Dreaming Of A Non-White Winter Olympics

Things Unsaid....

I came across an interesting article in the Washington Post about the lack of diversity at the Sochi Olympics. Bemoaning the lack of African-American and Hispanic athletes, the piece highlights the almost absolute "whiteness" of the games....

Don’t listen to your friends back home saying the Winter Olympics are just for white people who like the cold and vacation in Aspen. This is the most inclusive Winter Games ever. Why, there are Caucasians here from almost 88 different nations......this place is whiter than an episode of “Downton Abbey.”

Fair enough, black and Hispanic underrepresentation in winter sports is something to ponder, but not, in my opinion any more or less worth pondering than the general underrepresentation of Asians in sport - more on that later. Whilst the dearth of black and Hispanic athletes in winter sports is certainly something that requires attention, the fact that Asians have traditionally not been associated with sports and, thus, generally not considered as "sporty" - which may be reflected in the relative dearth of Asians in sport - is something that I think also warrants some degree of inquiry.

So, surely, Asians who do make it in sport is a subject worthy of its own investigation and story - after all, Asians are a racial minority affected by racism and stereotypes (particularly, perhaps in sport) that seeks to limit their prosperity? Well, maybe not........

Look, I don’t care about the color of the competitors. And I don’t think the paucity of black or Hispanic athletes should cheapen any gold medal, as if somehow this were a cold-war Olympics that didn’t include some of the greatest sporting nations......The fact is, despite Vonetta Flowers becoming the first black person to become a Winter Olympic gold medalist as a bobsledder in 2002, despite Davis becoming the first male African American to win individual gold in 2006, there hasn’t been a whole lot of carryover.

Yes, more minorities, more colour, more diversity........yes?

Aside from the large contingent of Asian athletes and a smattering of Jamaican bobsledders and Tongans, the Opening Ceremonies’ Parade of Nations is as white as a von Trapp family reunion.

Er..no! That's right, apart from the large contingent of non-white Asians and a few blacks and Pacific İslanders, there is just no diversity at the games. Why the writer of the article apparently feels as though a large contingent of Asians is somehow a lesser quality of diversity isn't specified. Given stereotypes about Asian physical weaknesses and inaptitude for sports, surely the fact that there is a "large contingent" of Asians participating in a sporting event at the highest level warrants a more enthusiastic commentary. Instead, I can't help  but feel as though the writer is suggesting that the Asian contingent is a kind of disappointing diversity that is only worth the effort of inclusion in the discussion only to further highlight that, well, there are few blacks at the games.

To me, the fact that Asians are present in numbers at Sochi is, in fact, a huge victory against the racialized thinking that stereotypes Asians as nerdy, unsporty, weaklings and is something that deserves to be celebrated - particularly in light of the fact that several of those Asian athletes are Americans. A more interesting question may be, perhaps, why Asians are present in numbers at winter sports and what that may tell us about the complexities of American attitudes towards race and stereotypes.

It could well be that - for the Asian-American athletes at least - the very lack of black dominance in winter sports has offered breathing space for the consideration of Asians for inclusion. What I mean by this is that stereotypes about the sporting prowess of black athletes coupled with opposite stereotypes about Asians may conspire to leave little room in sporting programs for Asians to be included, no-one expects to find  good Asian athletes, so no-one is looking. Since winter sports don't seem to be looking for a "Michael Jordan", there is room for Asians to taste the waters of athletic competition and compete at the highest level since they are also not competing against stereotypes of superior black sporting aptitude.

The point is that the typical stereotypical modes of thinking that have discouraged the idea that Asians have the physical capabilities to compete at the highest athletic levels are almost certainly being overcome and belied by the very presence of Asians at the highest level of competition at Sochi. This is a cause for celebration, it is certainly worthy of far more than a single disappointed throwaway line that diminishes the value of the Asian component of diversity.

But perhaps the biggest point of concern - and disappointment - is the implication that Asian athletes participating in lieu of white ones is somehow cheating America (and possibly blacks and the whole world) out of true diversity, which really should mean black and Hispanic athletes competing in lieu of white (and possibly Asian) ones. There are some disturbing echoes here of the debate over college admissions in which Asians have become something of a bogeyman and stumbling block for the liberal narrative of diversity and its recent addendum that too much success amongst Asians is a threat to black empowerment.

In summary, the piece illustrates that Asian-Americans are the blindspot of America's race dialogue - our "successes" are not the kind of race-dialogue that America welcomes, even when it is a clear illustration of overcoming racialized adversity. The fact is that it is in the field of sports that black and Hispanic integration has been quite pronounced, such that these groups dominate or are on an equal footing in mainstream American sports. Ironically, it is aspiring Asians who need encouragement to participate in sports and whose presence is underrepresented - so why is a large contingent of Asian athletes only worth mentioning in the context of how few black and Hispanics there are?

True investment in diversity should lead us to ask balanced questions and think, well, in more diverse ways. In the interests of genuine diversity in sports it is fair and balanced to ask; how do we expand the involvement of Asians in sports so that they are more equally represented in sports outside of winter competition? But that would mean that America would have to start thinking about the Asian experience of race, racism, and racialization - something it presently generally prefers to dismiss.

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.

Pink?

Observations.

I just read this on Angry Asian Man, the 18th Annual Asian-American Showcase is in progress, held every year by the Chicago based organization, the Foundation for Asian American Independent Media (FAAIM) in which - as the name suggests - they showcase the product of Asian-American cultural endeavour. 

Naturally, this is something that I applaud. If you check out their "About Us" page, they have set themselves an extremely important mission, so kudos to them!

I do have to say though - and this is in no way a rant, or a criticism - that the logo that they have chosen for the Showcase is extremely interesting......



As you can see above, the logo shows a pink background with various shades of polka dots, and a white cat super-imposed over the top. As readers may remember, a common thesis of mine that recurs throughout this blog, concerns itself with the feminization of the Asian-American voice. To me, the logo looks feminine. 

It doesn't detract from the hugely important work that the organization appears to be doing, or in any way demean their efforts, but it is feminine. Of course, there is nothing wrong with that, but I wonder if this feminization process is so complete that we don't think twice when an event that seems in no way geared specifically to women, has a logo that is decidedly feminine.

My sense is that the feminine voice has become the voice of Asian-America because it is basically unthreatening and passive, and it is difficult to find anything more feminine and unthreatening than a white pussycat on a pink and white polka-dot background.

Are Asians Becoming Whiter?

The Diversity Paradox.

I recently finished a book called "The Diversity Paradox" written by couple of sociologists (I believe) that collates information taken from the most recent census and extrapolates on the changing face of America's ethnic make-up and the way in which this is changing America's view of race and race relations. The study asks how, or if, the increasing numbers of immigrants from Latin America and Asia are changing white America's relationships and attitudes towards its ethnic minorities and suggests that high inter-marriage between Asians or Latinos with whites might be creating a new ethnic line of demarcation in which whites, Asians, and Latinos fall on one side of the barrier, and a disadvantaged black group on the other.

Overall, I thought that the book was very thoroughly researched but I found myself noticing that many of the suggested conclusions of the study defied my observations and presented an overly optimistic (and, even unrealistic) view of the nature of race-relations in America, both in the present and for the future, and seemed to overlook some vital aspects of the Asian-American experience that might have cast doubt on the book's conclusions.

For instance, having spent almost the entire book exploring the idea that high out-marriage rates of Asian-Americans (women, that is) might indicate a blurring of the boundary between white and Asian groups and be leading to greater integration and assimilation (and hence, I presume, greater tolerance), the authors add a half paragraph disclaimer at the back of the book that "there are gender differences (in out-marriage rates) that require further study". Uh-huh. That, to me, renders the conclusions of the previous chapters somewhat inconclusive. But more about this later.

To cover this book, I've focused on two conclusions the study makes, one of which I thought was contentious the other was simply worthy of comment, so I'm not claiming this to be a comprehensive critique.

The first point that the book makes and with which I agree, is the observation that immigrants choose to align with whiteness as opposed to blackness. This is interesting because at the time of early Asian immigration, although blacks were classified as citizens, Asians argued for citizenship based on the idea that they were white and thus eligible even though they could have just have easily (and who knows, perhaps more successfully) argued that they were eligible based on being "black".

So, almost built into the process of acceptance into the privileged class (particularly for a visible minority like Asians) involved an implicit acknowledgement, and perhaps even acquiescence to the notion of an inevitable inferior social status of the black under-class. Interestingly, even since the early days of non-European immigration America's racism created a perceived need for separation amongst its visible minorities as one of the means to maintain the racial hierarchy.  In recent years, there has been a blurring of this phenomenon, in the sense that aligning with blacks culturally has become fashionable, although it has to be said that white Americans seem as likely to do this as are immigrant groups.

It is also interesting to note that for Asian-Americans in the culture business, this process of aligning with whiteness has become the most likely avenue of success for those aspiring to mainstream recognition. Hence, much creative work produced by Asian-Americans involves an exaggerated depiction of Asian cultural and human backwardness, an obsequious deference to an imagined concept of white cultural perfection, as well as an almost universal absence of non-white and non-Asian characters, and even perhaps a deliberate blindness to wider social issues that might highlight negative aspects of the white culture that is being aspired to.

The next point of interest is the suggestion that inter-marriage indicates blurring of racial and social boundaries and even, perhaps, acceptance into mainstream society and can be seen as the final step to full assimilation. According to sociologists inter-marriage is the final boundary that is overcome by immigrant groups leading to full integration or assimilation. Recalling the experiences of immigrants from Ireland, Italy, and Eastern Europe, it had been noted that inter-marriage seemed to be an indication of society's acceptance of these groups as true Americans and led (or coincided) with increased prosperity and social empowerment. Yet, I cannot help but feel as though applying this reasoning to Asian-Americans ignores huge aspects of the Asian experience that were not faced by these earlier Caucasian immigrants, and which continue to be a barrier to Asian-Americans in the present.

Because Asian-Americans grow up in a society that routinely denigrates them, their race, racial characteristics, and their cultures, many of them develope negative attitudes towards themselves and others who look like them. This attitude is often and routinely expressed by Asian-Americans from internet forums and online communities, to works of literature and film but the fact is that Asian children in America learn one thing from American culture and that is to feel shame and embarrassment about themselves. It is a constant stream of exposure to the ubiquitous portrayals and images of Asian deficiencies that proliferate throughout American culture that is the basis upon which many Asians form their ideas about themselves and their identities - naturally they tend not to hold their cultures, race, or even themselves, in high esteem.

This can only place doubt on the conclusion that inter-marriage with Asian-Americans somehow diminishes negative attitudes, or increases tolerance towards Asians because, quite simply, many Asians themselves adopt these negative attitudes. So even though at this point I couldn't state categorically that Asian high out-marriage rates do not increase tolerance, I think it is reasonable to say that cultural denigration of Asians creates a sense of shame and a desire for distance from their culture of origin and ethnicity. Anecdotally, I (and I'm sure many of you) have encountered a good number of Asian-Americans (both who out-date/marry or do not) who, at best, have few positive things to say about Asians, or at worst, are almost vehement in their hostility to their own race or culture. And, no, it's not just date-only-white-guys-Asian women who do this!

Of course, for the Asian minority, high out-marriage rates occur predominantly between Asian women and white men, whilst out-marriage rates for Asian men are relatively low. This should cast some degree of doubt on the conclusion of it being an indicator of improved attitudes because, historically, anti-miscegenation laws and attitudes were primarily designed to prevent white women from marrying or having relationships with minority men, whilst at the same time, white men were routinely engaging in miscegenation with black or Asian women. Because anti-miscegenation had traditionally focused on preventing Asian men from assimilating into mainstream culture it would seem more reasonable to take out-marriage rates for Asian men as a more accurate gauge of a general decrease in negative attitudes.

These out-marriage differences within the Asian community suggests that, at best, it might be more accurate to say that in addition to racial lines that are being re-drawn, for the Asian community there is also a gender line being drawn within the community, with Asian women having smoother access to, and therefore falling on, the "white" side of the divide and Asian men outside of it. The gender imbalance in out-marriage rates for Asian men and women only indicates that it is, perhaps, Asian women who are being "promoted" into whiteness and that the gender differences that are perfunctorily acknowledged at the end of the book is actually indicative of an increasingly profound social separation between Asian men and women. You can think of this as a kind of model minority within a model minority.

Consider also that it has been estimated that between 1945 and 1965 there was something in the region of 100,000 marriages between American G.Is and Asian "war brides", yet, during that period and the subsequent twenty years, attitudes towards Asians didn't really improve and it could be argued that anti-Asianism increased beginning around the late 1970's and continuing, perhaps to this day. So altogether I think it is a dubious claim that inter-marriage carries with it an implicit and inevitable decrease in negative attitudes towards Asians - if high out-marriage rates of Asian women in the 1950's and 60's didn't decrease racism, why should we reasonably believe that it is having this effect now?.

Finally, the biggest obstacle to the Asian minority becoming fully accepted and assimilated (and which is not addressed in the book) lies in the unique political and historical relationship between the US and various Asian countries. Historically, America's attitude towards Asia is founded on its past colonial aspirations. Because America has historically seen itself in civilizational conflict with Asian nations, its attitudes towards Asian people has been and remains, combative, uncompromising, xenophobic, hostile, and intolerant. This is evident to this day - political rhetoric often exhibits these types of qualities and, as I often point out, American culture is suffused with a sadistic violence in its portrayals of Asian men. In fact, recent studies that show Asian children experience high levels of racial harassment from peers and that in the workplace Asians are harassed for any reason, would also indicate that the high inter-marriage rates have so far done little to promote tolerance.

Because immigrants from Europe have never had to overcome this type of civilizational antagonism they have not had to endure the protracted xenophobic stereotyping, political combativeness, and uncompromising hostility that characterizes the Asian experience. I would suggest that anti-Asian attitudes are as common and widely-held now as they were at the time of the Exclusion Acts and the Second World War. It is because Asian children are exposed to hateful images and stereotypes that many of them adopt these same attitudes making it highly plausible that marrying an Asian-American is unlikely to contribute to an increase tolerance or positive attitudes towards Asian people.

Asian-American Movies.....

....Are They Bad?

The 8Asians blog has an article posted recently in which the post author, Edward Hong, asks the question; "Why Are Asian-American Films Bad?" That, I think, is a very good and valid question, and one which when posed, will most often elicit some response of defensiveness or even attack on behalf of those being criticized (which is probably understandable). Hong's post suggests that pervasive and beyond-tired "Asian-American" themes of identity crises and inter-cultural confusions may be so self-limiting that the end product can only be repetitively mediocre at best.

I would have to agree with Hong - sadly, the Asian-American themed movies that I have seen have been mostly dull or unengaging. As I explained here, what seems to be lacking in Asian-American film  is a worldview, or point of view that acts as a foundation upon which to derive meaningful ideas - a film without ideas is a poor film. Maybe it is because of this that there isn't much that I have ever taken away from an Asian-American movie that has made me think, or challenged my beliefs in any way - which to me is the difference between a great movie experience and a pointless one.

Why this state of affairs exists is difficult to say. I do maintain that there is a lack of autonomy in Asian-American creative endeavours in the sense that there seems to be an underlying axiom that the product of an Asian artist's work only has value if it is appreciated by mainstream (yes, that means white) audiences. What this translates to, perhaps, is that Asian-American films are deliberately non-threatening or non-provocative for the sake of mainstream audiences, so maybe there is some degree of self-censorship that debilitates the Asian-American film-making process. This, of course, is sad because I believe that the Asian experience in the modern world (both within the US and outside of it) is hugely significant both historically and for the future.

I have come to believe that the basis for culture - and perhaps the basis of creative honesty - are to a great degree derived form the individual and communal experience of historical circumstances. I maintain that the Asian-American voice is fundamentally out of step with this history, and is instead informed by the biased version of our historical experiences as propagated by mainstream America. This is my the biggest issue with Asian-American film - its uncritical acceptance of the mainstream historical perspective which, effectively, stifles an autonomous viewpoint or opinion. Asian history of the past couple of centuries and our experience of racism necessarily places our stories into an oppositional stance to mainstream American culture, yet this doesn't manifest in Asian-American films.

Maybe this is why Asian-American films just seem not to be saying anything and why they seemingly lack the strong point of view that I look for in movies that might make me think or perhaps even challenge my view of the world.

Outsiders

Being A Harbinger Of Things Unheard Of.

I recently came across this quote that struck a chord with me.......

Literature is not conformism, but dissent. Those authors who merely repeat what everybody approves and wants to hear are of no importance. What counts alone is the innovator, the dissenter, the harbinger of things unheard of, the man who rejects the traditional standards and aims at substituting new values and ideas for old ones. He is by necessity anti-authoritarian and anti-governmental, irreconcilably opposed to the immense majority of his contemporaries. He is precisely the author whose books the greater part of the public does not buy......

Ludwig von Mises....The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality.

Although I am by no means an expert on the subject, it doesn't require an expert eye to notice that when it comes to Asian-American literature, very rarely can it be characterized by the criterion set forth by Von Mises. There can be very little doubt that dissenting anti-authoritarianism plays little part in the themes of possibly the majority of Asian-American literature. Rarely, it would seem, do we concern ourselves with the notion of substituting new ideas for old, or the rejection of traditional standards. Rather, it would appear that there is a tendency for some to repeat what everybody approves and wants to hear - some of Asian-America's most widely read authors have been accused of using this strategy.

Yet, for Asian American men, about whom much is written that is misrepresentative, our very existence is dissent - what else could it be? Because Asian men are represented in such a negative way, to conform is to accept that we are less than human, therefore our only option is non-conformity. Given this, the question is; why is so much that is written by Asians about themselves devoid of this element of opposition? Given the degree to which Asians are villified and dehumanized by American culture, the largely conciliatory tone of the literary response seems bizarre to say the least. It's not that conciliation is a bad thing in and of itself, but without an equally established, vibrant, and assertive culture of non-conformity and dissent, its value would seem to be diminished.

Whether this description of the Asian-American literary world is accurate I leave the reader to decide for themselves, but, for me, any endeavour that requires creativity and originality must almost by definition challenge any, most, or all of the attitudes that we hold (or are held about us) regarding a given subject. In this sense, I lean towards the belief that much literature that is produced within Asian-America has not yet risen to this challenge. For a misrepresented minority the importance of original thinking, and a dissenting attitude are essential, if not a natural outcome of our circumstances.

To understand the power of non-conformist dissent, one need only look at the suppression of the intelligentsia in Stalin's Soviet Union. According to the book "Stalin And His Hangmen" it was through a series of "purges" that Stalin and his henchmen systematically murdered opponents, both real and percieved, first in the political sphere, but also in a process which ultimately saw tens of thousands of social activists, musicians, writers, artists, military personnel, peasants, foreigners, and minorities, being murdered or sent to the GULAG. The reason for this is simple; an intelligentsia is by definition an oppositional entity. Comprised of artists, philosophers, writers, journalists and social misfits, an intelligentsia pushes the boundaries of a society's beliefs and tastes and in so doing has the potential to set in motion dramatic shifts in social dynamics. There is power in asking uncomfortable questions and highlighting uncomfortable truths.

I would argue that it is this power that many in the Asian minority seem ambivalent about embracing - for whatever reason. There may be cultural reasons for this, or not, yet it seems to me that the most genuine expression of the Asian-American experience has to be based in opposition, and non-conformity. There are some who suggest that the future of Asian-American writing must endeavour to reach as wide an audience as is possible - this can only mean white people. I don't necessarily agree with this, simply because in order to do this one must dilute the experience in order to allow the mainstream to feel comfortable with itself. I would submit, instead, that Asian-American literature must strive to make the mainstream feel uncomfortable with itself, its pretensions, and its prejudices. After all, if we give the mainstream what it wants to hear, and is used to hearing, then what have we contributed that is new and innovative?

I Think, Therefore I Think I'm Asian.

Pulling Leaders Out Of Our Arses

Of the many factors that contribute to making a good leader, one of the most important has to be a solid philosophical underpinning; a basis of thought that guides actions and determines the nature and method of approach to achieving an objective. A good example is Martin Luther King. A strong and charismatic leader, King campaigned for Civil Rights guided by a philosophy of the intrinsic value of man - a philosophy which he exhibited by pursuing his objectives through non-violent resistance. The strength of King's leadership was determined by the strength and coherence of the philosophies he adhered to.

Clearly, King’s greatest asset was the philosophical wealth that he inherited from both African-American philosophers (W.E.B DuBois, William Fontaine, Alain Locke) and various religious philosophies (Jainist non-violence, Christian compassion). There was a circulation of philosophical ideas and ideals throughout the African-American community that tackled issues of racism, morality, colonialism, identity, and cultural expression. From this dynamic richness of philosophical thought African-American leaders seemed to emerge almost as a necessary consequence of it.

By contrast, we in Asian-America are often left to wonder about the dearth of charismatic Asian leaders. If it is indeed true that philosophical richness can provide fertile ground for leaders to emerge and that there is a dearth of Asian-American leaders, it’s unsurprising to find that there seems to be a dearth of Asian-American philosophers also. What exactly is the philosophy of Asian-America? Are we shapers of American destiny or the implementers? Are we in the vanguard of a new America that looks to the East with affection equal to its affection for the West? Is our future full assimilation? Do we need a semi-autonomous United States of Asian-America? What is our vision and who are our visionaries?

In short, I would submit that as a community our need to reassure the xenophobic mainstream that we are “people, just like them”, may perhaps have stifled the development of an Asian-American vision and stunted the emergence of a hotbed of philosophical ideas competing against one another to be the best guide for our future. This may be because of fears that Asian-Americans with new social or political ideas would contribute to xenophobic fear and reprisals against the community. Yet it seems to me that the first step in the emergence of a consciousness has to be through the examination and evaluation of ideas, even those that are scary or uncomfortable.

Clearly, our lack of leadership may be partially but directly attributed to a lack of philosophical richness. A necessary part of that philosophical richness has to include the exploration of concepts and ideas that are uncomfortable, ugly or even frightening. Yet, in the spirit of free inquiry we must be willing to do this regardless of the consequences – if we can’t be free with our ideas, then we’re not really free. We need to move beyond supporting existing paradigms and become the creators of new paradigms.