rather than aspire to produce work that tries to meet some kind of mainstream criteria which is vague, poorly defined, and to the cynical may seem like little more than an ad-hoc rationalization of discriminatory practices. The irony is that whilst white film-makers struggle against compromise in their work, Asians contemplate embracing compromise as an essential aspect of their aspirations to be recognized. To me, this defeats the purpose of producing independent films where full creative control offers greater freedom of expression.

But where does this leave Asian-American leads? Ironically, by focusing on the lack of Asian male leads, we are missing what may be an even more significant gauge of possible Hollywood discrimination against Asian actors - the dearth of Asians in prominent supporting roles. Of course, no-one wants to play second-fiddle, but if we are to be realistic, we have to admit that we are likely to be far more successful in terms of advocacy, if we push for more Asians in prominent supporting roles, or even secondary and tertiary co-starring roles. Realistically, I don't really believe that making independent movies in and of itself is likely to produce the "break-out" Asian star of tomorrow, unless the groundwork is laid for this to happen by first having audiences become accustomed to Asians on the big screen via prominent support roles.

Mainstream movies that show Asians interacting normally and without a context of racialization (via prominent support roles) in the everyday life of America as depicted by the movies, is probably just as important to normalizing Asian faces on the big screen as would a lead, and perhaps even more so. So perhaps the goal of activism - both from those outside the industry and those within it - should be to advocate for more Asians in prominent support roles, and perhaps as the result of this, when an Asian male lead does emerge, it won't seem so alien to viewers, and will, in fact, seem like the natural progression.

If we look beyond "home-made film" as stepping stone to mainstream acceptance,  independent movies could play a role in raising the Asian voice if we think in terms of them forming the basis for an independent Asian-American cinema industry that is self-reliant and strong enough to provide meaningful careers to deserving Asian performers. Asian-Americans number around 17 million, and in the next ten years or so, our numbers should exceed 20 million. That is a significant number of people and certainly enough of a population to support an independent film industry. After all, Hong Kong has a population of around 8 million and has a robust domestic film industry, so why not Asian-America? The point here is that in the present day and age, it is not necessarily true that one need acquiesce to mainstream sensibilities as an actor or filmmaker, in order to be able to support a career in film. Those days are gone, but perhaps we just have not realized it yet. Besides, the almost parasitic attachment to white mainstream sensibilities is nauseating and quite frankly, embarrassing. There are over 40 million Hispanics, and over 40 million African-Americans - why is there no equivalent aspiration to try to appeal to these sizable groups who are, effectively, mainstream populations in their own right.

In this light, the apparently predominant aim of appealing to the white mainstream for what is essentially credibility, may well be setting too low a bar for achievement and possibility. That is to say that Asian-Americans could be aspiring to produce independent films that have an appeal beyond simply the white American market, and far beyond the cultural and national boundaries of the United States, possibly in markets where America's racial assumptions and prejudices have not yet taken hold.  So, whilst we should encourage Asian-American independent film, the scope of that concept could expand into a self-sustaining industry with an appeal and a reputation that goes beyond the tastes of white America, and which derives credibility and acclaim from its own substance, and not from the accolades of the white mainstream.

If we can envision an Asian-American film industry as part of a wider cultural genesis of Asian-American life, then this may create the space for Asians in the US to explore their full creative potential, informed by the racial bias that necessitates it, but not limited by it. Thus, we could see an Asian-American culture emerge - much in the same way as the black culture of rock and roll emerged out of the enforced self-sustaining "independence" of segregation - that might have the force to become integral to the zeitgeist of American culture. 

So to summarize, I think that, as commentators, we need to shift our focus away from the lack of male leads and onto the general lack of Asian faces in American film - particularly the lack of Asians in prominent supporting roles, which may be a greater gauge of possible discrimination in Hollywood. Highlighting the lack of visibility of Asians in even no-risk-to-the-bottom-line support roles carries with it a greater chance to bring about change - depicting Asians in the everyday life of America via the medium of film, must help to normalize the idea of Asians as integral to American culture and society. Once viewers become accustomed to seeing Asians normalized in film, then it becomes inevitable that an Asian male lead would naturally emerge, and be more readily accepted by the public. Hand-in-hand with this shift of focus, I carry the hope that some Asian actors would approach their choices with a more discerning eye.

Producing independent films may help this process, but the cross-over gamble is something that can be equated to winning the lottery. So, while I would love to see an independent Asian-American film industry emerge - for the reasons outlined above - I think that such an industry would be insipid if its primary consideration limited it scope to some kind of practice of mainstream sensibilities. An independent industry that isn't restricted by concerns of compromise, may well serve as a means to explore the potential of the Asian-American voice, and perhaps contribute to the increased visibility of Asian-Americans by becoming integral to America's cultural zeitgeist. That is to say that if an Asian-American film "industry" could become so influential in its own right that they might themselves come to represent mainstream sensibilities by superseding the archaic attitudes and prejudiced thinking of that mainstream.

Why Won't Hollywood Cast An Asian Male Lead - Part 1?

The Issues.....

The whitewashing of Asian characters out of story lines in many American movie productions is a phenomena that no-one - Asian or otherwise - denies occurs on a routine basis in the movie industry. In brief, whitewashing simply means that white actors are used to replace characters that are commonly expected to be Asian. For example, movies adaptations of novels have routinely used white actors to replace characters who were Asian in the book, or even movies that portray historical events have used white actors to play the role of someone who was Asian in real life. This is achieved in various ways; by changing the race of a character,  from Asian to white, by "Asianizing" white (but recently black) actors by using prosthetics to change eye shape, or by using ethnically ambiguous white actors who may have a "part-Asian" look. 

This has, naturally, led to accusations that Hollywood is racist and is discriminating against Asian actors. On the one side of the argument are those who point to whitewashing, in addition to the absence of Asian (particularly male) leads, and the sporadic appearance of racially demeaning depictions in Hollywood productions, as the self-evident manifestation of racism. On the other side, are those who suggest that Hollywood is merely driven by the "bottom line" and that Asians are relatively absent in front of camera simply because they are not "bankable", and won't, don't, or cannot, guarantee sufficient box-office returns. Thus, on this latter view, there is no "racism" in the sense that Asians are not discriminated against because of their race, but have limited opportunities because they have limited appeal to the cinema-going public.

What is interesting is that there are Asian-Americans on both side of this argument - some who believe that Hollywood is systematically excluding Asians, and others on the opposite side of the argument who say that it is entirely a business decision that limits the opportunities of Asian actors. I am agnostic on the issue - I cannot say that I am anywhere near certain that Hollywood is racist, but I think that the issues I outlined provide sufficient reason to not dismiss accusations of racism out of hand. In this post I will outline the main points on both sides of the argument and post my conclusions in the summary.

Whitewashing and the bottom line.

Whitewashing means that white actors are cast in roles that replace a fictional Asian character or even a historically Asian character with a Caucasian one. Going hand-in-hand with this is the practice of "Yellowface" - that is, using makeup, prosthetics, and often a feigned, caricatured, East Asian accent, to transform a white actor into an Asiatic character or caricature. The result is that even in historical films where the protagonist is Asian, the casting of an Asian actor need not be guaranteed.The industry response to this is that Asian leads don't have the box-office appeal to warrant being given such substantial roles. Filmmakers, we are told, are unwilling to take a risk on an Asian lead because they won't make money for the studio.

It is this argument that is possibly the most often cited by those who deny that Hollywood is racist. But what is the the belief based on? I have never seen any actual numbers presented that show beyond a doubt that Asian leads lose money for studios, and since the argument is based on an empirical premise - that is, the profit/loss margin - surely there are some studies showing that Asian leads always fail? Of course, it is extremely difficult to gauge the profitability of Asian leads because there have been so few attempts at it, so right up front, the premise is questionable. But the ultimate question is; is it true that movies with an Asian lead are definitively destined to lose money for studios? The answer is definitely no.

Three movies come to mind that challenge this assertion; Romeo Must Die, Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story, and Ninja Assassin. All three of these movies featured an Asian male lead and they all turned a profit. Here's a summary;

Romeo Must Die                     Starring Jet Li                             
                                                        Budget:          $25 million
  Takings                                          Domestic        $55,973,336    61.5%
                                                        Foreign          $35,063,424    38.5%

                                                        Profit              $66036578                                        

Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story   Starring Jason Scott Lee    
                                                        Budget;        $14 million

   Takings                                         Domestic      $35,113,743   55.3%

                                                        Foreign         $28,400,000   44.7%
                                                        Profit            $49,513,745

Ninja Assassin                          Starring Rain                        
                                                        Budget         $40 Million
   Takings                                         Domestic      $38,122,883    61.9%
                                                        Foreign        $23,478,397    38.1%
                                                        Profit            $21,601,280

All of the above movies made a profit for the studios and they all featured Asian males in the lead roles. Granted that is only three movies (although, Jet Li also starred in a movie "The One" that also turned a profit, and there is an obscure French movie called "The Lover", that made a decent worldwide profit, and good profits in the US on limited release, but which also was nominated for an Oscar), but given that three movies possibly represent a lion share of movies that have starred Asian males, it has to be said that this is a reasonably good rate of success for movies that have actually featured an Asian male lead.

At this point it has to be noted that the "bottom line" argument is misleading in that it is remarkably vague, and this vagueness itself seems like a disingenuous approach to engaging with the Asian community on this issue, and often seems like little more than hand-waving away Asian-American concerns. The reason is that such a vague argument allows for goalposts to be shifted dramatically within its nebulous boundaries. For example, when presented with solid figures that plainly show that Asian leads can make money for studios, the goalposts suddenly shift, and the argument narrows to something like "movies with Asian leads show only moderate profits", or they "didn't do as well domestically, so they weren't 'truly' successful". And this is important to note because it highlights the fact that the dearth of Asians in front of the camera goes well beyond the problem of Asian male leads in the blockbuster.

If Asians were absent only as leads in blockbusters, then the bottom-line argument would hold more water. The problem is that Asians are absent in front of the camera at every level of the industry. Asians are rarely seen in any kind of secondary or tertiary co-starring role, or even in prominent supporting roles. The bottom line argument cannot explain this because - particularly in the case of prominent supporting roles - they have negligible affect on the bottom line. There are few critics saying a movie failed because the tertiary co-star or supporting cast were terrible  Furthermore, even if it were true that Asians cannot yet carry a lead in a big-budget blockbuster, the three examples listed above, suggest that Asians can, at least, be able to carry lead roles in the echelon of the industry where only moderate profits are the expectation. And that is another huge hole in the bottom line argument.

Low and medium-budget movies made with the express intention of limited theater release, and then quickly on to DVD, are not expected to make huge profits. In fact, moderate profits are the expectation at this level of production, and Asian leads have shown that they can carry a movie even though the profits may be moderate - although the above figures show that in the case of Romeo Must Die and Dragon, profits were well beyond moderate. But the question arises; why are Asian actors also absent from leads in films at this level of the industry, when they very clearly have been able to make the kinds of profits that this echelon of the industry expects? The bottom line at this level of the industry is different and Asians have shown without a doubt that they can turn a profit. But even worse, is the dearth, even, of co-stars and support roles for Asian actors at this - what we could call - base-level of the industry. 

If the industry were truly egalitarian, then Asians would surely feature more prominently than they do at the very least as supporting cast, in the lower-budget echelon of the industry. But, they don't. Regardless of the lower bottom-line expectations, and the fact that Asians have demonstrated that they can be the lead in profitable movies at the medium/low-budget level, Asians are still almost invisible. The bottom line argument does not explain this. In fact, in light of this, the bottom-line argument seems more like a flimsy hand-waving excuse to not engage genuinely with Asian-Americans about their concerns regarding the limited opportunities for Asian actors.

Demeaning Depictions of Asians in the media

Perhaps even more of an issue for Asian-Americans in its uneasy relationship with Hollywood, is the problem of derogatory depictions and lazy stereotypes of Asians that are produced in the film and television industry from time to time. These demeaning depictions are often simple caricatures that disparage among other things, Asian racial characteristics, manners of speech, and cultural particulars. At other times, these depictions are xenophobic and inflammatory and hatefully shows Asians as almost literal monsters with no humane qualities. Often, the depictions are accompanied by acts of random and sadistic violence, which make light of, and justify casual violence against the Asian people being depicted. So the spectrum runs from disparaging to xenophobic and sadistically violent. Often these demeaning and dehumanizing ideas are expressed without even the vehicle of an actual character who has any meaningful lines and in a manner which has little or no significance to any plot or storyline - that is, their presence serves no apparent purpose in the context of the production and would not be fatal to the plot or characterizations if the depictions didn't exist.

Naturally, racism is denied as the motivation behind these one-sided, dehumanizing, racially insensitive, and xenophobic depictions, and it is almost impossible to state categorically that racism does drive these depictions. Yet, the fact remains that even if racism isn't the driving force, the depictions themselves rely on racial stereotypes and dehumanizing caricatures.

So there are two sides to this aspect of Asian representation in film and television; those depictions that are brief but are merely a collection of all or some of the most derogatory representations that have been associated with Asian people but are irrelevant to the plot, and those depictions of depictions via characters that are integral to a plot, but are also loaded with derogatory qualities associated with Asians which demonize them via inflammatory characterizations. The former depictions normalizes racist behaviour towards Asians, whilst the latter models and normalizes racial suspicion, distrust, and hostility.

This concludes the first part of this post. In part 2 I will summarize the issues and present conclusions.

Asian-American Culture......

....How White Is It?

Over the past year or so, Asian-Americans have been the recipients of some atypical mainstream attention due to a couple of articles written by members of the Asian minority that reported on the negative aspects of "Asian" family culture and how it has the potential to affect integration and acceptance of Asians into mainstream life. Of course I'm referring to the Tiger Mom and Tiger Cub articles which were both published in mainstream publications.

As readers will probably already know, both articles were met with a variety of responses - some expressed agreement, many more expressed resounding disagreement. Upon reading many of the negative reactions to these articles, it became apparent to me that many people were not only reacting to the fact that many negative things were said and implied about Asian people, but also to the fact that these things were said in mainstream publications to a mainstream (and let's be honest, we're talking about publications whose audience is likely to the majority white) that already has cultural structures in place whose apparent purpose is to propagate negative attitudes about us. Why waste what few opportunities that we have to present our point of view by simply repeating to the mainstream many of the negative things that they are already saying about us?

One needn't limit oneself to these two articles to notice that much of what Asian-Americans publish or write about themselves and their cultures in white mainstream platforms follows this pattern to some degree or another. Typically, this type of expression of Asian-American culture, carries with it much drama and hyper-criticism of self and one's culture. Unfortunately, it's never really made clear why we should believe that white mainstream actually gives a crap about Asian-American angst, yet somehow this idea of appealing to, or creating for, the (white) mainstream has apparently become a prominent goal of Asian-American cultural practice. Sadly, implicit in this pattern is the understanding that mainstream racisms and prejudices must be diluted or downplayed, leaving one to wonder whether this drive to manipulate Asian-American cultural expression into a mould that is palatable for the white majority relinquishes its autonomy and simply renders it a sub-category of mainstream white culture.

Of course, it can be said that since the mainstream offers the widest possible opportunity for acclaim that it would be natural to want to appeal to this demographic. Yet, this doesn't really provide us with a good reason for the tone and theme of much mainstream-in-mind Asian-American culture to be so self-denigrating or negative - in fact, it almost seems as though this cultural contrition is a requirement for acceptance by the mainstream.

This reverence for mainstream sensitivities seems, in and of itself, to be something of a cultural quagmire, capable of swallowing whole any semblence of cultural autonomy and just like a bog, fools us into believing that it is solid gound that can be safely walked over, only to leave us stuck. This is even more noticeable given the reality of the demographics of 21st Century America.  African-Americans have a population of around 40 million, Hispanics number around 50 million, yet, how many times do we hear aspiring Asian-American culture warriors speaking about trying to reach these potential markets to disseminate their ideas? One can only guess at how much more fresh, genuine, or even edgy, the product of Asian-American culture might be if it didn't struggle so hard to protect the white mainstream from its demons but, instead, expressed common experience with other minorities.

This very idea goes against the notion that works of art or products of culture exist as meaningful entities in their own right - some of the apparent goals of Asian-American culture seems to suggest that the Asian voice only has value if it has successfully appealed to the white mainstream. It would seem more conducive to the production of potent, original, and relevant works of culture if we didn't try so hard to force ourselves into modes of expression that limits creativity in the hope that the white mainstream will like it. Most ironic of all, is that this approach seems uninterested in appealing to Asian-Americans themselves, and if that is the case, then why label such an approach as "Asian-American" at all?

Hating the Airbenders!

I started this blog only this month mainly to present a series of essays and commentaries on some of the issues facing Asian-Americans, particularly Asian-American men. One such issue is media “whitewashing”, i.e., the habitual use of white actors to play characters who are Asian, both fictional and historical and usually it is Asian male characters who are whitewashed out. Another aspect of this phenomenon, as it relates to Asian men, is the issue of whitewashing Asian men out of relationships with Asian women, i.e., an apparent ubiquity of onscreen partnerships involving white men and Asian women, yet very few involving Asian men and Asian women (but this is another story!).

As an Asian man, I’m fully aware of how invisible we are in the media, and I get it that invisibility increases the influence of negative stereotyping. I also get it that challenging invisibility in the media and media misrepresentations is a necessary part of the struggle to end dehumanizing images of Asians. Unfortunately, my feeling is that as much imbalance there is in the media, the response to it by Asian-Americans is equally out of balance. It seems to me that there is a movement of sorts within the Asian-American community that seeks to elevate issues with the media over that of real civil rights issues. I think of this as something of a “populist” movement – populist in the sense that there is an ability to mobilize apparently large numbers of supporters across the nation to protest and engage in demonstrations against whatever media issue is at hand. The Airbender issue is a perfect example of this populism in action.

Most people reading this will probably be familiar with the issue. Briefly, many Asian-Americans (i.e. East Asian-Americans) are peeved that a live action movie re-do of a Nickelodeon cartoon has used non-East-Asian actors/actresses to play characters who were apparently East-Asian in the original cartoon. The response has been immaculate! Letter-writing campaigns, demonstrations, accusations that the director is being racist, and calls for a boycott. I have been amazed!

Recently, I wrote a post (here) about the ongoing struggles faced by Asian-American children in South Philly High School. What seems to be happening there is that Asian children have been targeted for harassment and violence. Beatings of Asian children are routine, and racial baiting is reportedly initiated in some instances by teaching staff. School admins are and have been fully aware of the problem, yet apparently continue to permit an environment of anti-Asian bias in the school. Evidently, this seems to be a major issue that suggests the civil rights of Asian children are being abused.

What is remarkable is the seeming lack of prolonged outspoken national support for these beleaguered children. In the first few days that the story broke, somewhat nationally, several Asian bloggers carried the story, there was some degree of national support in the form of monetary donations (I believe), but since those first few days, the issue has quietly slipped from the popular Asian conscience (although some Asian bloggers continue updating the situation). By and large, the kids and civil rights advocates at South Philly are apparently on their own.

Compare now the response to the Last Airbender whitewashing issue. Since the casting for the movie was announced in 2008, the issue has been kept fresh in the hearts and minds of Asian-Americans across the U.S with repeated calls for letter writing campaigns, boycotts, protests, and so on and so forth. There’s even a website devoted entirely to the campaign. Yikes!

Here is my confusion; why aren’t we getting this worked up about our kids being basically lynched in South Philly? Where are the one day walk-outs by Asian kids across the country in support? Where are the thousands of letter-writers? Where are the weekly demonstrations around the country that keeps the pressure on the South Philly school district? Why aren’t we more angry about it?

Whilst I empathize with the frustration and pain of media whitewashing, I find it hard to understand how the Airbender issue can assume so much importance that it eclipses an overt case of institutionalized racism. People and societies form ideas about people in many ways. The Asian community is extremely concerned about its image in the media, yet, I can’t help but wonder what kind of image we are presenting with our apparent failure to get our priorities straight. I think that prioritizing media whitewashing and misrepresentation over civil rights issues is ultimately as detrimental to our very real cause as the media whitewashing itself.